Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Quiet

@86.40.31.62:, please note that removing sourced content because you don't agree with it is your opinion. Polygon is considered a reliable source, that's why it is included here. Per WP:BRD, please discuss any further ideas before editing again. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 11:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see my post below 86.40.31.62 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay putting this up to avoid a stupid edit war, made it clear in my edit summaries. This article is not the place to detail the reception of a character. The section in question regards Quiet's controversy before the game was released. Post game there has not been significant outcry about the character in reviews or otherwise. One opinion article is not a consensus. The game has received numerous reviews and accolades at this point and they do not highlight that Quiet was a major issue for them. General fan response has been positive towards Quiet in community websites. The paragraph I removed is not neutral either, there was nothing about the positive response the character has received or an otherwise more balanced view. Finally, discussion of the character is not relevant to this page. It should go under the character's section in the 'List of Metal Gear' characters page, the character's page or else it is simply not noteworthy. The section is about the controversy before the game was launched. If there is further controversy after launch then there needs to be significantly more evidence to show that a substantial number of people found her depiction a problem. One lone article does not suffice. Naming the writer of said article and talking about the article is also irrelevant. This is not a page for individual opinions to represent themselves, the topic is the reception of Quiet's depiction by the community and press overall and no other views have been represented.

Kojima was criticised for the sexualised depiction of Paz in GZ. Kojima is then criticised for the sexualised depiction of Quiet in TPP, and you don't think that's relevant, especially considering that TPP is a direct sequel to GZ, and that Kojima attempted to address this issue with the Paz scenes in TPP? It's called context; if a composer has faced similar criticisms for similar creative choices within a broader body of work, it is highly relevant.

You claim that the paragraph about the depiction of Quiet is inherently biased because it presents no alternative point of view. However, that is an argument built on a fallacy because I can find no alternative opinion from a reliable source. The lack of an alternative opinion does not invalidate the existing opinion, and so I can only surmise that while you say you want to restore balance to the section, you simply want to remove criticism of Kojima. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that you can't find an alternative opinion, but here; http://techraptor.net/content/the-strength-of-interpretation-an-alternate-look-at-quiet-metal-gear-solid-v An absence of an alternative opinion is not an excuse for bias. Wikipedia isn't for representing any one opinion, and sorry but regardless of how valid Polygon is as a reviewer, a review is still just an opinion.

I would argue though this isn't a page to discuss Quiet's reception as a character to begin with. Why should we focus on the reception of just one character to begin with? The reviews discuss many other characters too. Failing that I have to ask, is this an encyclopedic entry or an opinion piece? A single opinion should not be highlighted to speak for everyone, period. Regardless of availability of opinions. Likewise this isn't about Kojima, it's specifically about MGSV and any controversy that has surrounded that. Controversy surrounding Kojima's depiction of anything belongs on Kojima's page. So I hope I've explained myself on that.

To reiterate, an encyclopedic entry on a video game should not highlight a single person's opinion on a topic, nor focus on personal criticism leveled at any one individual who worked on it. Criticism regarding Kojima's depiction of anything should go under Kojima's page. Since it is about Kojima specifically. Yes of course it has relevance to MGS5 but it is about Kojima's work as a whole, not specifically MGSV.

Logically you will have to put it on the page of every game he makes from here onwards if the topic is ever brought up again. Why not rather just locate it to Hideo Kojima's page that's y'know, specifically about Kojima.

At this point it would be within reason to add Hayter's removal from MGS under the controversy section, and have probably five paragraphs of opinions from the press on that too. It's simply not relevant to the actual finished game though. It's just a dispute between individuals that has been reported on. Yes they're linked to the game, but just because that has context to the game doesn't make it relevant to the actual game product itself.

I was able to look up the techrapter article in 5 seconds, so unless we can present a neutral view I don't think we should have any personal opinions regarding Quiet on the actual game page. A neutral point of view should be presented on the character's page or under her own section on the 'list of characters page'. Feel free to explain to me now that I've provided a source why we should be biased and only present one view.

Once again though, reception of characters should go under reception. The controversy regarding Quiet's depiction already has it's own section and has been documented. Reception of the character is a completely different topic in my mind and belongs under the 'Reception' section with a balanced neutral view, or under the character's page or equivalent. At the least reception of Quiet as a character should not have it's own paragraph under a controversy section, it should be under the reception section. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First, TechRaptor fails WP:RS.

Secondly, criticism of the character amounts to criticism of the game. The controversy it generated is notable enough to justify its own section. Especially when it relates to the wider issue of the representation of women in video games.

You like to sling around terms like "bias", but I suggest that you read NPOV. Removing the section removes the neutrality, because like I said, it's pretty obvious that you're trying to remove criticism of Kojima and/or the game (and what you can't remove, you're trying to marginalise). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

>First, TechRaptor fails WP:RS

Firstly, explain specifically how it fails please.

Secondly. you're just moving the goal posts now. I never said criticism of the character doesn't amount to criticism of the game. I'm just saying it has to be in the right section and have a neutral non-biased view.

The controversy has it's own section, I'm not asking that we remove that. I'm asking that reception and reviews of the character go into the correct section and be presented from a neutral standpoint.

So feel free to address my points instead of dodging them and just accusing me of some ulterior motive. Cheers 86.40.31.62 (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that just because someone has a negative opinion, that doesn't make it biased by default. There is no rule that says all criticisms must be balanced out by compliments; if there was, editors of pages for Michael Bay films would have a constant headache.

The character has been controversial both during development and following the launch. The controversy has centred on the same issue: the representation of women in video games. Therefore, including it in the controversy section is very appropriate. However, moving the post-launch controversy to the reception section implies that the controversy ended with the game's release, which is not true.

As for TechRaptor, look at the list of publications that we included for the reviews. These are the mainstream gaming media. Do you see TechRaptor there? No. It is a fringe publication, outside the mainstream media. Its existence and its counter-opinion do not make it reliable by default. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone removed my previous talk post here. Don't do that please. The exact same paragraph is in the article twice. I'm removing it on the grounds that the page does not need to repeat itself twice. That's absolute lunacy to think people should read the same opinion twice in one page. That's just simply bad writing.

You cannot have a full discussion on Quiet as a character on the game page. The main game page is not there for a dissection of any character.

The Quiet controversy section is not supposed to be a section to dissect the character. It should describe the controversy surrounding the character AND THAT IS IT. There is no need to put in 1 or 5 or 6 different opinions on the character from reviews. It's simply not the place for it. Reception of the character, whether controversial or not, GOES UNDER RECEPTION. Please address this point before adding it into any other section.

As for Techraptor, so what if it's fringe and they're not included in mainstream reviews? It's still a valid opinion and a valid source. Please point me to the rule that says any source MUST be from the mainstream gaming media reviews. That's utterly ridiculous. You're actually telling me that mainstream media's opinion is more valid than other people's opinion? I'm not asking to put it under reception, you asked for a source of opinion on Quiet's character and that is a valid source, but I don't believe it needs to be there in the first place. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You are again going against consensus, @86.40.31.62:. I've issued you another warning for your attitude. Wikipedia tries to maintain a neutral stance on its articles. In this case, if you can't find something to counter that criticism, does not mean you can decide it should go. You are censoring Wikipedia, and like @Prisonermonkeys: said, just looks like you're hell-bent on removing this one piece of criticism on a game. How can we describe the controversy around a character, without going into detail? Further more, it actually would be nice to have 5 or 6 different opinions on Quiet, maybe the character can have its own article. Removing the paragraph again, just because one sentence mentions the criticsm again in the reception section is not "absolute lunacy". For Wikipedia's general guidelines, see WP:MOS. For the guidelines on video game articles, see WP:VG/MOS. For reliable sources, see WP:VG/RS. --Soetermans. T / C 13:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@86.40.31.62:, I just noticed you've reverted again. I've given you a final warning. You're still going against consensus. Please stop trying to own this article. You're more than welcome to edit constructively though. --Soetermans. T / C 13:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What consensus? There's two of you and you're both acting like you own the article. You're not addressing the points I'm making you're just reverting my edits. The criticism of Quiet post-launch belongs in the reception section. The controversy section is not there for individual opinions on the character. Otherwise I could add in every opinion from other mainstream sources that are on the page. We clearly disagree on this and you don't seem to want to address my points so I believe a community decision should be made or have it escalated further. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with 86.40... here. The plot reveals that Quiet is semi-clad because she breathes and nurtures herself through skin and that clothes would suffocate her. As such, writing that "Michael McWhertor described the overt sexualisation of Quiet as being gratuitous", etc is unhelpful. This is a subjective opinion which contributes negligible if any EV to the article and thus should be left out. Brandmeister^talk 16:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@86.40 - I don't think you understand what a consensus ism it's certainly not "one person agrees with me, so my edits stay in place". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

They're a neutral party to the original dispute. That is part of building a consensus under Wikipedia guidelines. 86.40.31.62 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brandmeister — an explanation in the plot does not automatically negate the criticism. Especially considering that Skull Face, Code Talker and the Skulls have similar properties, but none of them appear half-naked. And McWhertor's comments refer to the cut-scene at the start of Mission 45 which is very much a case of sexualised violence - and attempted rape that turns very bloody, very quickly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As it is, McWhertor's opinion about Quiet is already provided in the reception section. His further words "gratuitous, distracting, unnecessary and poorly-executed" and "distasteful" are redundant, since they pertain to an area where people, not necessarily gamers, may have different opinions. Had McWhertor wrote, for instance, "graphics is poor" or "the gameplay is thrilling and realistic", that would have been the case where encyclopedic value is manifest. And given it's Metal Gear, it's not surprising that mature themes are raised. Brandmeister^talk 23:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It still does not negate the issue. If anything, the section needs more references, not outright removal. You cannot argue "there's not enough sources, so this should be removed" when the section is reliably sourced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brandmeister:, that Quiet has to be semi-nude just to stay alive may be a reason in-universe, that doesn't take anything away from McWhertor's opinion. Opinions are subjective and can also be founded upon false information. Same goes for Mass Effect and inter-species erotica, we won't remove it just because somebody is wrong. We try to add more points of view to it. --Soetermans. T / C 11:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources relating to sexism

