Talk:Video game controversies/Archive 2

Full Frontal Nudity
Perhaps a lack of attention to these cases makes this unuseable for the article but full frontal male nudity appeared in mainstream American games before GTA IV in Eidos's Hitman 2 (urinating guards with visible penises) and Rockstar's own Manhunt (the boss Pigsy). I've also read a suggestion that the midway game Narc (the more recent one, not the original arcade game) had a full frontal nude male streaker in one of the Hong Kong levels, though I can't confirm it AKLR (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias
"Online gaming is an emotionally draining and time-consuming activity. To create more time for the computer, gaming addicts neglect sleep, diet, exercise, hobbies, and socializing (Young, 2004). They let their own health go as they do not get the proper rest and nutrition they need. They may suffer a number of health problems from back strain, eye strain, carpel tunnel syndrome, and repetitive stress injury."

This wording is not neutral, nor is it accurate. It's too purposeful and definitive. Millions of people play video games online without having hteir lives destroyed, and it's unfair to state those in a manner as if to state that they are inevitable side effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.30.238.96 (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Boothe
Has anyone else heard about this game Boothe? I did a google search and nothing came up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.174.184 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

War Games
What about games that decept war being controversial? I mean my mom was a bit nervous about letting my brother get Wario: Master of Disguise because it was Wario, and she can't be the only oneEmma Hordika (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Emma Hordika

I'm not sure that I read this right, because it seems as if you're trying to say that Wario is trying to get the       word "war" into the mind of the player. Wario is the opposite of Mario, so the M was flipped and became a W. That's the reason for his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.196.36 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup
The templates at the top of this article show several unresolved issues. I think the proper course of action would be to start adding verifiable citations to any claims this article makes, then to apply fair treatment to any conflicting views.Oobyduby (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a list of some sources I used for a recent term paper about violence and video games, including some research papers and books:

York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Anderson, Craig A., Bushman, Brad J. “Media Violence and the American Public: Scientific Facts Versus Media Misinformation.” American Psychologist 56.6 (2001): 477-481. of the General Aggression Model.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28.12 (2002): 1679-1686. Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78.4 (2000): 722-790. August 1999. January 2008.  G4 TV. 26 January 2008.  January 2008.  2008.  4 February 2008.  1982. October 2005. Game Revolution. 22 January 2008.  evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. October 2001. University of Chicago, Cultural Policy Center. 22 January 2008.  UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. and Video Game Violence. New York: Crown Publishing, 1999. UK. 21 January 2008.  Game Revolution. 28 January 2008.  York: Ballantine Books, 1999. Games and Hostile Attribution Bias.” Childhood 5.2 (1998). of Health and Human Services. 2 February 2008.  Social Science 2.16 (2003): 106-109. 2008. New York Times. 27 January 2008.  Communication Research 3.27 (2001): 409-431. Press, 1980. 2008.   It's a bit random, but I'm sure there's good stuff in there for using here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Rob I think you are so right parents are to blame and not video games. In Columbine however sad it was it wasn't Video games I mean seriously don't you think some kids are just dam syco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.247.165 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Anderson, Craig Alan. Violent video game effects on children and adolescents. Oxford, New
 * Anderson, Craig A., Bushman, Brad J. “Violent Video Games and Hostile Expectations: A Test
 * Anderson, Craig A., Dill, Karen. “Video games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and
 * Bartels, Lynn and Crowder, Carla. “Fatal Friendship.” Denver Rocky Mountain News 22
 * Benedetti, Winda. “Were Video Games to Blame for Massacre?” 20 April 2007. MSNBC. 27
 * Borland, John and King, Brad. “A Brief History of Videogame Controversy.” 9 September 2003.
 * Boyer, Brandon. “Senate Proposes New ESRB Legislation.” 27 September 2006. Gamasutra. 26
 * Bradley, Ed. “Can A Video Game Lead to Murder?” 6 March 2005. CBS News. 1 February
 * Campbell, Colin. “Editor’s View: Gaming vs News Media.” 2 February 2008. Next Generation.
 * Crawford, Chris. The Art of Computer Game Design. Vancouver: Washington State University,
 * Ferris, Duke. “Caution: Children At Play: The Truth about Violent Youth and Video Games.” 19
 * Fowles, J. The Case for Television Violence. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing, 1999.
 * Fuchs, David. "Questions regarding violent video game-violence link and evidence." E-mail to
 * Craig Anderson. 4 February 2008.
 * Freedman, Jonathan L. Media violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific
 * Goldstein, Jeff. “Does Playing Violent Video Games Cause Aggressive Behavior?” 27
 * Gonzalez, Lauren. “When Two Tribes Go to War: A History of Video Game Controversy.”
 * Gamespot.com. CNET Network. 20 January 2008. 
 * Graybill, Daniel, et al. “Effects of Playing versus Observing Violent versus Nonviolent Video Games on Children's Aggression.” Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior 24.3 (1987): 1-8.
 * Gunter, Barrie. The Effects of Video Games on Children: The Myth Unmasked. Sheffield,
 * Grossman, David. Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill : A Call to Action Against TV, Movie
 * Hillis, Scott. “Microsoft says ‘Halo’ 1st-Week Sales Were $300 Mln” 4 October 2007. Reuters
 * Jenkins, Henry. “Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked”. PBS: The Video
 * Kellerman, Jonathan. Savage Spawn: Reflections on Violent Children. New York, New
 * Kirsh, S. J. “Seeing the World Through ‘Mortal Kombat’-colored Glasses: Violent Video
 * Morris, Dave. Game Art: The Art of Computer Games. New York : Watson-Guptill, 2003.
 * Satcher, David. “Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General.” United States Department
 * Schwann, Philip. “Evaluating Evidence for A Violence-violent videogame link.” Journal of New
 * Schiesel, Seth. “Author Faults a Game, and Gamers Flame Back” 26 January
 * Sherry, J.L. “The Effects of Violent Video Games on Agression: A Meta-Analysis.” Human
 * Smith, Tony. “Grand Theft Auto Firm Faces ‘Murder Training’ Lawsuit.” 17
 * February 2005 The Register. 26 January 2008. 
 * Sternheimer, Karen. “Do Video Games Kill?” Contexts 6.1 (2007): 13-17.
 * Tilley, Steven. “New Windows Open up to Halo 2.” Toronto Sun 12 February 2006.
 * Trautmann, Eric. The Art of Halo. New York: Del Ray Publishing, 2004.
 * Wollheim, Richard. Art and its objects, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University
 * Wright, Brad. “Sounding the alarm on video game ratings.” 18 February 2004. CNN. 26 January
 * “Law Library.” 20 December 2007. GamePolitics. 26 January 2008.

