Wikipedia:Peer review/Video game controversy/archive1

Video game controversy
I did some extensive work reorganizing and rewriting quite a bit of this article, and I think it may be worthy of featured article scrutiny. Any thoughts? Ian Pugh 03:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this needs a section on those hacked out computer games that are released soon after a tragic event and make fun of it. Also, there is nothing on those first person shooter games based on actual historical events nor the fact that a similar game is used in some militaries for training.  Revth 12:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Video_game_controversy. The notion of a "left wing" and "right wing" in this debate exists solely in the mind of one Wikipedia user and, in my opinion, should be removed from the article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 13:21, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * (1) Agree that "left wing" and "right wing" have no place here. (2) There's a bit of hand-waving with "a professor at West Point who was interviewed several times" -- what were his qualifications? What is his name? (3) It's a bit strange to have video game proponent linked, but not video game censor -- "censor" may be not be the best opposite for "proponent", as it carries a very different emotional charge. (4) Maybe it's because I grew up in the Bible Belt, but I never even heard about these supposedly erotic Atari 2600 games (until like 2 years ago), and much is made of them... Was there really a wide-spread controversy here? (5) Might be good to mention Leather Goddesses of Phobos in connection with Leisure Suit Larry, since they're from the same time period (though very different approaches) (6) "cults of Christianity" is POV and pushes buttons (While you or I might personally feel that way, the members would take issue with being called a cult. We also have to be careful about too broad a brush here.) (7) "Enforcing a recall based on religious grounds is a violation of the Constitution" is false and POV. The Constitution forbids establishment of religion. A recall of a (hypothetical) game where you play a Nazi trying to round up Jews and put them to death is not establishing Judaism as a state religion. (8) The one-line sentence about Nazism in games in Germany probably deserves a little expansion -- the rationale, examples, showing that even "Nazi-killer" games like Wolfenstein were forbidden, etc. Mpolo 13:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * (1) Removed. (2) Removed at first, but then looked deeper and found him: Lt. Col. David Grossman. Added it back, with titles of his books and a link to an interview. (3) The link to video game proponent has been deleted; without a proper NPOV counterbalance (and video game proponent is largely POV), there's no point. (6) Removed. (7) Removed. (8) Some more stuff on Germany has been added. Have been largely dealt with. I'll get to the others ASAP. Ian Pugh 14:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Re. (6): I've listed Video game proponent for deletion. I don't think that article can be saved. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 20:41, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * While it's nice to have the "around the world" section the main text is still too US-centric. It may be good to make mention of Manhunt recently being banned in the UK, or anything to do with the UK! violet/riga (t) 19:44, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Definitely understandable. This was certainly a POV-concentric article when I found it, and I've attempted to clean it up in that respect, but I also admit to not being totally knowledgeable on video game legislation globally. If there's anything that anyone from around the world can do to help, I'd be much obliged. Ian Pugh 22:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with violet/riga, up to a point. The body of the text is essentially a US-based article, and does not make that clear. The country-specific bits which follow are actually quite helpful, and give good context and comparison. I'm not sure that the UK needs any more prominence, or the US less, but perhaps if the main body were to be made country-neutral and the country-specific bits moved to the sensible sections which already exist? Naturenet 18:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)