Besides the ones I recently added to the article, the following sources describe Quiet's portayal (or Kojima's portrayal of women) as sexist:

• http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/12/hideo-kojima-metal-gear-action-figure-squeezable-breasts
• http://www.gamesradar.com/quiet-embodies-metal-gears-complex-relationship-women/
• http://www.dailydot.com/geek/metal-gear-solid-quiet-costume-explanation/
• http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/11/8585029/metal-gear-solid-v-quiet-toy
• http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/how-hideo-kojima-questions-his-own-legend-metal-gear-solid-5-phantom-pain-1533300
• http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/09/metal-gear-solid-v-the-phantom-pain-review-all-the.html
• http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/bewitched-by-the-witcher-3-less-impressed-by-metal-gear-s-squeezable-knockers-1294011

Peter ^Isotalo 23:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

These sources are a lot better than the Forbes content farm bloggers with no editorial oversight which currently form much of Quiet's reception. - hahnchen 12:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Should blogs affiliated with Forbes be considered as unreliable as any other affiliated blog?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_8#Forbes for analysis of Forbes' contributor network. The most recent Forbes fuckup is detailed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_117#PS4_and_the_terrorist_attacks_in_Paris. - hahnchen 13:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The latter is speculation about terrorism and current news. There's no question that it's an unreliable source. These are opinion pieces about video game content, though. Isn't that pretty "situational" (per the current recommendations that you added)?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If the commentary is from Forbes staffers, it's reliable. If it's from the contributor network, it generally isn't. The contributors' opinions hold no more weight than any other self-published source such as Youtubers or Medium writers. - hahnchen 21:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"As unreliable as random YouTubers" is not what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources says. Could you be clearer about what "situational" actually means here?

Peter ^Isotalo 23:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There are Forbes staff - reliable, professional writers employed by Forbes, who have editorial oversight. There are Forbes contributors - unreliable, no editorial oversight, not on the payroll. It's a bit confusing because in everyday language, contributors would include staff, but the staff/contributor split is how Forbes defines them. Compare the bylines of [1] (staff) and [2] (contributor). Then remove the non-notable opinion from bloggers. hahnchen 12:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If I've understood this correctly, you're saying that staff articles are acceptable while contributor content isn't. If that's what "situational" is supposed to mean, I suggest writing just that in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources and putting Forbes under both "Situational" and "Unreliable".

Peter ^Isotalo 15:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There are already active discussions on revamping how we handle/display the "situationality", but in short, Hahnchen is correct, the current consensus at the WikiProject is to stay away from those Forbes Contributors - they're not actual staff, they're more comparable to random bloggers, and there's been instances of their articles containing some pretty major errors. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexism in MGS5, relevant to an encyclopedic entry on the game?

Came back to this article to see if any progress had been made on cleaning it up. Good to see some progress has been made. I'm going to make a few points here and well.. hopefully people will be rationale and objective about it.

Misinformation. This article is rife with it. It's incredibly important for an encyclopedia to present accurate information. An encyclopedia should not be an opinion column, it should not overly represent any opinion since they are not based on fact, nor relevant to a topic. I'm going to start with the 'Sexualized Portrayal of Quiet' and sadly I'm going to have to tear it apart. Please put how you feel about it or any emotion you may have about the topic aside when you read the following points;

1 - No other character in any other Metal Gear title pages is given this amount of scrutiny. Quiet has been highlighted by the media as sexist, this is true. However this is not a reason for an encyclopedic entry to focus on a given character. The page is not a study of the media's (or anyone else's) reaction to Quiet as a character. There should be balance in the reception section, giving a whole section to Quiet versus no other characters is not balanced.

2 - Misinformation. "Michael McWhertor criticized Quiet's portrayal, pointing out that while the game explains that her nakedness derives from a photosynthetic skin condition, several other characters with the same condition — such as Code Talker in The Phantom Pain and The End in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater — appear fully clothed."

Regardless of the source of information, if it is incorrect information it should not be in the entry. Quiet is naked because her lungs were burnt to a crisp, the game specifically mentions this and other fans have mentioned it on the page I believe. Code Talker and The End have the same ability correct, but they did not get set on fire and thrown out of a building. I'm really baffled this is in here because McWhertor is not an authority on this whatsoever. Kojima and the game writers are. Source it correctly or remove the information I would have said.

3 - Opinion columns. This baffles me. Why are opinion pieces been taken as reception? They are not professional video game reviewers. By the media's own admission they are just someone writing their opinion about something, it's not objective. They wouldn't even claim to be unbiased as it's an opinion. You are introducing bias here by taking an opinion and presenting it for no reason other than to say "this person didn't like Quiet's portrayal". If tomorrow Donald Trump wrote an opinion piece on Quiet for a media outlet, is that relevant to an encyclopedic entry about something?

4 - Further irrelevant information. There are sources and information here that talk about the PlayArtsKai figurine of Quiet. Are you out of your mind?! What relevance does this have to the RECEPTION OF THE GAME??? The video game this entry is about. To start with PlayArtsKai is a completely separate company that we have no idea or information about how much Hideo Kojima was involved with. One would assume since they are completely different companies ENTIRELY that Konami simply licensed the intellectual property rights of Quiet to PlayArtsKai. It goes without saying but Twitter is not a valid source of information.

5 - Dates. Numerous sources are reactions to the character Quiet and precede the date of release. Thus they are not a reception of the game itself. Hence why are they in a section called "Reception" to start with.

5 - Forbes contributors and Anita Sarkeesian. We seem to have established that Forbes contributors are not valid sources so I expect this will be okay to remove.

Everything else seems to be sourced from valid sources who are professional video game reviewers. Although again I'd suggest that Quiet is getting an amazing amount of spotlight in the article for no other reason than controversy

To any senior editors, administrators, or anyone with an interest in Wikipedia standards. It should be extremely concerning that this level of bias is present in an article that is supposed to be by and large, factual. 86.40.28.221 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

1) There is one subsection on the controversy, the focus of this article is not about that. 2) McWhertor could be wrong, I don't know, but that's besides the point, what matters what the reviewer thinks. 3) Opinion pieces are reception. IGN praising The Phantom Pain is reception. Wikipedia is neutral, whatever sources used can say whatever. 4) It's a figure, based upon the character from the game. 5) Pre-release reception is pretty common. You know, when they've just shown a game and some people are excited about it? 6) It says quoted by Forbes, not from Forbes. So again you're removing sourced content without consensus. Let it go already. --Soetermans. T / C 13:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

1) Irrelevant to the point I was making about focusing on characters. You're just deflecting the issue of balance. Why are no other characters given their own section? No controversy? Irrelevant. Controversy does not mean we upset the balance of the article. It just means we detail the controversy.

2) What matters is fact. This page isn't for representing opinions, and it's certainly not for misinformation. If a source has bad or inaccurate information, regardless of whether it's valid or not then it shouldn't be there. If your goal is to turn Wikipedia into the equivalent of the Daily Mail then yes all that matters is what the reviewer thinks.

3) Reception of the game? Wrong. Reception of Quiet the character sure. Then we come back to my original point which you'll just deflect of "why should the article focus on Quiet at all?". At best the article should mention the controversy in reception.

4) So what? It has nothing to do with the game itself. Reaction to the figure does not equate to reaction of the character. The article was mostly about the figures squishy boobs. COMPLETELY irrelevant to the character herself or the game. Picking at straws here.

5/6) Deflecting my point again. It's a Forbes CONTRIBUTOR or are you so illiterate you can't read the above section?

the current consensus at the WikiProject is to stay away from those Forbes Contributors - they're not actual staff, they're more comparable to random bloggers, and there's been instances of their articles containing some pretty major errors. - An Admin

It's almost like talking to a brick wall. By the way, nice to see some of the changes I suggested were implemented, glad people are coming to their senses at last. 86.42.118.106 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

1) You said "However this is not a reason for an encyclopedic entry to focus on a given character". The article on the The Phantom Pain is not about one character. Controversy is the exact reason why there is a subsection. 2) "This page isn't for representing opinions"? Reception is about that. Read Wikipedia's guidelines. 3) Reliable sources reported on Quiet, so we should too. 4) Of course it does, it's a figurine based upon a character from the game. 5) "Deflecting my point again"? That's not a response. Are you reflecting my point? 6) I'm not illiterate. Just because we do not agree is not a reason to act like that. Again, Forbes cites someone else that is considered notable. Ending your quote with "an admin" is not convincing. --Soetermans. T / C 23:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Any chance of @Czar:, @Sergecross73:, @Prisonermonkeys: and @Hahnchen: to chime in, as I am apparently a brick wall? --Soetermans. T / C 23:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• The section's missing the broad strokes as far as I can tell. Use a source that best provides an overview to the backlash and explain (1) what the backlash was, (2) who provided it, (3) what the major voices said. Need not be longer than a paragraph, or about half its current length, in terms of weight. The lengthy quotes can be greatly paraphrased and common sentiments can be stacked (use multiple refs on a common sentiment to make it stronger). I'd strike the Sarkeesian. Her opinion is generally useful on these matters but when her criticism matters in the context of an individual game (when there is so much other secondary source commentary already), it's best to rely on secondary sources to determine which voices were the most important. IP's right that we burn Forbes contributors with fire. (There are just better sources from more reliable outlets.) Good call on bringing in the cavalry instead of edit warring. WT:VG's always a good option too. czar 00:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, so I just sunk an hour and rewrote the section. I think it's—dare I say—solid.  czar 01:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Czar, thank you for weighing in, but please focus more on providing balanced opinion than just cutting down on prose length as you did here. Reducing the figurine hubbub to a single, matter-of-fact sentence makes it meaningless, your paraphrasing of Roberts was simply not accurate, and you removed all the content that commented on Kojima's role in this.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The figurine's release after all the hubbub speaks for itself. It adds nothing to say that a Eurogamer editor didn't like it. I didn't just cut down on prose length—I rewrote the section to speak with distance about the points that mattered in the "controversy". Frankly, the old section's emphasis on Kojima was off-balance. What matters is what the critics thought was important, why they thought it, and what happened. My paragraph does that much more succinctly and with much less extraneous detail than the previous version, and I think it would be a mistake to revert. But it's not my fight. Best,  czar 02:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Editors who added the PoV/non-neutral word "sexualized" are very aware that this is a breach of basic principles and guidelines (Accusatory headings do not comply with NPOV). Don't let them get away with bogging you down with needless discussion on something where consensus has already been achieved. They know exactly what NPOV and UNDUE entail. They're just feigning ignorance so they can use wikipedia as a soapbox or personal blog, just like creationsist or other opinion-based groups would. They want this slander to be visible in the table of contents (the thing that readers usually notice quickly). This is why they created a seperate section in the first place, rather than presenting their "views" (or rather "yet another thing in a fictional medium that they decided/have been told to be oh-so-offended about") in appropiate sections.