Page rename
"Controversy" may be POV, but "explicitness debate" does not adequately cover the scope of this article. Although it does a poor job of talking about the subject (I wrote a term paper on the subject recently, so when I get the time I might be able to go through the thankless and boring task to improve it), this encompasses both concerns about explicit content, as well as violence-video game links and supposed 'man-child' crap and social issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't even concede that having the word "controversy" in the title is a violation of WP:NPOV. When two parties disagree on a topic, there is a controversy.  We are allowed to and even expected to report on those disagreements when they are encyclopedic.  WP:NPOV requires only that we report on and talk about the disagreement in as fair and proportionate a way as we can.  Rossami (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Controversy" is very rarely, if ever, used legitimately on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, what do you suggest? I'm trying to come up with a succinct title, but me mind's failing me at the moment... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Opposition"? Sceptre (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I dispute Sceptre's contention that "controvery" is never used appropriately on Wikipedia. I'd point editors to the debate over this at Administrators' noticeboard. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Archive138. Rossami (talk)


 * Can a better title be suggested? I don't think "controversy" is "unacceptable", but it's not very clear. The title "Video game controversy" suggests to a newcomer that there is a specific controversy that has occurred. Instead the article should be an exploration/discussion of the effects of violence and other explicitness in video games, rather than only the controversy around it. However that's a tad long for article name. How about Negative effects of video games? I know many believe there are none, but that the article is about the alleged negative effects, more than it is about any specific controversy. —Pengo 05:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

DC Snipers and Virginia Tech shooter
I removed mentions of these from the "Publicized incidents" column because they're both unproven and based on speculation and even publicly refuted. The case of the VT tech shooter being an obvious ploy for media attention which you can easily back up by the fact he referred to Counterstrike as a Microsoft published game which in the only case it was published for an Xbox port which wasn't very popular, again the same being the case for the DC sniper case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.233.100 (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Uninteresting/Uncreative games
Uninteresting/Uncreative games should be removed as it is not a controversy: A controversy or dispute occurs when parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion. Controversies can range in size from private disputes between two individuals to large-scale disagreements between societies. (from the wikipedia page)Jpc100 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Counter Arguments
One counter argument concerning the video game violence controversy is the market that gaming companies intend for their games to be sold to. Henry Jenkins wrote an article for PBS, stating that the video game market has actually shifted to an older market than what many think it has been in the past. He reveals that 66% of the market is actually aimed towards 18 year old gamers and over. Jenkins feels that parents ignore this information because they are in search for someone or something to blame for their negligent parenting skills.

Another argument opposing that violence in video games and violence in real life can be correlated is the fact that different types of aggression are found all throughout many random games. There are different forms of violence found within games such as Super Mario Brothers and Halo, but that violence is imaginary and does not relate to real life and circumstances that arise. The aggression found in those games is harmful and allows the player to interact without much, if any, danger.

What Should be Done
The Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) should rate video games that contain human to human content much more harshly. Games with high human to human content should be rated "Adults Only" (AO). Games that contain low to mid human to human content should be rated "Mature" (M). Both AO and M require the buyer to be of a certain age; 18 and 17 respectively. This simple change in the rating system would lower sales significantly. Children and younger people would not be exposed, and would not have the opportunity near as often to interact with such damaging media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnish3212 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

before we talk about "what should be done," we should discuss "why something should be done". You still have no explained what is harmful about human to human contact (some people would say human contact is a good thing, but go figure...). If you mean violent human to human contact, again, I ask how it is harmful in entertainment? You make the claim with no backing. Cite a source.

Why is this different than other entertainment industries, such as televisions, cartoons, comics, and books? Shall we stop teaching the Iliad, the Odyssey? Oh wait, we already have... Maybe if we actually focused on education as much as we do on prohibition of x products, we'd actually achieve something...

Second, I also ask what magical ability in decision making and judgment kids gain from going from 17 to 18? The difference between Mature and Adult ratings only express the fallacy and hypocrisy of the ratings system.

Last, and this is particularly relevant to any comment or editing you wish to do on Wikipedia: wikipedia is a place for education, not propaganda. You can expose your points about the harm media do if you have sources, and you can even do an overview of movements and their causes, what they are trying to achieve, and even a description of proposed solutions they offer--"what some propose /think should be done, and these are their reasons". But you cannot write a call to action--"what should be done"--in an article. If you want to do that, go to a biased website (in the literal, not pejorative, definition of being subjective, as opposed to the objectivity a dictionary or encyclopedia should strive for).

