Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto IV was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 21, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Grand Theft Auto IV caused controversy over a gameplay feature allowing players to
drive under the influence of alcohol? |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto IV was copied or moved into Grand Theft Auto IV with this edit on 21 April 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Good idea with moving to a subarticle. However, wouldn't "Controversies about Grand Theft Auto IV" be more correct? "Grand Theft Auto IV controversy" sounds like there is a.) only one and b.) about the game itself rather then about things people thing the game causes. -- SoWhy Talk 11:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the article looks good. But I suggest we somehow note that this is a sub-article of Grand Theft Auto IV, perhaps with a template like {{ subarticle}} or {{ summary in}} on this talk page. -- Pixelface ( talk) 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As someone who isn't American, I've no idea who he is or why his views are important. Could someone add a clarifying line to the start of his section please? Just something simple like the at the start of the Jack Thompson section eg "a Florida lawyer who had previously campaigned against other Grand Theft Auto games". Thanks - X201 ( talk) 11:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/new-zealand-mp-calls-for-gta-iv-ban/?biz=1 <- Article explains -- Vylen ( talk) 16:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The statistics quoted by Glenn Beck about the number of soldiers willing to fire on a human being for the first time across 20th century wars involving America sound really fishy to me. I don't want the article to start getting into non- WP:NPOV or WP:OR or anything, but if those statements have no grounding in actual fact, it seems to me that the article ought to at least illuminate that. Repeating a bald-faced lie, without indicating it as such, is not at all npov, since the project may be serving to propagate the lie.
And if the numbers he quotes are at least somewhat based in reality, it would be worth mentioning very briefly where Beck got the numbers from, e.g. "Beck's data was taken from the US Army Measuring-How-Often-People-Shoot Project, which was declassified in 1993." (Obviously I just made that up, but you know what I mean)
As the article stands, I worry that it is engaging in "factoid" propagation, just repeating a sound bite from another blowhard without context and without regard to accuracy. That is not WP:NPOV. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 13:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I propose moving the page to a more encyclopedic name: "Controversy of Grand Theft Auto IV". The current name makes it sound like a few seperate incidents grouped together in one article. The name I suggested sounds more like an article covering and detailing the overall controversy of game. .: Alex :. 15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Today's Sun complains about the game trivializing paedophilia. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fun/gizmo/article1295469.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.132.203 ( talk) 13:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
"No missions in the game allow players to act out the role of a paedophile, and neither Rockstar Games nor Take-Two Interactive have issued a statement regarding the inclusion of this content in the title".
What is "the role of a paedophile"? I think it just read as "Neither Rockstar Games nor Take-Two Interactive have issued a statement regarding the inclusion of this content in the title" as the first part of the statement is fairly ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.118.136 ( talk) 09:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section (removing the wikimarkup) below from the article and am requesting input.
==Thailand Taxi Driver Murder== On [[4 August]] [[2008]], [[Newsbeat|BBC Newsbeat]] reported that an 18 year-old student had been arrested in [[Bangkok]], [[Thailand]] after he killed a [[taxi]] driver while attempting to steal it. Bangkok police captain Veerarit Pipatanasak stated "He wanted to find out if it was as easy in real life to rob a taxi as it was in the game." The game was subsequently banned in Thailand.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_7540000/7540623.stm |title=Thailand bans Grand Theft Auto IV |accessdate=2008-08-04 |author=Reed, Jim |date=2008-08-04 |publisher=BBC Newsbeat
</ref>}}
I think, after reading the source, that the banning of the game is to be included in Grand Theft Auto IV but the rest has to be removed. According to the source, the teenager was not in fact playing the game at all but committed the crime TO BUY the game. So it is only another sad example of aggression caused by hype and not specific to this game or a controversy about the game itself. Comments? So# Why review me! 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the news reports I've been seeing and hearing in Bangkok, the kid was playing the game at a console arcade (for lack of a better English term). You basically rent out consoles to play for half or full hour sessions, similar to internet cafes. However, English news sites are reporting various motives. Some report that he did it so he can get more money to play the game, while others report that he wanted to see if it was that simple to rob someone. Local reports seem to confirm the later in more detail which I haven't seen in English reports, such as the culprit riding several taxis looking for a weak target to strike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad-B-Man ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
According to GamePolitics its unclear as to whether he was actually playing GTA IV. Its not actually been released in Thailand. So we may end up having to move this to GTA:SA. - X201 ( talk) 11:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
lol sucks for thialand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.187.40 ( talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
sorry i just had to say it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.187.40 ( talk) 23:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the addition to the the Glenn Beck because it was un-cited WP:CITE and looked like an opinion piece, therefore it was not in-line with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of Veiw policy WP:NOPOV. Yes, we know its the truth that what he said was a load of cobblers and strewn with factual errors but Wikipedia is not based on "the truth", it is based on verifiability so that others can check the information that has been added to WP. I could add information that I know to be the truth to any article, but without citations and the ability to verify it how will other readers be able to trust that information?. If you find a reliable source ( WP:SOURCES) just drop a note here or on my talk page and we'll be happy to help you add a rebutal of Glenn Beck's claims to the article. - X201 ( talk) 08:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The citation links arent working (45 & 46). Nor is a search on newsday.com yielding anything... 84.228.232.246 ( talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You are required to kill/injure police officers to advance in the game's storyline. In fact, no points are ever awarded for anything, so responding to the comment by Bloomberg's office in that way seems misleading to me. 96.228.177.37 ( talk) 11:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen this in the news a few times today. GTA IV has been used in a case against a man who sexually assaulted women. I'm not sure if it's worth adding to the article because it looks like GTA IV has no real significance on the case and has just been used by the prosecution as part of showing the guy's character. Thoughts? Bill ( talk| contribs) 20:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
قراند اون لاين — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.124.27.144 ( talk) 22:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Bumping this up to B-class; it's a very solid article. I'd consider swapping the gameplay and political response sections, but that's up to you. Do note that you are allowed to reassess articles that you work on yourself, you don't have to ask for someone else to do so (unless you want to, of course- it's no big deal!) -- Pres N 20:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 16:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I should have this to you within a day or two
JAG
UAR
16:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a very well written article with few problems, in fact the only problems I could with were minor prose/organisational issues. If all of the above can be clarified, then this should have no trouble passing the GAR JAG UAR 15:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing them! I think that's everything. The "Legal action" section should be fine, it could be merged into "Political response" if you want to send this to FAC, but for now it should be fine. Anyway, well done JAG UAR 09:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)