You're continuously accusing experienced editors of POV pushing. This won't work. If you can't play nice, then please, do yourself and Wikipedia a favor and let it go. --Soetermans. T / C 17:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's you folks who should let it go. Stop trying to push your agenda. It's transparent to anyone that you try to stir up a controversy where there is none. You always do. That's your whole spiel. If it wasn't some game you could bitch about what you personally perceive to be "sexualisation", you'd find something else to be artificially offended about. Again, this is the Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Not your personal blog or forum. And you know that. Stop feigning ignorance because you want to promote internet whiners who can't differentiate between fiction and reality (or who can, but chose not to because it sells.)

What "agenda"? Please explain what "agenda" we could have, when time and time again we point to Wikipedia's guidelines? How are we "trying to stir up controversy", when Wikipedia reports on controversy? I know it's not my blog, that's why I don't add my own opinion to this article. Do you know what I think of the issue? Please, tell me. Read all my comments here and tell me what I think of Quiet's depiction. Why is it so hard for you to let this go? You can't fathom the idea that you could be wrong, can you? Have you heard of a Cassandra complex? --Soetermans. T / C 18:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your agenda is to favour and Highlight your ideology over a balanced view. And every time to you point to the guidelines, I have to assume that you are too ignorant to read and understand them, or just feign ignorance for the sake of not seeing your mistake. The rules are pretty clear: NPOV means "Neutral Point of View". Not "Oh let's be spin neutral in a way that makes 'putting our opinion under a spotlight and give it its own section!' somehow acceptable). UNDUE Weight means not putting too much emphasis on something without balancing it, not "make sure to represent only out particular under the exclusion of all the other positions/criticisms. Make sure the section heading reflects that approach that our particular criticism is more important than the others! This must now be an issue of sexism! Not Criticism!". Have you even read those guidelines? Of course you have. You know very well what's acceptable and what isn't, yet you choose to ignore it and not follow the guidelines. You aren't interested in presenting facts, you're interested in putting forward a particular kind of opinion. One that states that everything, without exceptions, is sexist/sexualized (or rather "can be spun into something sexist"). You folks obsess over this kind of stuff for no other reason than to be as obnoxious and supremacist as you can. What's going on in your heads? What's with this obsession? Are you incapable of differentiating between fiction and reality? Are artists not allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their characters or their work in general? Are they supposed to pander to you, the non-buying minority, simply because you're afraid of the female body? It's transparent to everyone that you aren't interested in equal representation, otherwise you would see the inherent issue with spotlighting one particular criticism over ALL the others by putting it into it's own section. Where else do you see this kind of stuff on the wikipedia? Exactly. Nowhere. This is not by accident. There's a reason for that. And that reason is called NPOV. You stir up controversy because you think your particular view deserves special treatment. Newsflash: It doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.44.70.186 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Are you doing okay? You come off as paranoid to me ("hidden agenda", "feign ignorance", "obsession", "to be as obnoxious and supremacist as you can"). Do you have this often, when you still think you're right, even after many people told you otherwise? --Soetermans. T / C 22:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they do at all. He's largely echoing what I've been saying this whole time. Even after all the corrections that have been made you're still acting as if there's no points or issue to address here. Laughable behaviour I'd expect from a teenager or a child. 86.40.30.219 (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you please stop with the unnecessary insults? Just because you don't get what you want does not mean you can't stay civil. --Soetermans. T / C 09:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Portrayal of Quiet – Draft

In 2013, the in-game depiction of Quiet, a silent character in the game, was the subject of criticism within the gaming community. Quiet had been designed with sex appeal in mind so as to appeal to promote model figurine sales and cosplay. Critics, such as Halo designer David Ellis, considered the design oversexualized and a negative affirmation of gaming community stereotypes. David Roberts (GamesRadar) wrote that Quiet was complex in how she sometimes appeared as a strong woman and sex object in the same scene. Roberts felt that this paradoxical absurdity represented Kojima's mark as an auteur. Others felt that the portrayal was unbalanced, particularly since other characters had the same photosynthetic skin condition earlier in the series.^{Citation needed} Kojima and Konami released Quiet figurines in 2015, which, as a feature, had soft, pliable breasts.

I'm leaving a copy of my draft here for posterity. I think it'll be useful in the future when you want something more even-handed than what replaced it. It is better to use sources secondary to the critics than the critics themselves when discussing their criticism as the subject. Any more emphasis than a paragraph such as the above is undue weight.  czar 00:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles don't "[discuss] their criticism as the subject" any more than they're "discussing" the regular gaming reviews. They are summaries of the opinions stated in secondary sources. That requirement is just as arbitrary as the idea that anything about a paragraph is undue weight. I see no reason to apply extraordinary scrutiny to this particular issue.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say: Delete the opinion piece here and add it (if it is relevant) to an article that deals with Quiet specifically. Some characters seem to have their own article pages already. This article is just about MGS5:TPP, not about Quiet. So it should only list data about the game. Reviews are always a bit iffy, but I assume most people would consider having a separate section dedicated to the portrayal of Quiet to be unnecessary. I mean where do we stop? Will each character get their own subsection? I think that would be ridiculous, so my suggestion: Deletion (as far as the MGS5:TPP is concerned) and maybe creating a seperate Quiet-Article if it isn't already present. Sounds good? (I'd do it myself, but I just don't have the time) 217.87.96.182 (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's essentially content forking because you don't like the opinions presented. No other character has been criticized or discussed in that kind of detail in reliable sources. All criticism aimed at the portrayal of Quiet is by definition about the game itself and there is plenty of commentary about how it relates to real world issues and Kojima's style of game design. Wikipedia articles on video games cover all aspects of a game, not just the parts that which suits a specific category of readers.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, checking back in on this issue. Glad to see there's now a far more balanced section under reception for Quiet. This acknowledges the coverage and reception Quiet received as a character. I think in time this could probably be moved over to the character's page if it's ever created.

Regarding Peter's opinion. What 217.87.96.182 is saying is it's irrelevant, not that they don't like it. Do people not understand the difference between someone saying "I don't like this" and "I think this is irrelevant". Two different meanings there. All your doing is just dodging their point by failing to address whether you think it's relevant or not and why. You presumably believe a character reception is equivalent to a game reception, therefore Quiet having her own section is balanced and weighted correctly. This is incorrect because they are not the same, and have never been.

Do you think Quiet is the first character ever in the history of video games to get this kind of attention for her depiction? Why don't we see Anita Sarkeesian's opinion plastered all over Mario games pages? Is there a reason why tons of feminist opinion articles aren't plastered all over Zelda pages? Oh that's right it's because no one is that insane to think those pages warrant it. Do you even see mention of it on the Tomb Raider page?

It has simply NEVER been the standard before to even mention character reception under game reception. Let alone give it its own bloody section. If Anita was passed off as a legitimate source, then I'm sure I could dig up a ton of modern sourced articles that are little more than opinion pieces, and use them to validate scrawling a section about the 'depiction of Zelda as a damsel in distress' across whatever Zelda article I so choose. Give me a break. Reception is for reaction to the game, a character should at most get one or two sentences if it generated some collective opinion that was echoed by the majority of sources. They certainly shouldn't get an entire freaking section.

One other thing I'd still argue too is that the figurine has nothing to do with the game or Hideo Kojima. The figurine is it's own standalone product, it's not officially made by Kojima or Konami. It's a licensed toy. You have to understand that tomorrow, yes tomorrow.. another unheard of company could make a Quiet figure with ridiculous boobs that might get sourced media attention. Is this relevant to the game? No. Technically speaking it should probably go in a merchandise section.

Do other MGSV figurines get equal reception space on this article? Strip the article of the mentions of the figure, reaction to a figurine's feature is not reaction to the character. Especially when the product is not official merch and basically an interpretation of the character.

All that aside I think the new section is a good compromise for both sides and represents a far more balanced view. 86.40.30.219 (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexualized portrayal of Quiet?

Under the "Reception" section, someone added a section named "Sexualized portrayal of Quiet". Can that be considered necessary or even noteworthy? Also, I noticed that the same person made a section in the Dead or Alive 5 article titled "Sexest portrayal of characters" and there's an argument in the talk page going on about it. Yet, Bayonetta 2 has a similar criticism from some critics (mainly Polygon) about the game allegedly oversexualizing Bayonetta, and yet there is no section on that in that article. So is having a section on it here and DOA5 considered necessary and/or noteworthy? Gameman18 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources used and cited are considered reliable (see WP:VG/RS), so having the information there makes sense. Do you think it's given too much importance?