External links used as references for list of video games considered controversial

 * Sexual Moments in Video Game History from I-Mockery
 * Spanking in computer and video games
 * The Haunting, house 1 - reference for urination in this game
 * When Two Tribes Go to War: a History of Video Game Controversy
 * Games Censorship Collection Australian site covering the early years of games censorship.
 * Refused-Classification.com Australian database of banned and controversial games.
 * The Melon Farmers UK anti-censorship site.

Rating systems

 * Entertainment Software Rating Board official Web site
 * Office of Film and Literature Classification (New Zealand) New Zealand games classification.
 * Office of Film and Literature Classification (Australia) Australian games classification.

Legislation

 * Office of the Governor of Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm Signs New Laws to Protect Chldren from Violent and Sexually Explicit Video Games
 * Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association - Includes tracking of video game legislation.
 * GamePolitics.com Video Game Legislation Tracker

Proponents of video game censorship

 * Children 'made more aggressive by video games' (Times Online) - Nonreligious angle
 * Common Sense Media - Nonreligious angle

Proponents of video game caution, but not censorship

 * Al Menconi Ministries - Religious angle
 * Christian Spotlight's Guide to Games - Religious angle
 * Plugged In Online - Religious Angle

Neutral

 * When Two Tribes Go to War: A History of Video Game Controversy
 * "Virtual reality" The Guardian on the question whether video games can lead to violence (March 15, 2005)
 * Playing a "Good" Game: A Philosophical Approach to Understanding the Morality of Games
 * A 26 page report on The Video Game Controversy
 * A Brief History of Video Game Controversy
 * Media Awareness Canada

Opponents of video game censorship

 * Thesis X, Session 1: Hate and Appeal
 * National Coalition Against Censorship - Video Game Players Mysteriously Avoid Killing Selves and Others
 * Nintendo Gamer Coalition - Banning of Video Games
 * The Free Expression Policy Project
 * BBC News: Blaming the Dark Side of Gaming
 * Buzzcut.com: Video Game Theory and Criticism
 * A Game Is Just a Game: Should Society Oppose Violent Video Games?
 * Youth Free Expression Network
 * Gamers' Alliance Against Censorship
 * Free Expression Network - Censorship - Video Games
 * ABFFE: Violence in the Media Joint Statement
 * Violent Video Games Do Not Cause Aggression
 * Indepth report from The Economist about the social impact of video games
 * Pop Culture Pariah
 * Citizens Against Personal Censorship
 * Fighting For Our Games
 * PBS - The Video Game Revolution: "Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked"
 * Video Game Censorship Support?
 * The Truth About Violent Youth and Video Games
 * The Onion violent video game parody
 * Software Reality parody of arguments sometimes made against violent video games

Reason for removal?
Why were the external links removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.130.206 (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

contested statements removed

 * Critics to these argue that many of the studies involved fail to use standardized and reliable measures of aggression, and many selectively discuss findings that support their hypothesized link between video games and aggression, and fail to discuss findings that disconfirm this link.
 * This episode of 60 Minutes has been criticized by the video game community.
 * In fact, there is considerable evidence that children actually represent a minority market, and the vast majority of players are adults, whose much greater disposable income represents a vastly more attractive market to game developers.

Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.-- Birgitte SB  15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Rehabilitation
This article is atrocious. Having recently written a term paper on the subject of video game violence and controversy, I'm feeling like this can be a long-term goal for improvement. Here's a shortlist of what I think needs to happen: Thoughts? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Create a good overview of the history of video game controversy (prolly the hardest thing to do, since its not just violence, but content and game play itself)
 * Next: the breakdown of violence, nudity, obscenity, game play, sociological effects. These need to have their "counter-arguments" sections incorporated into the text, not segregated as troll fodder.
 * Legislation: Why not merge into NA, EU, Asia, et al sections?
 * Source and language: everything needs to be sourced, obviously, but I think of more pressing concern is reworking and reorganization, and the removal of total POV garbage.

Historical
Any particular reason the page seemingly rotates around Doom and GTA? "Video Game Controversy" pre-dates all of these by some 25 years ever since the story of the guy who "got lost" in his mind playing Manic Miner or something equally bizarre. I think the article suffers a little from recentism, in that it is almost entirely focus'd on the most recent events, recent games etc.--Koncorde (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick Review
First off, I have archived most of the talk page, as the talk was already way too long and contained so much uncivil, unsigned stuff my eyes almost exploded. Second, the article itself is indeed way too long; it needs to be shortened by about half. I don't even think most of the material could even be split because there are a lot of NPOV implications.

With that being said, drop off most of the material that is possibly NPOV, re-organize your references (and make sure they are verifiable and third-party — I cannot stress this enough for a controversial topic like this). Also, refrain from using lists; stick with simple prose instead.

One final word of advice: monitor the talk page religiously. The talk page is not an Internet forum; it is a medium designed strictly to discuss about improvements to this article. Those who come on here and leave inflammatory comments such as "This article is pathetic" can be removed from the talk page and that poster being warned for vandalism. (See WP:VANDALISM).