I think a separate, standalone section is an incredible amount of overkill for a single character (not even the main character), especially given that this is her only appearance in the entire series. If people want to bring up the controversy, then fine, but surely any amount of controversy over a secondary character would be better fit for the Reviews section, especially given that the controversy is ALSO already brought up there. Bringing it up twice in two different sections is overkill in and of itself.

The reason why it is mentioned at all is because reliable sources reported on it. Just because it is a secondary character with one appearance is not of importance of mentioning it or not. --Soetermans. T / C 07:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't adjust content based on their importance to a fictional universe. "Just because reliable sources reported on it" is the primary reason to include anything related to reception. It's an aspect of the game that is related to something other than gameplay as such and most of the sources are not reviews. It's also not the first time Kojima has been criticized for the same thing.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think criticism of Kojima sexualizing characters should go under the main Metal gear Solid page, as there are many examples in all of the games. Calling out Quiet specifically in MGSV is a bit weird, especially considering there is Paz in the game and an argument could be made that Snake himself is sexualized. I think this should go under reviews, not in its own section. Fangrim (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not specifically about Kojima designing a character, it's about a character that appears in this game. So moving the criticism from the article on the video game where she appears in to moving to the main Metal Gear article wouldn't make sense. --Soetermans. T / C 17:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant about sexualization in metal gear as a whole series, Paz, Meryl,Quiet,Raiden would be included in the topic as well. Fangrim (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC):::::

If you have the sources that say that something about those characters, sure. Sections like Meryl_Silverburgh#Reception, EVA_(Metal_Gear)#Reception and Raiden_(Metal_Gear)#Critical_reaction are not particularly critical of the design. --Soetermans. T / C 15:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they are. Stuff like this adds nothing to the quality of an article, as those accusations are nothing but tabloid journalism: "OH MY GOD a girl in some videogame has jiggling breasts! Oh the humanity! I INSIST on focusing on them!" or "HOLY SHIT a merchandise puppet has pliable material. WHAT HAS THE WORLD COME TO!? Report this to your next police station!". Let's be real. This is fiction. Females are allowed to have breasts or no breasts, appear masculine, feminine, or anything inbetween (same goes for males or other possible genders). Again. Fiction. Fiction is allowed to portray stuff however it sees fit. That's the whole point of it. Will it offend people? Sure. Everywhere and at any time, people decide to be offended about random stuff. Does that offense need to be present in the Wikipedia? No. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a tabloid paper. The same goes for positive opinions, by the way. If there's too much undue positive focus on aspects of the game, it needs to be toned down as well to keep it neutral.217.87.96.182 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view means we include all well-publicized opinions about fiction, including those that go against the sensibilities of certain categories of readers. It's in line with all applicable policies and guidelines. The personal approval of individuals like yourself is not required and filling this talkpage with your personal opinions is not helpful.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(see WP:SUBJECTIVE) Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia.

And WP:NPOV does not mean we publish ALL opinions. What are you talking about? It means we have a balance in the article free of bias. How is there balance in a reception section that focuses on one character? There's also huge bias in the sources in that none of them describe the portrayal of Quiet in a positive manner and focus exclusively on their perceived sexualization of the character 86.40.30.219 (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean Wikipedia is obliged to "balance" all opinions, regardless if they're positive or negative. The goal is to describe that which has actually been the focus of significant coverage in reliable sources. Here's a parallel: most MGS titles have been very well-received by game reviews and are considered very good games. At the same time, there are bound to be a few people, some of them even critics,[3][4] who have a much lower opinion of the games. But since the reception of the game itself has been overwhelmingly positive, we don't include those few negative voices because it would give them undue weight.

The criticism of how Quiet has been mentioned in numerous sources, so it's unclear why a half-dozen sentences would be excessive coverage. Other views are not stifled here, and if you know of any reliable sources with other views on her portrayal, you're welcome to include them. And for clarity, the self-published views of non-notable bloggers, YouTubers forum users are not considered reliable or notable enough for inclusion.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)\

I think most everyone here is in agreement that calling out the potryal of quiet is out of place and should be in the Reception section, not as it's own section. Ill try rewriting the reception section. Fangrim (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fangrim:, please put new comments on the bottom of a discussion. Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, so even if there are more people here who want it gone, that's not going to happen. @Peter Isotalo:, @Czar: and others have pointed out again and again that based upon Wikipedia's guidelines, having a subsection on Quiet is fine. --Soetermans. T / C 15:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we revert the Sexualized Potrayal of Quiet to just Potrayal of quiet? We have people reverting it pointing out the bias of such a title, and then people un-reverting it. Im new, and dont want to participate in an edit war. Or heck even use the Draft of Quiet Potrayal to hash this out? Fangrim (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to have someone, maybe an admin, to look at this (not sure if these users are trying to game the system or not). The wikipedia is fairly clear on what is acceptable as a title and what isn't. Not to mention that having a whole subsection devoted to a single character on a videogame page instead of a separate character page (where those matters can be discussed) is unheard of. I think we need dispute resolution here as you can't really argue with these kinds of people, unfortunately. Everything is sexist to them, it seems. Really every single thing. They can't even think of a world where something isn't sexist. Therefore, they have no endgame, no solution. The only thing they do is go around and troll/declare everything to be sexist. They will always find stuff to be offended about, even if they have to make a mountain out of a molehill and disruptively edit the wikipedia because some blogger told them that everything is "Problematic" (no exceptions). But I digress. I think we should have someone from the outside have a look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.143.232.204 (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is pretty simple. Sub-headings like this are not strictly regulated and allow for exceptions from the standard layout. There are no policies against them. As long as the content adheres to basic content policies, there is to "tone down" a descriptive heading. The content right now is clearly about criticism of sexualized portrayal of a character. Other than simply disliking the opinion of the cited sources, there doesn't seem to be any justification for opposing it.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• The section could easily be trimmed and still contain the general information. Being critised by Twitter is hardly notable in itself and should probably be removed. The second paragraph is a bit of a quote farm. It probably doesn't need its own section and would fit well as the last paragraph in reception, just below the criticism already there. AIRcorn (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're right that it isn't notable by itself that it received criticism on Twitter, but if reliable sources report on it (in this case, Mirror), then Wikipedia points to that. I think quote farm is an exaggeration, there's two people being cited, one from Polygon and one from GamesRadar, both considered reliable sources. --Soetermans. T / C 11:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As much as I respect Pork Buns and their opinions I think for a wikipedia article we should try and stick with views from notable people. Two sentences with four part quotes is "a bit of" a quote farm. Especially as the rest of the sentences apart from the first one are just introducing the quotes. AIRcorn (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No one has actually cited Twitter (or "Pork Bund") on this issue, so I don't see the relevance of that remark. Mentioning and even referencing tweets also doesn't seem to be a problem in the section on the Konami-Kojima dispute.

And how many reviewers are "notable people? We certainly quote them often enough. Maybe it's more a matter of converting one or two quotes to prose. That's pretty much the gist of game review sections as far as I can tell.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Peter you need to read your own sources mate... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/seedy-metal-gear-solid-action-5691403 This article references Pork Buns and its a source that you put in there. Most of the article is a bit of opinion followed up by twitter posts. 96.50.243.86 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The source is an article published by the The Mirror, not the tweets given as examples in the article. The sentence in question also has two other references that are both about the model figure with pliable breasts.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We're not talking about the Konami-Kojima dispute so I don't see the relevance of that remark. For the record I don't think Twitter needs to be mentioned there either. If journalists from tabloid newspapers use random tweets to base their articles on then that is there business, but I expect our articles to be better. I am not saying not to mention the criticism, just to find better ways to mention it and better sources. AIRcorn (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll chime in (I'll use the word "you" as a "global/general you"): I don't see how a title like "SEXUALIZED portrayal or Quiet" can be anything but partisan/biased or even a borderline version of "smear a videogame when you can't libel its creator". I mean the criticism itself can be included into the article, if it is relevant, but not as its own section and certainly not with such a slanted title. That's not how we do things here. It has to follow basic rules, just like everything else on the Wikipedia. The onus is on the people who try to conserve this title to present evidence why this aberrant, deviating-from-the-norm behaviour is acceptable.

There has been the suggestion that putting such a section on a character's own page would actually be valid and reasonable. This was attacked by saying that this practice would be overkill. I don't see how. If anything, having a SINGLE section about a SINGLE character on a VIDEOGAME article is overkill. We don't have sections about Big-Boss, Solid-Snake, Ocelot etc. either, do we?

The User Soetermans, who seems to defend this deviating section title, even used those examples himself (or herself):

Examples that have been mentioned: That's Meryl Silverburgh's own page (not the page of the videogame she appeared in!); "EVA"'s own character page (NOT the videogame's page, again); And, you've guessed it, Raiden (See a Pattern here?). There's a reason we do it this way.

Notice how the titles read "Critical Reception" or "Critical Reaction" and NOT "SEXUALIZED Portrayal" or any other kind of PoV-Title? This is not by accident. We don't deal with off-site debates or subjective views on the Wikipedia. We don't participate in debates. We just present them. And that has to be as balanced and non-partisan as possible.

And no, saying stuff like "There are no solid rules AGAINST such a section-title" is not only demonstrably false (titles are CONTENT and as such, they have to adhere to the same scrutiny and the same policies), it would also imply that the only reason to use such a suggestive/tabloid title is because you think you found a loophole and want to (ab-)use it to insert your own PoV and social- or off-site commentary. This is unacceptable.