With all that said, hope is not lost! Keep plugging forward with the article. Cheers! MuZemike (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
In a few days (unless I hear howls of displeasure) I'm going to merge List of controversial video games into this article, largely replacing the bulleted list format with the table. I will also generate some internal links to sourced explanations of the controversies. However I will likely remove several unsourced or dubiously sourced "controvery" claims during the merger. If anyone objects to this or feels it should be conducted in a different fashion please let me know, I'm happy to do this a different way (or not do it at all) if I'm provided with some feedback. Protonk (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I would get rid of the list entirely, but the resources found within the list are crucial to improving this, so we could do the change in stages... support the merge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a similar list a while back, which I have temporarily requested be userfied for the purpose of merge discussions (thus, anyone wanting to merge may make whatever use of the userfied page) at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/List of controversial games. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose and quite strongly at that, I don't see why this is even desirable, let alone necessary. Embedding a navigational list into an article doesn't improve either, List of Virtual Boy games has no more entries than this list can realistically achieve so it's not about being to small either. A major problem with this article is the lists of games, which are doubtless there through good-faith but inexperienced editing, 'scaffolding' is a lot easier to throw together than flowing prose. When the article is about the subject at hand, not individual games within that subject, it will be possible to improve it. Instead of merging, I'd suggest leaving the list to grow and culling inappropriate lists from this one. Once that has happened, both will be easier to maintain because it will be obvious what kind of information and sourcing are expected. Someoneanother 17:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It lists all the controversal video games, but this article never said much about them. It's suitable for the article to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.152.24 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sexism
The article should definitely mention another issue about video games, sexism. I'll throw some topics oth there with counterpoints, hopefully we can all have a discussion before adding a new section.
 * Women are often scantily clad.
 * Men are occasionally scantily clad as well.
 * Many women in the real world dress in similar ways.
 * Women are often stereotyped: damsel in distress, promiscuous, etc.
 * Men are stereotyped as well: muscle-bound, sociopathic, etc.
 * Several games demean women such as: The Guy Game, Rumble Roses, hentai games, etc. 142.166.206.244 (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

68.126.6.213 (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Some games demean men as well. Additionally there is sexism in books as well, but this is an effect of the game creators themselves and varies with personal views. Women are not often scantily clad, they are only so with some games, generally the same as the ones in which men are also.

Well, yes, (with the exception of games like Metroid and Tomb Raider). But they make them like that since the majority of gamers are male. It's not really sexism. Not many people notice or complain about it any way.--63.135.152.24 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

now granted i will agree that the majority of games out there are making women rather clad but you also mentioned they do it in books as well. you failed to mention movies and t.v. shows. the majority of movies have showed women as the damsel in distress. i have to agree that the majority of games do make women look really clad, but at the same time these games are not played by females very often, so to have women that are skanky or wear basically nothing is expected because the fact that the majority of gamers out there are male. now im not saying what these games imply are good im just saying that it makes sensewhen you see almost nude women in games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjajon3131 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

When you think it's a controversy to have sexism in pornographic games you are simply looking too hard to find good examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.196.36 (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph
The article has gone through several lead paragraphs in rapid succession, with a lot of sourced material being removed. The result was a bare bones section that failed to provide a maningful overview for the subject. I've condensed several of the more recent versions into a new lead, which I believe adresses most of the key arguments (however briefly) and has some semblence of objectivity. This is by no means a perfect lead but it is a start, and all of its statements are verifiable. That being said, I belive that given how prone to vandalism this article has been in the past it'd be a good idea to discuss here before removing any of the present content. Expansion however, (which it certainly needs) wouldn't necessarily require discussion as long as any new information is also verifiable. S. Luke 07:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Err...
Was there any agreement about trimming this article? (and by trim, I mean almost entirely delete) Seems very unnesscery even if it was largely unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.152.24 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A biased article
First and foremost the article does not mention the context of media influence over people. It makes it look like the only option is to say society determines the individual. The vast majority of scientists would agree that violent behiavior has genetic influence. Then it uses deceptive statistics. The statistic saying the average gamer is 38 is very suspect. It goes up 1 year every year without fail. This is odd because it would suggest the game industry is slowly losing it's audience. Can you name any example of that in any industry? Even if true it doesn't detract from the fact that a large portion of gamers are underage. Without those gamers a significant loss of profit would be seen. Just like you would see a loss to tv if teenagers disappeared. Above all it doesn't explain why we need the ERSB yet it defends the ERSB. If videogames don't cause bad behavior why have a rating system. There are just so many problems that need serious help now. YVNP (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV much?
too much pov in this article. it has a lot of good points but most of it is pov, it seems to take the bias that videogames are bad, and throw a little counterbalance. balance and citations!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.184.135 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Actually it seems to me that the article is pro-gaming and does not back up it's claims. I've taken away some blatantly unsourced statements but shit sucksYVNP (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Publicized incidents
While there isn't a problem with this section per se, I really think it needs to be elaborated upon that correlation does not imply causation. These incidents very likely involved mentally unstable individuals who, by device of their own instability, have commited these various acts. To falsely attribute these acts to video game content is just illogical. (this isn't what the section is currently doing, but I think it would be important to note these incidents in the least accusing way as possible) It would be similar to me attributing violent crime to McDonald's just because a violent crime took place in a McDonald's restaurant. 74.242.104.128 (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse correlation doesn't imply causation, but in my experience, this is often used as a straw man within this particular discussion, because research is not only based on correlative data, but also on lab-studies and some longitudinal studies. Not to say that the point is completely useless. it should be stated. I'm just warning that it is often misused.--CoincidentalBystander (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

missing from the article
This article fails to mention the view of the majority of scientists. Most scientists believe aggression, poor social skills, and other negative traits have a significant genetic influence. The influence of culture on these traits has been severely discredited(with media influence playing an even smaller virtually meaningless role). The effects are also considered short term often lasting for a brief period. YVNP (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Nimm
The last point in the "Publicised incidents" section is debatable: see http://xboxfocus.com/columns/26-outside-white-box/891-debunking-halo-death/index.html