If you can present arguments and evidence why the MGS:V-TPP should, for some magic reason, be the exception from all the rules and standards, be my guest. Make sure to present your case well. A simple 2-liner just to create an illusion of "the jury is still out, really!" or to prevent everyone from reaching a consensus won't do.SulphurRip (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Aircorn, I removed the mention of Twitter since the mention of the Quiet figure is what's relevant.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2016

Under the Sales section, "As of September 2015, Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain had shipped 5 million copies" should be changed to "As of December 31, 2015 Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain has shipped 6 million copies, including digital sales," according to Konami's latest financial report.

Spellbanisher (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the new info, but I didn't replace the other sentence because it's still a milestone. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: "Sexualized Portrayal [of a character]" as its own section on a Videogame article.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should a Videogame Article deal with the reception of a single character by giving it its own section titled "Sexualized Portrayal [of Character X]"? 91.44.82.247 (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If there are adequate sources discussing it and it's a notable part of the reception of the game, sure. I think in this case (Quiet) it's pretty notable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Section heading sounds a bit clickbait-y. Isn't there a better way to word it?

If there's a Quiet Article, criticism should actually go there, like it does for all the other characters (best practice so far). It might be notable to some degree, but probably not notable enouugh to warrant having its own section on the MGS Page (but on the Char Page instead). Mentioning it within the reception section is usually sufficient for most purposes.

The section could just be titled "Controversy" if people want something more neutral. —Flax5 09:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

If this was about anything other than criticism of sexist portrayal, would this even be an issue? The sections "As Ground Zeroes", "As The Phantom Pain", "Dispute between Konami and Kojami" are every bit as detailed and could be shortened into something equally bland like "As other timelines" or "Corporate dispute". And as I've pointed out before, this article has plenty of other equally non-notable details that no one seems to have any problems with (because it happens to be strictly gamer-related stuff). I don't see anything "clickbait-y" about this type of media criticism. It just happens to attract a lot opinionated gamers who have purely personal issues with feminism.

As for "Controversy", it's the type of heading appropriate when describing a whole range of controversies. In this case, it would just be a misleading and seems like a pretty weasly euphemism.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume someone worded it in good faith, without trying to provoke. Unfortunately, it does sound provocative. Not everyone considers this to be sexualized.

At the very least, it's a highly unusual way of wording things. Even the Mass Effect Page found a less provocative wording ("Media coverage of the sex scene"). Criticism usually gets summarized under its own section and for specific criticisms, there's still the possibility of putting it on the Character Page, if one exists. If not, creating one is an option. You should also be aware that there's no clear standard as to what is sexist and what isn't. Like with art, this is opinion-based. It's usually better to stay away from statements like that, exactly because people can disagree on this. Is there a better wording for this section heading? 217.87.109.249 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"Sexualization" and "sexism" have very different meanings and the latter is actually never mentioned in the article. It's abundantly clear that this is about something other than the article content or even the wording of the section heading. The notion that this should be buried in the dinky depths of list of characters in the Metal Gear series is obviously just a way to get squirrel it away where it doesn't belong. The criticism here is squarely aimed at this particular title, not the in-game MSG universe.

This is beginning to smack of a refusal to get the point. If you can't produce reliable sources to back up your own preferred point of view there's really nothing more to discuss here.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Or it gets added to the article where it does in fact belong. All the other characters have their own criticism sections. See RAIDEN for example. And compare that to the MGS2: Sons Of Liberty Article. That's the corresponding game in which the character appeared. Did you notice that even though there was a huge outcry with regards to this character, the MGS2:SOL article doesn't have a specific section just for this?

Here's one of the things they state in the critical reception section of RAIDEN: "called his inclusion one of the worst aspects of the game" and "While calling Metal Gear Solid 2 one of the biggest disappointments in video-game history, UGO Networks' Marissa Meli cited Raiden's debut as a key problem with the game."

You would think those are criticism of the game and those need to be present on the VG page and not the character page, according to your position, no? Yet they are found on the character page. Not, the VG page. I hope I have made that abundantly clear.

All the "Character Controversies" are usually handled within their respective character pages. This is the usual procedure. Why do you refuse to accept this? (I hope it has nothing to do with the whole Gamergate shenanigans. The ArbCom got involved with this, apparently.)

You seem to think that the criticism in question is more notable than it actually is, warranting it's own section and extra visibility. Maybe it's you who wants it squirreled into the MGS5 article where it sticks out like a sore thumb? Why do you refuse to get the point that this kind of thing is highly unusual? Compare this article to any of the other VG articles, if you haven't.

Additionally, the WP is not about using sources to back up one's PoV, as you have implied when you said "back up your own preferred point of view". I think that's problem with your defense-attempt of this odd section. Wikipedia doesn't participate in discussions. WP just describes them. WP:IMPARTIAL. Also do keep in mind that there is a thing called [labels]. I'm aware that you seem to agree with this particular position, but forcing it down everybody's throats that way is a bit much. I know you might not do this on purpose and maybe you didn't realize that this kind of thing does not comply with the WP guidelines. 217.87.109.249 (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for removing content. Referenced content stays unless you can argue how and why it should be WP:UNDUE, especially in relation to the level of detail in the article overall.

I'm seeing absolutely nothing new here. It's all just the same griping as before, but with minor variations. If there was a clear consensus against this, it would have surfaced by now. Just accept the fact that articles may not always be written exactly the way gamers like them. I'm closing this RfC down since it's really nothing but a bunch of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Don't re-open it unless you can come up with something substantial.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Im in strong agreement in getting rid of the header and putting it into reception. I'd like to get a neutral third parties opinion here. What gives you the ability to "Shut down" the RFC peter? Fangrim (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fangrim, do you think I'm a neutral third party or not? PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on for months now, Fangrim. Numerous experienced editors have replied and explained Wikipedia's guidelines and there have been two RfC's. Like Peter said, how are we not "neutral" in this? Don't let me keep you from starting a third RfC though. --Soetermans. T / C 08:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Soetermans & PeterTheFourth: Experienced doesn't mean infallible. We all make mistakes and have faulty or incomplete assumptions. Many people would claim they are neutral, even when they're not. In their mind, they are. And there's no convincing them if they have a strong conviction about themselves, thinking they are perfectly neutral and infallible. It doesn't even occur to them that they could possibly be biased, because they think everything they say is always correct, absolutely balanced and that they are never wrong about anything. That's why it's called bias. It's just how the human mind works sometimes. Everybody has their blind-spots. This is not meant as an insult nor as an assumption about your neutrality. But we still need an outside opinion, hence RfC.

Peter Isotalo: Don't close down RFCs just because you don't agree with something. That's highly disruptive. People have told you over and over and over that your interpretation of certain policies is incorrect and that you have spun them in your favour. There are more than 3 sections dedicated to this in this talk page alone.

See [[5]] for further info. The consensus is this: Character criticisms go to character pages, even if character criticisms refer to the game itself, whether positive or not.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiden_%28Metal_Gear%29#Critical_reaction (Best Example)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EVA_%28Metal_Gear%29#Reception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_Snake#Reception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meryl_Silverburgh#Reception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otacon#Reception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Snake#Reception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver_Ocelot#Reception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Fox_%28Metal_Gear%29#Reception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Boss_%28Metal_Gear%29#Reception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_Wolf#Reception

Now compare that to these pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid_2:_Sons_of_Liberty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid_3:_Snake_Eater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid_4:_Guns_of_the_Patriots

Or any other Videogame Article for that matter, not just MGS.

Notice how NONE of the Videogame Pages have specific sections for Character Reception. Only the Character Pages have Character Reception Sections. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Thus: WP:UNDUE

You might not like this, but THIS is the current consensus.

The fact that a specific Quiet Page doesn't exist yet doesn't mean you get to go against consensus and just add your PoV criticism (as its own section no less) to the Videogame's Page. It means you should probably create a page for Quiet instead.

Or, if you don't feel like creating a Quiet Character Page, there's always this: ::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_the_Metal_Gear_series#Quiet

Nobody wants to take away your right to criticise stuff. You can do that, where it is appropiate. But nobody wants to give you a soapbox either.

I'm asking you to justify why criticism of one character deserves its own section. If you can't present any evidence, I request that you move the section to the appropiate article or integrate it with the reception section, if necessary.

Remember to be civil, open for compromise and less hostile. 84.143.238.56 (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe the reception of Quiet should have its own section because of the large amount of coverage the depiction of Quiet in the game had. It's much more notable than miscellaneous trivia about characters, and shouldn't be shunted into some cruft page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2016

I periodically edit Wikipedia articles that I read for grammar, clarity, style and aesthetic, and wanted to delete a redundant "also" in the "Sexualized Portrayal of Quiet" section; I quickly found out that this article, and this section in particular, has been semi-protected due to edit warring. Could you change this:

'"inextricably tied to the game's convoluted story" and also criticized how the game presented other female characters'

to this:

'"inextricably tied to the game's convoluted story" and criticized how the game presented other female characters'

The phrase "and also" is redundant and stylistically undesirable. Deleting this "also" would additionally improve the page's aesthetic, as currently the final line of this section is one word, leaving extraneous white space between this section and the next. I hope this edit is within the rules, and thank you. 206.193.226.178 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Done, but I also added a comma right after the quote. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I second the request for semi-edit protection, this page seems to be getting a lot of edits from reddit/tumblr Glenzo999 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected over 20 days ago. Sergecross73 msg me 03:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Mediating/Facilitating discussion regarding Quiet

Hello, I am an Admin, the one who recently protected the article over the various disputes regarding the article, largely the character Quiet. I don't wish to get involved, as I am merely an Admin who is monitoring and mediating, but I will throw some ideas out there to facilitate discussion:

1. Comment on content, not editors. Stop alluding to other editors, and how ludicrous you may feel their stance is. Make your point about the topic at hand, and then stop. Again, these types of response only serve to flare up the temper of the opposition, or get people off topic.
2. Stop with all the long-winded responses. They do not facilitate discussion, they bring them to a halt. Keep it to short, focused responses. These massive responses typically will only hurt your own point - people often times don't read them all, which may confuse your point, and it makes it too intimidating for other to catch up on and join in. It basically discourages more outside input.
3. IP editors, please stop jumping to all these different IP addresses to comment. It makes it more difficult to determine a consensus because its hard to tell how many voice are out there. This is not to your benefit, as many IP addresses all saying the same thing is generally interpreted as someone trying to "game the system", in making it look like there's more in favor of something than there actually is. Please make an account, or do something with signing your comments so we can tell who's saying what.
4. Lastly, a note about the dispute itself: Section titles are meant to reflect the content contained within them. Right now, every single sentence in the "Sexualized portrayal of Quiet" section is about exactly that. Literally every sentence at the moment is on that topic. If people are unhappy with the section title, then maybe they should aim to add some reliably sourced reception about her that is outside the scope of the current section title. If you can, great, it would be a natural conclusion to rename the section. If there isn't any noteworthy commentary about her otherwise, then maybe consider that it may not be that unreasonable of a section title. I encourage more of a constructive approach like this, rather than recycling the same arguments and RFCs over and over again. Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

First off: Thanks for Mediating. Also thanks to PeterTheFourth for responding earlier. Some of the recent comments are mine (dynamic IP). I will use this account for now to make things a bit easier.