Many thanks, Drum guy (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would prefer to omit that incident on the grounds that the link it presents between video games and the child's death lacks believability. The whole thing seems to fall below the standards one would expect from a credible article. -- The Crimson  A NTHROPOLOGIST 17:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Weasel Words"?
I noticed someone added the "which template" in two places in the article. There are more places where such 'weasel words' are used in this article, but on a quick read-through, it's apparent that there are specific studies referenced in the same paragraph. Are these indications that the paragraphs need to be rephrased, or are they simply superfluous tags?--Vercalos (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy outside the west
This article makes it look like Japan is the land of tolerance here. But violence gets MORE heat in Japan than in America. Take Madworld for example and the fact that it's developers doubt it's release there. Similar opinions are common in countries with strict weapon control. YVNP (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RapeLay
This article neglects to mention RapeLay, which is perhaps the most controversial game, ever. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation?
"Several major studies by groups such as The Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health, The Journal of Adolescent Health, and The British Medical Journal have shown no conclusive link between video game usage and violent activity." Can someone give the citations for this claim? Link to the abstracts, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.110.110 (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I originally included the statement along with references. Those references are still in place, however another user later inlcuded an addendum, which while completely true, makes it a bit difficult to discern which references support which statements. I've repeated the appropriate references after the new sentence to make it clarify that they support both statements. S. Luke (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Who was the 35-year-old who committed suicide?
His mother tried to sue Nintendo, blaming them for his death. What was his name? I was expecting to find it in this article.--70.65.245.94 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be listing these anectotal controversies, as they are misleading to people. There can be a short paragraph on shool shootings and stuff like that, but the main article should be about serious scientific debates, in my opinion.--CoincidentalBystander (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What is this in the first paragraph?
link****2008***are —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFunnycat (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

more links
Found some more stories on videogames reportedly causing violence. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/20/teens-held-girls-mortal-kombat-death/ http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/12/chinese-teen-bu.html 150.203.110.110 (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Cause of the "legislation around the world" section removal
Anyone could explain this edit? Haven't seen any explanation neither on this talk page nor on the talk page of contributor, therefore I must ask for the explanation. In my opinion the article "may not present a worldwide view of the subject" even more without that section. Hołek &#1161; 08:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a multitude of problems with the article, a worldview scope being one of them. I removed the section along with a large amount of content because the article was so bad I figured it was best to rip it down to its studs. The problem with world-view isn't going to be solved by listing each and every single country, it would be much better to deal with it in terms of regions or continents. I've been meaning to work on fleshing the article back out, but I've gotten sidelined. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-word please.
I am having trouble undestanding the sentence "Instances have been reported in which users play compulsively, isolating themselves from, or from other forms of, social contact and focusing almost entirely on in-game achievements rather than broader life events." in the video game addiction section. The "isolating themselves from, or from other forms of," part is what I am not getting. Could someone re-word this to make it clearer? Thanks for everyone's work on this article. WesUGAdawg (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal bias
This article contains the personal bias of the indivuals that wrote the article. While it does cite sources, the context in which they're used implies that violent video games are linked to violence in youths. However this is not the case and their is evidence to deny this claim and actually support the exact oppisite idea. This topic was investagated by Penn and Teller in their HBO special Bullsh*t. They found evidence from numerous sources that supported their thesis that video games help decrease the rate of youth violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.27.249 (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As much as I enjoy Penn and Teller, they are entertainers and hardly experts on video games and violence. This article would benefit from a more objective, even-handed treatment of the peer reviewed, scientific meta-analyses that have been published in this area. --Jcbutler (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jcbutler --CoincidentalBystander (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow
Please do not accept this article as fact. Clearly someone has tried their hardest to perpetuate the stereotype that violent video games manipulate someone into becomeing a criminal. This is a topic of much controversy since many studieds done about it have been designed to produce a desired outcome rather then the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.27.249 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would recommend separating the crime research from the aggression research. There is evidence suggesting that video games can be a risk factor for increased aggression, but there is not much evidence that this actually translates into increased violent crime. --Jcbutler (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also evidence that there is no link between video game violence and aggression. . Thus we have to be careful citing only one source of evidence (Anderson's research group has come under a lot of criticism for distorted statements about the strength and consistency of effects).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.78.224 (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is one of the more critical reviews of the literature, but even Ferguson and Kilburn conclude that the effect size is r=.08. That is quite small, but not "nonexistent." --Jcbutler (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This might be just me, but I can't seem to find out which of all these researches is really credible, and which isn't. I have heard a lot of criticism of Anderson, et al, by many researchers. Anderson says clearly that he thinks the research on this issue is done, and no further research is needed to determine whether thera are negative effects of violent games. Others say the research is not conclusive yet, and others say the research shows no causal relationship. I personally find it extremely hard to move through the bias, and find out what research is really credible. Could we start by putting up a list of credible research up in the discussion page? --CoincidentalBystander (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever we do, we should consider the No original research policy before editting the article.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Military and Video Game Violence
I attempted to add a reference to a new collection on video games and the military. This included a discussion of the 'military-entertainment complex.' The administrator would not allow it because I am a contributor to the collection. I am concerned that some material is not included in this entry. This is unfortunate. For a student wishing to use Wikipedia for initial references on a paper, he or she will miss out on some of the research. The article says very little about anti-war protests that have occurred in multi-player video game environments, nor about the use of video games as a recruitment tool. This particular administrator not only deleted the reference to the unnamed text on the military and video games, but deleted the short paragraph that I authored. This seems to strike of censorship to me. If someone else wishes to add this topic to the entry, please do. You may be able to get your content allowed. Xrhetor (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Xrhetor, this is not about "censorship", "tolerance", "politics" or any of the other false claims you're making about my actions. Simply put, a substantial percentage of your edits have involved anonymously posting links, text and other references to your own published work. You may well disagree with the decision to remove your self-references per the conflict of interest and other guidelines, as is your right. You're also certainly entitled to seek other opinions. However, I must object to your chosen methodology, which to date has involved the misrepresentation of both my actions and your own edits. If you want to have a fair, balanced discussion about this, by all means do so in a centralized location rather than on a series of unconnected talk pages, and be clear about what has really occurred. Making false claims, and spreading those claims to multiple pages, does not strike me as "fair" under any definition of the term. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, you have helped prove a point here. You are the arbiter and you are the one who gets to decide the nature of the content. This has been taken to a new level. I am not permitted to cite my own work, even though, to again quote Wikipedia's policy ("This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.") this can be allowed. Here is one example of how this ultimately impacts the quality of Wikipedia entries. If I wanted to discuss an ethnographic study of the theme park AstroWorld, which some might consider significant, I could not do this per your watchdogging. To do so would be to cite the only work published in this regard, which I have written. So, here you (Ckatz ) fail Wikipedia in two respects: (1) you have limited the encyclopedic content of an entry, (2) you have decided that expert knowledge on a subject is irrelevant. The new level, as you now have raised it, involves your rebuking of my contributions to a number of 'talk' pages. Talk pages are not part of the entry (directly) and now you are deeming those contributions to be illicit. But, certainly, this is not about the power of language, representation or politics...because, so it seems, you have said so. Xrhetor (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that is not Wikipedia's policy. All it states currently states is it's a possible exception that you can cite your own work, but ultimately leaves it up to consensus.  Very rarely is that exception considered valid or allowed by consensus.  And you are correct, if you are the sole source of specific subjects (and I find it hard to believe there are no other sources on matter) very rarely can you post your own reference.  Wikipedia has had some well publicized issues with people doing this in the past, that's why it's on guard with it - has nothing to do with censorship.  Making a claim on Wikipedia and citing yourself to back it up tends to be circular.  Not to mention that references must still maintain reliability and notability standards and qualifications.  And finally, there's the issue of WP:OR.  Discussing your own material and works here is simply not done, as it creates an issue with original research.  That's why we tend to want a multitude of sources on a subject that shows it's a larger and more commonly accepted perception of material than just your own. I would also be careful with your accusations towards Ckatz.  They don't put you in a good light, and certainly don't follow WP:FAITH or WP:SOAPBOX.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Age
"Although proponents of video games have argued that most players are adults, with the average age at 35 years,[6] only one-third of players are adults; however, the adult demographic is the fastest-growing segment of the American video-game market. Nearly all American youth, aged 8 to 18, are exposed to video games. Confusion about, and the resulting misuse of, the average-age statistic is due to the fact that there are more adults, which skews the statistic older."