Secondly: If it is not ok to respond under your post, please feel free to move it to an appropiate section.

As for the topic at hand: PeterTheFourth, you said that having a seperate sections dedicated to criticism of Quiet is justified because it had a large coverage. Is that your argument? I don't want to misrepresent anything in case I misunderstood you.

Assuming that I understood your point correctly, I would have to ask why Quiet gets to have her own section within the VG Article while Raiden has his criticism on his own page and not the MGS2:Sons of Liberty Article. In fact, I can't think of any VG article that specifically lists this kind of criticism (and when it does, it usually uses terms such as "media coverage", as Soetermans correctly pointed out).

To me, it appears as though the article wants the reader to believe that the depiction is sexualized (instead of taking into account that not everyone considers the female body to be "sexualized" the moment you catch a hint of their epidermis ;) ). To me, this appears to be irreconcilable with WP:NPoV. The way it is now, it looks as if the Wikipedia has a stance on these matters instead of just describing the event.

I consider sections titles such as "Media Coverage of Quiet" (or something of a similar tone) to be much more in line with NPoV. It doesn't make any unnecessary assumptions nor does it take a stance on subjective matters. I'm not restricting it to this. If you have better options, please do share them!

But it would probably still cause some head-scratching to find such a section on a VG article at all. Remember the outrage over Raiden? (if not, read the section I linked earlier) People were fuming. That was arguably more notable, yet doesn't have its own section within the VG article of MGS2. It does have a section on the Raiden article though. Looking forward to your input. GaussDistribution (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No, actually, I don't remember the outrage over Raiden. He wasn't well received, but I don't remember as much coverage of Raiden not being Snake as there was attention drawn to how sexualised the depiction of Quiet was in MGSV. If you believe there is sufficient coverage of that to justify a section on MGS2's article, feel free to make one. I'll note that it's mentioned in a sentence here on the article, but not elaborated on, and that there is only one source currently for it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with PeterTheFourth's comment. Additional content in the MGS2 article seems entirely appropriate. The lack of certain types of coverage in some articles is not a good reason to remove the same type of coverage elsewhere.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

GaussDistribution - FYI, when presenting arguments about what was done at other articles, its good to show that a discussion was actively had to make such a decision, otherwise, it may just violate the other stuff exists line of reasoning - basically, the "just because you observed it somewhere, doesn't necessarily make it right." So, for example, unless there was a policy based discussion to leave Raiden's reception out of MGS2, you could just be referencing a mistake no one's fixed, you know? Similarly, pointing to content that was present at the time that an article was made a good article or featured article can also be very persuasive, as they require detailed reviews in order to achieve that status. That being said, as much as you can try to take that approach, do you have any thoughts on the approach I mentioned as point #4 on my initial comment above? If you could find other reception on her, that could actually be the easiest way to fix this stalemate, at least with the section title concern. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is PetertheFourth being given a personal forum for his pet political topic? Did the GamerGate Controversy article set the bar so low for mismanagement that some individuals will continue to abuse the system to force politics into articles where it does not belong? 77.97.24.152 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

He has given a policy based stance on the subject - he hadn't done any thing wrong here. Do you have something to say about the subject at hand, or are you just here trying to stir up trouble? Sergecross73 msg me 05:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses! Sorry for the delay. I'll try to be brief.

(First to the IP-User: I know that this can be an emotionally-charged topic for both sides. I'm confident this is solvable without hostility and in a polite way. This, of course, applies to everyone who likes to participate.)

I can see how the Raiden Article could be in its current state based on prior discussion and how the article could contain mistakes that have yet to be fixed.

I do however wish to point out that currently NONE of the most prominent VG articles have sections dedicated to character criticism - and that every time criticism arose, it was added to the Character Page instead. This is, in my opinion, not a coincidence. It's probably best practice.

In a sense, it's not that I observed it "somewhere", but rather that I observed it "everywhere".

Would that be sufficient evidence? A cursory glance at GAs and Featured Articles will probably show the same. Namely that sections dedicated to Character Criticism are, as far as I can tell, non-existent (unless I failed to notice them. If that's the case please do link them!)

As for point 4: Yes that would indeed balance the section. However it would still leave us with a section that deals exclusively with the reception of a single character, as though that needs special mention. Seems rather odd, at least to me.

Which leads me to PeterTheFourth and Peter Isotalo: People were furious and some even said they would never play or even boycott the game because of this (You can read all about it in the Section I linked earlier). Now contrast this to merchandise with pliable material (which, IIRC, is present in all MGS5 figurines, male or female) and a character which shows some "skin" and happens to have breasts (as some females apparently do ;) ).

The bait-and-switch Kojima pulled when using Raiden instead of Solid Snake for the biggest portion of the game had a bigger impact overall. But that still wouldn't justify putting a separate section on the MGS2 Page IMO. I don't think it is necessary to dedicate specific sections to all kinds of outrages or specific PoVs, no matter how strongly people feel about them (a short mention is usually sufficient, to prevent giving an opinion, no matter how well it is sourced, undue weight).

And of course this cuts both ways: We don't need sections about the "rugged handsomeness" of Big Boss. Or the "cunning and charisma" of Ocelot. Even though there are probably plenty of sources related to these particular opinions. But just because there's a source somewhere doesn't necessarily mean it must be included as its own section at all costs. Looking forward to your response! GaussDistribution (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, you'll find yourself persuading people more if you can find actual discussions or peer reviews that set an actual consensus as a precedent. As long as you keep saying "well this article didn't do it", or "the series didn't do this before", you're going to get you the other stuff exists argument thrown at you every time. Similarly, people will say "Maybe Raiden should have his own section at the MGS2 page if reliable sources were as upset as you say. In short, if you're going to try to keep taking the past precedent approach, you need to concentrate less on general observations you had about articles, or hypothetical scenarios that haven't even happened, and more about prior discussions that would support your case. (I.e. - a discussion that showed that People were not in favor of Raiden having his own section due to policy based reasons, not just your observation that said section does not exist.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page: Are you asking me to provide reasons why this section which could be considered intolerant (towards women, towards gamers, towards fashion-styles, towards developers) and that is ONLY present on THIS article (and no other article) should not be there? Or am I misunderstanding something?

It almost sounds as if the burden of proof has been shifted to me, even though I'm the one assuming the null-hypothesis (the default position). Am I misunderstanding you? GaussDistribution (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It's as I said before, if you're going with examples of precedent - which most of your arguments tend to rely on - it needs to be from discussion/peer reviews where there's discussion of a decision being made, not just random "well I see this article does/doesn't have it". Otherwise, you're just pointing at other mistakes, or other things that could be changed/fixed/altered as well - that WP:OSE counter-argument. The focus is on your argument because, well, in terms of Wikipedia policy based arguments, your opponents argument is pretty sound. They have found content about Quiet from sources that have an active consensus of reliability (and thus usability) - documented at WP:VG/S - and have created a section title that accurately summarizes said commentary. So far, no one has provided content outside the scope of the section title, despite my suggestion of using that as a tie-breaker/compromise type scenario.

So, short version - the people in favor of a section about Quiet's sexualized portrayal have provided a valid argument, while your side, has not. Which is why I've been trying to prod you along in the right direction There could be a way to argue your point, but you're not going about it the right way. Sergecross73 msg me 04:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"your opponents argument is pretty sound." And yet I have, after having repeatedly asked, not received a single argument. It's all by assertions, not by evidence. The section exists "by fiat". Or more easily "I think my soapbox needs to be there, so it should be there".

"and have created a section title that accurately summarizes said commentary." so you don't think they're weaseling in (maybe unconsciously?) a subjective evaluation? Or even a soapbox? I mean this good could all be based on good faith, but sometimes, you just gotta call a spade a spade. And just because you can source something doesn't necessarily mean it deserves its own section. It can however be mentioned in the appropiate areas.

"So far, no one has provided content outside the scope of the section title, despite my suggestion of using that as a tie-breaker/compromise type scenario." Because it is rare to think people would actually take offense in the material... of a puppet. What you're suggesting is finding sources that defend the use of pliable material? And that defend a fictional character's clothing? And that seems like a better option than removing the soapbox altogether to you?

[[6]] states, among other things, what the wikipedia is NOT and thigns which should be avoided: Advocacy, Scandal-mongering, Opinion Pieces etc.