This, the 'age' section for this article, does not make sense. It appears to be saying that not as many players are adults, and that the only reason the average age is as high as it is is that there are more adults. This is inherently self contradictory. Is it possible someone misread the source material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.215.90 (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

See the cited source: Gentile, D., Saleem, M., & Anderson, C. (2007). Policy and the Effects of Media Violence on Children. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1(1), 15-61. Here's the relevant text:

"Furthermore, the fastest-growing segment of the American video game market is adults, with 32% of adults playing, increasing the average age of gamers to 33 (Entertainment Software Association, 2006)—a statistic that is often used to deflect from the fact that almost all American children are exposed to video games. A much higher percentage of youth between the ages of 8 and 17 years regularly play video games than any other 10-year age span. The average age of gamers is so high merely because there are a lot more adults (e.g., age 18–100) than children in America."

The math is not impossible because we're talking about aggregates and averages. Again, learn stats. Adraeus (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You've demonstrated that the section is not directly supported by the sources. Most obviously, the average age is 33.  Further, the source does not say "32% of gamers are adults," it says that "32% of adults are gamers."  Further, the source says nothing about misuse or confusion.  This is obvious original research.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 10:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The average age of the game player was 33 in 2006. Guess the year now. ESA has since updated its data. The average age of the game player is now 35.
 * There are more adults than children in the United States. Check out the Census, population by gender.
 * Adults playing means "adult players" or "adult gamers." I don't know why you're distinguishing between "gamers are adults" and "adults are gamers" because the text in neither the article nor the source refer to the former. I understand the difference but I don't understand why you're making that objection in the first place.
 * Craig A. Anderson is an authority on the subject of video-game violence. The authors of the source are reliable. Thus, the above passage is not OR.
 * Perhaps the only OR is the lead&mdash;"although proponents of video games have argued that most players are adults"&mdash;but OR isn't necessarily false. I'd add "citation needed" to the lead.
 * The reference to confusion/misuse is legitimate because the source does state that the average-age statistic is "often used to deflect from the fact that almost all American children are exposed to video games." If you really take issue with that reference, we can just quote the source.
 * Adraeus (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 3 - Wow. Ok.  Let A be the group of adults and let G be the group of gamers.  The size of A is bigger than G.  .32 * size of A > .32 * size of G.  This is not an equality.  QED.


 * The passage, as it stands says this, "one third of players are adults" and then "there are more adults in America, which skews the results older." This would imply that larger numbers of adults pull the average up, yes?  Further, I would expect the range of ages of adults over 35 would be highly clustered (people play games less and less as they get older).  Unless you're expecting large numbers of octogenarians are playing games and messing with the distribution, I think we can conclude at least half of gamers are over 35.  Even if that wasn't true, "adult" by legal defintion is "over 18."  So if we assume a completely average or normal distribution, trivially more than half of gamers would qualify as "adult."
 * 4 - Please try to read and understand WP:OR. It refers to material produced by an editor, not a source.  I'm saying the bit about "confusion" and "misuse" is not implied by "deflect."


 * 5, 6 - Confusion/misuse are not implied by deflect. So that will need to be rewritten.  Further, "skew" implies a different result was expected, which is again, not implied by the source.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 11:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 3a. "This would imply that larger numbers of adults pull the average up, yes?" Yes, but specifically, the greater total US adult population (18-100) increases the average age of the adult gamer. 32% of the total US adult population plays video games... Okay.
 * 3b. "I think we can conclude at least half of gamers are over 35." That's partly what average/median means. Here, half of players are under 35 and half of players are over 35. The average (median) age of the game player is 35.
 * 4. Trust, but verify.
 * 5/6. I disagree, but I am okay with a rewrite.
 * I understand your objections completely now. I am reading the section as a lot more biased than I intended. I think that the entire section needs to be rewritten. The source material, however, is valid, reliable, and meaningful. The source material should be addressed more clearly. What improvements to the section on Age would you suggest? Adraeus (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we can take out the bit about "proponents have argued that" as this is not in the source and we have objectively proven that "most" gamers are adults. Or at least, rephrase in such a way as not to imply doubt in the fact. Obviously "only one-third of players are adults" needs to be rewritten. I think one third of adults as gamers is a lot, so I would simply make it "One-third of adults regularly play games." In the next sentence, remove "however". I don't see what the debate is about, so I don't know that we need that last sentence at all. In the source, true, but I've never heard of a "controversy" or "debate" about the average age of gamers. Justified per WP:UNDUE? In any case, I'd like to take another look at an earlier reversion of yours that looks to me like it has some interesting, sourced info. See below.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 12:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, "average" does not necessarily imply "half on one side and half on the other side." This is only true if the data is symmetrically distributed about the average, as would be the case in an Average distribution (flat) or Normal distribution. For example 1, 1, 1, and 10 has an average of 3.25, but because of the strange distribution, there are more things on one side than the other. I suspect that is the same for the number of gamers relative to age. There are lots of spread out gamers younger than 35, and then lots of gamers a few years after 35, and then almost no gamers past a certain age, probably 55-60.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 12:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The average age of gamers is frequently misunderstood as "the typical gamer is 35," which is obviously incorrect. I work in the industry and I often hear both professionals and consumers assert that this is the reason why games should be designed for 35-year-olds and why laws aimed at protecting minors with regard to M-rated video games are largely irrelevant as a result. I am going to draft a replacement section that I will post here later today for your review. I will also try to dredge up more hard data for you since you seem to know your stuff. It's 6 AM now and I need to get some sleep. Adraeus (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder how these statistics were done. What games do the gamers over 35 play?  Never met one on TF2 or BF2 or WoW...  I know my father plays on his NES occassionally.  Is it fair to call him a "gamer"?  Are casual gamers (a few hours per week on a console) considered gamers?  What exactly is "regularly"?  Does simply buying games qualify one as a gamer?  Also, what games qualify as "video games"?  Does farmville count?  Isketch?  Lots of ambiguity... looks like this is turning into a full fledged project, lolz.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 13:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of this? "While 25% of video-game players are under 18, the majority of players are adults. The adult demographic is the fastest-growing segment of the American video-games market with 32% of adults playing video games. As a result, the average (or median) age of the video-game player is 35; however, this statistic is 'often used to deflect from the fact that almost all American children are exposed to video games.'" Adraeus (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good. What I'd really like to do is examine the methodology used in the poll, and get in depth as to how gamers are defined and distributed.  Did you say you had hard data to look at?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 02:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Try this, but I'd have to ask around for the methodology. I know the 2006 study polled 1,700 households though. Adraeus (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edit?
What's this reversion about: ? Looks like good info to me.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 11:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That 27 October 2009 reversion was primarily the result of improper citations and the removal of a source. Adraeus (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Define "improper citations." You mean improperly formatted citations?  Hardly a good reason to delete something.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 13:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The improperly cited, and poorly placed, information about varied reporting of statistical data and product-specific demographics sacrificed the summary reference to the source material that we have been discussing as well as the source itself. No attempt was made at integration or discussion by the editor. The edit was reverted. The editor clearly did not follow up. Adraeus (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia is always work in progress. Just because the information isn't presented well doesn't justify its deletion.  That's what WP:PRESERVE is about.  Rather than simply delete/revert, it would be better to take the time to find a better place for it, or pretty it up.  I don't know about you but I certainly would want to know that female gamers have more sex, regardless of how it is cited!  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 13:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * True. That is the ideal response, but if an editor doesn't value his/her contribution enough to accord to standards, then why should anyone else be expected to do so? Moreover, nothing is truly deleted unless an administrator gets involved. Someone can always dig through the trash, and you know what they say, one man's trash is another man's treasure. Adraeus (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging Portrayal of women in video games
While on Portrayal of women in video games, i saw a proposal to have that article merged with this one and clicking on the 'discuss' button lead me here but couldnt find any discussion on the specific merger, so just wanted to say that I:

Oppose While the portrayal of women may have led to controversy on certain, or may be even several occassions, the Portrayal of women in video games deals with more than just the contrevertial nature of portrayal. It also discusses how women are increasingly becoming more frequently featured in games, the nature of roles of these characters and how video game franchises which earlier did not feature women (like Warcraft), now do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate Horlicks (talk • contribs) 05:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that too and also oppose it. Clearly there's enough material to form its own article, though admittedly both articles could use some cleaning up.  But that's true of anything on the boondocks of Wikipedia.  I don't know when that merger suggestion was added and I haven't heard a word about it in a few months.  I think it's safe to say that that motion has no consensus, so I'm gonna delete the tags.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 08:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What?
"While 25% of video-game players are under 18, the majority of players are adults.[6] The adult demographic is the fastest-growing segment of the American video-games market with 32% of adults playing video games.[5]  As a result, the average (or median) age of the video-game player is 35;[6]  however, the median age is "often used to deflect from the fact that almost all American children are exposed to video games."