"it needs to be from discussion/peer reviews where there's discussion of a decision being made"

You mean discussions like this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metal_Gear_Solid_2:_Sons_of_Liberty/Archive_1#Fan_Reaction_Section

The MGS2 Article is in its current state for almost a 10 years now. A decade. GaussDistribution (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX does not apply when there's reliable sources that covers all of said information. That's something you'd try to apply if the entire section was an unsourced editorial of a editors personal opinions. If anything, SOAPBOX would apply more to your argument, as your personal stance seems to be that you don't seem to agree with any of the commentary personally, or that it's reasonable to be offended by the material. Unfortunately, those opinions stem from your own personal opinions, not sources, which is why your stance keeps getting discounted. Applying SOAPBOX as you're describing would prevent virtually any content being added to the article. Good review by IGN? Sorry, SOAPBOX. GameSpot didn't like the cutscenes? Soapbox. That, much like your argument, is not correct application of it. Sergecross73 msg me 11:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Your link to the Raiden discussion is the type of thing you'd want to link to in theory, but I don't think you read it very closely, as it would not support your stance. That link shows that the Raiden section was removed due to lack of reliable sources - they only had unreliable sources of non-notable fans and user reviews. That is not the case with Quiet, there are a number of reliable sources citing the content in question. Sergecross73 msg me 11:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"Applying SOAPBOX as you're describing would prevent virtually any content being added to the article. Good review by IGN? Sorry, SOAPBOX. GameSpot didn't like the cutscenes? Soapbox."

Please do not attack strawmen. Maybe you just misunderstood my point. Of course that stuff can be added, but not as its own standalone section. We don't have sections titled "IGNs positive review of MGS", using your example.

Not every opinion (positive or negative), no matter how well it is sourced, needs its own section. There ARE sections dedicated to criticism. What the article currently displays is a SPECIFIC section for ONE kind of criticism/opinion in an attempt to make it more visible. This IS WP:SOAP. For the sake of intellectual honesty, please don't pretend that it isn't. You know very well that it is and that the title doesn't meet the requirements of NPOV.

Asserting that something is sexualized implies that whoever came up with the section title gets to decide what should be considered sexualized or not. Without taking into account that the things one person considers "sexualized" are completely trivial and boring to the next.

There ARE better wordings for this and you can find them throughout the wikipedia, so a compromise would be "controversy" or "response to Quiet's design". Those are headings that do not attempt to convince anyone that this one-sided opinion ("Quiet is totally sexualized!") is the only way to see things. Section titles such as "Gameplay", "Premise", "Characters" and "Reception" are all factual and not particularly subjective. They don't rely on opinions. You can't say "I don't think there is 'Gameplay'" or "I don't believe there's 'Reception". You CAN however say that about the section title ""Sexualized Portrayal". This is a simple test that often reveals whether something is NPOV or not. If you can disagree with it, it's probably not neutral.

The best course of action would be integration with the existing section. Either that or we make seperate sections for every opinion we can find, so as to not put undue weight on one particular kind of opinion by putting it on a pedestal. GaussDistribution (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

But every single sentence in the section is about exactly that - her sexualized nature - and reliably sourced and accurately attributed to said sources. I fail to see what is wrong with a section title that accurately describes the entire section accurately. I also remind you that its placement is as a subsection under "Reception", so the reader knows that the content will be opinion-based value judgements by reviewers/journalists - there's no misrepresentation here. I'd understand your concern if it were placed in a more factual area of the article, like the story or gameplay sections, but it's not. I'd also understand if your argument was that there were many other facets of Quiet's character that were being ignored, but no one has provided any meaningful content from reliable sources about her outside of her sexualized nature. If you, or anyone, could find further meaningful reception regarding Quiet outside of her sexuality, it would warrant a rename, but as long as the content is as it is, you don't have a leg to stand on here. The various sources concretely show that there was a particular focus on this particular character by reliable sources, and that overides your personal opinion that its not important enough. Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I also apologize if it appeared I was trying to "attack a strawman", I was merely trying to demonstrate how your flawed understanding of WP:SOAPBOX would be irreconcilable with writing a Reception section in general. I know it can be difficult to "take it all in" with all of Wikipedia's policies and nuances, and it be doubly hard for someone who's just here for one particular reason. It's easier to understand these concepts if you can look at them outside of your personal stances on a subject. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"But every single sentence in the section is about exactly that - her sexualized nature - and reliably sourced and accurately attributed to said sources." Again, whether she's sexualized or not is an opinion, not a fact. It's subjective.

The title "Sexualized Portrayal of Quiet" tries to turn an opinion into a fact. I agree that every single sentence in that section is ABOUT that way of seeing her. It's constructed that way after all.

In that sense "The Portrayal of Quiet which is considered 'sexualized' by some people" would be more accurate. Of course that's a mouthful and we generally don't do that. Not having a section dedicated to a single opinion (or it's counter-opinion for that matter) would be more in line with NPOV/Undue and would remove advocacy. This needs to be applied to all unnecessary praise as well, naturally.

"and that overides your personal opinion that its not important enough." SergeCross73, please. Don't make me repeat that it's not about importance, it's about neutrality. Where do you even get this false assumption from? People can present regressive POVs, if necessary, but they should adhere to the Policies at all times. If there's still confusion about the problem with this section, feel free to ask me. English isn't my first language, so it's very likely that I can be misunderstood.

"I also remind you that its placement is as a subsection under "Reception", so the reader knows that the content will be opinion-based value judgements by reviewers/journalists - there's no misrepresentation here." Thus this section is a Soapbox, at least in the way it is titled. Not to mention that this is a subsection dedicated to an opinion. Countering that with another opinion will not improve the article, nor do i have any interest in doing that. WP is not about making opinions extra-visible. This refers to positive opinions as well. If you find stuff that is just unnecessary fanboy-ism or flattery, it needs to be removed just as much. Especially when someone builds a whole section with the title "The brilliant Game that is MGS5" or something of a similar subjective, almost ridiculous tone.

Again, it's ok to add criticism and praise, but don't build specific subsections around PoVs. There are sections dedicated to these things.

"but no one has provided any meaningful content from reliable sources about her outside of her sexualized nature." Because that would be just one soapbox to counter another soapbox. This would be inherently non-neutral. Withholding judgment is almost always an option. An option we should seek to take. It's not always side A OR side B (or in this case: Sexualized or Not sexualized). You CAN construct titles that refrain from taking a stance.

"but as long as the content is as it is, you don't have a leg to stand on here." As Long as you don't consider non-negotiable Policies such as WP:NPOV a leg to stand on...

• Or maybe policies like WP:IMPARTIAL.. (Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.)
• Or WP:LABEL (cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, myth, -gate, pseudo-, controversial ... which should be avoided.)
• Or WP:SUBJECTIVE
• Or WP:POVFORM (Loaded Language).
• Or again [WP:POVFORM], this time about Subheadings.
• ...and even to some extent the last section within WP:POVFORM
• Or WP:ASSERT ("Avoid stating opinions as facts.")

GaussDistribution (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't say that we can't show negative stances on things, we have both "controversy" and "accolades' type sections regularly in peer reviewed articles. NPOV says we just need to show the complete picture. Please read the opening sentence:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

There is no bias or editorialization present - everything is properly sourced by reliable sources and in the proper context. (If not, feel free to suggest tweaks to improve that.) That just leaves the "all significant views published by reliable sources". If there are sources defending the sexualization of Quiet, we'll add it. If there's other facets of her character being reported by reliable sources, we'll add it. But right now, no one has even been able to propose adding any additional information. Unless anyone can supply any counter-points or additional information, NPOV is being adhered to.

That all being said, Look, you're just talking circles, the same circles that have been refuted for months now. Your approach isn't working. You really need to take a different approach, or this is discussion is just going to fizzle out without any consensus in your favor like the last few discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me repeat that yet again: It's not about deleting it. It was NEVER about deleting it. I have always held the position that if something is notable, it can be mentioned. I hope I don't have to repeat that yet again. I don't particularly like it when my position is being misrepresented and I was hoping you would hold yourself to a higher intellectual and professional standard.

"But right now, no one has even been able to propose adding any additional information." You shouldn't counter a soapbox by putting another soapbox right next to it. The criticism listed under "sexualized portrayal" can be integrated with EXISTING sections. Those sections are there for a reason, Sergecross73. Giving it it's own section and thus putting it on a pedestal is WP:UNDUE.

The policy exists for that very reason. You also haven't addressed WP:LABEL, WP:SUBJECTIVE and all the other stuff mentioned above.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Giving one particular kind of criticism (or praise) a seperate section is disproportionate.

Here's my suggestion for a solution: Take the criticism listed under sexualized portrayal and integrate it with "critical reception". GaussDistribution (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

1. The conditions for this mediation is to focus on content, not editors. Stop discussing me, and keep it to the content. No one is purposely misrepresenting you. Its that sort of distraction that again, gets these discussions off-topic and away from any consensus in your favor.
2. The problem remains is that your claims of things like WP:UNDUE are largely your personal opinion, and the sheer amount of sources on commentary available say otherwise. Its not an undue issue - its very apparent that many journalists/reviewers made special note of this character and her portrayal, proven by the existence of the sources present. Not just commentary, but dedicating entire articles about it. If sources wrote dedicated articles about the topic, its not going to be UNDUE to have a mere subsection about it here.
3. Please read all of LABEL, specifically the are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject part. There's no shortage of sources about the sexualized nature of the character, and none present that defend or provide a counter-point to such a point. No violation of LABEL. SUBJECTIVE has a similar clause, stating that such claims should be sourced. Much like SOAPBOX, the things you're citing are meant to cut back on unsourced editorializing by editors, which is not the case here at all. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It should be something like "Allegations of sexualized portrayal of Quiet". The title should not be assuming that one side of the controversy is correct. It's the same reason why we don't have an article titled "Israeli Apartheid".