Okay so this article says the 25% of video game players are minors. But then it says that nearly every American child is a video game player. Well if only 32% of adults play, then how the hell has every child played a video game? There should be 3 times as many adults playing video games (75%), so are you saying (Amount of children who have played)X 3 = amount of adults who have played? Well, considering minors take up approximately 25% of the American demographic, that would have to mean that 75% of American adults play video games. These percentages are all messed up by the last sentence, which seems like faulty logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.142.231 (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You assume that "not child" is equivalent to "adult". Admittedly, some more elegant word use is probably needed to explain that the article is seperating people into three groups, children, "young adults" I think 18-20something, and "adults" those being people in their 30's and up.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 02:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lacking
I find this article to be subtly biased, firstly I see no mention of how it affects attention spans(which is well-researched btw) and secondly there is little to no mention of arguments from the positive psychology groups about how it's an unproductive and uncreative behaviour. All of these arguments frequently appear in debates concerning video games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.208.18 (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So fix it.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 01:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Violent Video Games and Their Effects on the Young
Researchers from many universities have conducted studies and have concluded that “yes” there is a link between aggressive behavior in children and violent video games. Video game store employees have said, “Yes, not all games are for everyone”. The violent video game debate has entered the courtroom as evidence into the nature of crimes committed by children. It is clear from the researcher’s findings and statistical data, that the results from long-term exposure have a significant effect on the behavior and mentality of today’s youth; so much, that not even the video game industries themselves can hold a strong opposing argument.

Research into the effects of violent video games has become more sophisticated; doctors in hospitals have taken on this hypothesis and have incorporated the use of technology. An article by Kalning Kristin discusses the use of high tech brain scanning technology, used by researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine. The purpose was to compare the brain activity in two sets of children. One group of children played a violent video game just prior to the brain scan and the second group played regular car racing games prior to their scanning. The purpose of the use of a car racing game was to detect the increase in adrenalin. The researchers then annualized the brain scans and found significant aggression in the group that played the violent video games and no aggression in the group who played the adrenalin-pumping car racing game. The study’s conclusion sends out a warning to parents about violent video games. The primary researcher in the study Dr Vince Mathews, says; “Based on our results, I think parents should be aware of the relationship between violent video-game playing and brain function.” It might be harder to dispute the findings from an actual medical procedure that shows a significant link between violent video games that trigger aggression; however, other research into this theory is just as compelling. A study conducted by Dr. Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., at Iowa State University looks at the root of aggressive behavior in regards to specific violent video games. Doctor Anderson and other researchers from this study were determining whether the violent video games were causing bad behavior in children or if children who were already showing signs of bad behavior were “attracted” to violent video games; specifically the ones with the mature rating. The 1,231 children from both Japan and the U.S. were broken into groups ranging from nine to eighteen years old. Another interesting factor in this study was that the researchers took into account the student’s teachers and friends, this gave a better understanding of the child’s overall behavior. The outcome of the study suggests that the children who had prolonged exposed to video game violence did in fact become more aggressive than the children who had less exposure. Dr. L Rowell Huesmann. from the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research and who directed this research said, “The findings are pretty good evidence that violent video games do indeed cause aggressive behavior”. It would seem that the combined outcomes from these and other studies would have eliminated any doubt as to whether violent video games are a major factor in the aggressive behavior of children, but not for Henry Jenkins, who wrote “The Video Game Revolution: Eight Myths about Video Games Debunked”. This article contained eight myths that suggest that no harm can come from playing violent video games. It was interesting reading each of the eight myths, because even I, as an individual and not a researcher can find nothing factual about any of the eight myths. One myth in particular says, “Crimes committed by youths are at a 30 year low”. In reality, crimes committed by youths are at an all-time high since the marketing of violent video games like Mortal Combat, which according to their own website was a millstone in 1992 when these bloody games hit the stores making it around 18 years ago, not 30. According to The U.S. Department of Justice, bureau of Justice Assistance, there has been a steady increase. The modified table below shows the number of juvenile inmates from that year. Out of all the juvenile arrests from 1983 to 1998, 61% of them were for violent crimes and 22% were for property theft or vandalism. Year	Number of Juveniles 1983 	1,736 1984 	1,482 1985 	1,629 1986 	1,708 1987 	1,781 1988 	1,676 1989	 2,250 1990	 2,301 1991	 2,350 1992 	2,804 1993	 4,300 1994	 6,700 1995 	7,800 1996 	8,100 1997	 9,105 1998	 8,090

The report stops short ending in 1998, but according to another source; the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement in 2006 there were 92,845 juveniles in juvenile type facilities; this does not count the number of juveniles who were charged as adults and are in adult facilities. In the U.S, 2,574 juveniles are serving life sentences without parole.

Sources Kalning Kristin. "Does Game Violence Make Teens Aggressive? Msnbc.com. Web. 11 July 2010. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/ Harding, Anne. "Violent Video Games Linked to Child Aggression”. CNN.com. Web. 11 July 2010. www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/family/11/03/healthmag.violent.video.kids/ Jenkins Henry, The Video Game Revolution: "Eight Myths about Video Games Debunked" PBS. Web. Jenkins Henry, The Video Game Revolution: "Eight Myths about Video Games Debunked" PBS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etheridgepamela (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC) --Etheridgepamela (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)--Etheridgepamela (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol @ "adrenaline = aggression." Hurrr its siense!  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 18:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)