Also, the whole thing seems to be undue weight. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Your first point, about changing the title to "Allegations of sexualized portray of Quiet" would be a valid approach/compromise, I would think. If you could get a consensus to support it, I don't see any issues with it. The UNDUE claim seems off-base though - as I mentioned above at point #2, many reliable source reviewers have based entire articles around the topic. Its not undue weight if it was a particular aspect that was commonly pointed out by third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... I need to think about this a little, but in general, I'm in favour of the suggestion. Still iffy about giving one criticism (which is a facet of the critical reception of the game) a subsection. We need to be careful as we could be experiencing the effects of a DITF-Technique. GaussDistribution (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with "Allegations of sexualized portrayal of quiet". I don't think the comments or thoughts that the section envoked should be removed from the article. However I think its rather odd that it has its own section. Im in support of moving it to "Allegations of Sexaulized Portrayal of Quiet" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangrim (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As the section is merely discussing the sexualised portrayal of Quiet, rather than discussing the allegations, it would be odd to title it in such a way. This isn't a debate in reliable sources where it may or may not be the case- it's merely an observation, and should be phrased as such. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It does address the fact that it is the assertion of third parties, and not necessarily any purposeful intention on the creators though. I'm just mediating, I'm not taking sides, but I really wish both sides would consider this so we call can move onto other aspects of this encyclopedia-writing project. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It feels a bit weasel wordy to me- I understand that it'd in some part satisfy what some editors believe is best for the article, but the golden mean fallacy is a thing. There's no point to adding 'allegations' because there are concerns that the section shouldn't be there. What I'd really prefer to see are additional sources added which discuss the sexualisation of Quiet in other ways- perhaps talking about how her clothing is used in the story (absorbing sunlight and stuff), and why Kojima might have designed Quiet the way he did. Essentially, rather than just pointing out Quiet's character design, the section might also talk about why she was sexualised and how that was used in the story. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty disappointed that neither side will compromise in the least. If this is how things are going to be, pretty soon I think I'll bow out and let you all argue into oblivion then... Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's truly not my intent to argue into oblivion, and I do appreciate the work you've done so far in mediating this discussion. I believe the additions I proposed in the previous comment would help alleviate concerns that the coverage of Quiet's sexualisation are undue or biased in favour of one side. Kojima has spoken about how he believed his sexualisation of Quiet was necessary in order to convey elements of that characters story and personality, as well as background (spoilers: ultra skin parasites save her from a firey death and they need to be exposed to the elements for her to survive.) By adding sources which cover this, it would be a more rounded summary of Quiet's sexualisation. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to compromise on account of people filling talkpages with opinionated griping. The criticism is completely focused on WP:IDONTLIKEIT-style arguments with no relevant basis in Wikipedia's policies. Virtually all of the complaints come from IP-users and single-purpose accounts (Fangrim, GaussDistribution, SulphurRip, 91.44.82.247, 217.87.109.249, 86.40.30.219, 217.87.96.182) while at least a half-dozen established users have considered the sub-section on Quiet entirely appropriate.

This has all the tell-tale signs of being yet another reiteration on the general theme of hardcore gamers trying to mold video game articles to their liking. This discussion should be closed and the participants urged to move on to more constructive activities.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Discuss the article, not the editor. (Sergecross73) made that point and I have stuck to it since they made the point. My time is limited and the article I want to help with is an old article that not a lot of active people are viewing. I apologize if you think Im a single-purpose account. I would suggest we don't start discussing editors or their intention, that seems a sure fire way to get nothing done (This applies to both points of the argument here). In fact I have argued with keeping your sources and comments in the article, just not as their own section. Fangrim (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Fiddlesticks. We have Wikipedia:Single-purpose account for a reason. Stop asking the same question over and over.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If this is the level of discourse we are going to have then I guess I will have to ignore you. Turning the discussion towards editors isn't useful and will result in mud slinging at each other. GuassDistribution brought up some good points and was willing to discuss them in the talk page, rather than hurl accusations. I posted to support the consensus SergeCross73 had asked for.Fangrim (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

My changes

These changes I've made seem uncontroversial:

• This removes what seems to be a WP:BLP violation.
• This fixed a confusing sentence that seemed to say critics were criticizing the focus on the thing being criticized, rather than criticizing the thing itself.

—Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed your second point. Not sure the first is a BLP violation, but if it's not stated in the source, it can be removed too. Sergecross73 msg me 03:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with these. Arguably, the first could be sourced, but if it were to be sourced it'd be better to put in the article on the series as a whole rather than here specifically. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The title of the source for the supposed BLP-violation is titled "Quiet embodies Metal Gear's complex relationship with women" and the article content describes just that. The full quote is as follows (excerpt in article in bold):

"It's not that Metal Gear is above criticism (it certainly isn't, and Metal Gear's casual sexism deserves to be taken to task constantly), but like the madcap plot's anime absurdity and over-abundance of hand-waving 'nanomachines', its juvenile approach to sexuality is just one of those quirks of Kojima's auteurship that you kind of have to let wash over you while you play, rolling your eyes at its dumb jokes while muttering 'Goddamit, Kojima' under your breath."

The statement "quirks of Kojima's auteurship" is clearly equivalent to "typical of Kojima". Anyone who disagrees is welcome to present an alternative interpretation.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel like "typical of" seems dismissive in tone, not quite in line with the way an encyclopedia should be phrasing things. How about changing:

• example of a "juvenile approach to sexuality" typical of Kojima and...

to

• example of a "juvenile approach to sexuality" that typifies Kojima's work and...

—Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, Torchiest. I agree that your suggestion sounds more neutral.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I is wikipedia an encyclopedia or a platform for social justice? I cannot tell anymore 77.100.129.163 (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is only adding what third party sources have said. Blame the changing times and not the website or its guidelines. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly this. We write based off of what reliable, third parties write about. They've chosen to write about Quiet in this regard. I've suggested multiple times for editors to find commentary from reliable sources covering other aspects of Quiet, but so far no one has presented anything for inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The above user does not seem to be here to engage in constructive discussion. Here's an example of abuse left on my talkpage.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of sexualization in Metal Gear Solid 5

Allright with the current quiet controversy I was thinking that both sides have a point. One on hand wikipedia is presenting it as fact that Quiet is sexist, when it is opinion, and the spotlight on the subsection is odd and doesn't follow a precedent. On the other hand these articles are sourced and there are no sources stating the opposite (Though no opinion comes into play here). It also skips things like a certain character returning in nothing but her underwear. As a compromise could we replace the "Sexual Potrayal of Quiet" wtih "Allegations of sexism" or a subsection that can allow criticism of Kojimas potrayal of females in the article without everyone yelling? This would present the subsection as not fact, but rather opinion, and expand on it to allow for more content that focuses on more than just one character. Alternatively, can we move this to the Metal gear (series) section? There we can cover EVA from Metal gear solid 3, Raiden from Metal Gear solid 2 and other examples. Fangrim (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Did reliable sources make allegations of sexualized ion towards these other characters? Especially Raiden? Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you're moving in circles if you're going back to advocating for moving the sourced information about MGSV to a different article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

And what about expanding the section to cover Paz and to cover all allegations of sexism for Metal gear Solid V? Fangrim (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You're...not putting together the best proposal here. This lacks any sort of focus, you're proposing all kinds of stuff here and as such, you're never going to get any consensus to support anything. Pick one concise idea (Rename the section from X to Y) and ask for input. If you're going to propose all these other ideas, you should do them one at a time, and specify the actual content/sources you're proposing. You're not going to garner any support with vague unsourced generalizations. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Give him a break. He might not be able to express himself very well ;) Edit: I have changed Fangrim's section title. Sexism wasn't the topic. It was Sexualization or rather the portrayal of her which some felt was "sexualized".

(Also glad to see things seem to have cooled down. Both sides should refuse to be hostile and instead have a reasoned discussion.)

I think one of his suggestions was to move the section to the general MGS Article and cover some of the other charaacters there, too. I don't think that's necessary. For those cases, we would utilize the MGS Chracter Pages, which you seem to reject, because you want to have this particular criticism/review of 1 character on the MGS5 Page.

I was wondering if we need to create seperate sections for each of the reviews? A section for the IGN review, a section for EGM's review, a section for GameInformer's review and so on? What's your take on this? GaussDistribution (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no policy, guideline, or precedent to suggest every review needs its own subsection. I'm not sure why you'd think that. I hope this isn't another round-about way of suggesting that we don't need a section about Quiet. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There are no Wikipedia-wide quotas on content about specific aspects of any topic. Inclusion and relevance is decided on an article-by-article basis. No amount of criticism of Quiet added to (or removed from) Metal Gear (series) or list of characters in the Metal Gear series is going to affect the relevance of similar content in this article.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if people misunderstood me. I got rambly while I was thinking about characters in metal gear solid. Im hoping we can expand the subsection to be "Allegations of sexism in metal gear solid V" so that we can cover topics like Paz or the way it presents female characters. It was never my intention to get rid of the quiet criticism or move it. If we can get sourced articles would anyone be opposed to expanding the subsection? Fangrim (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I've encouraged editors to expand the scope of coverage on Quiet to cover other facets of her nature, its just that no one's been willing or able to do so. The same would go for what you're proposing - if you found significant reliable source coverage on the sexualization of other characters in the game, that would be a plausible approach as well, in theory. (It would all depend on what was being said, and who was saying it though. WP:VG/S has a list of commonly accepted or rejected sources for video game related articles on Wikipedia, FYI.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify: "allegations" is not a relevant description of criticial opinions about a work of fiction. It would be as inappropriate as referring to harsh reviews as "allegations of poor gameplay" or "allegations of substandard graphics". It's clearly a way to insert counter-criticism based on the views of Wikipedia editors, not other sources. In other words, the current section heading is perfectly neutral and descriptive. The addition of "allegations" is something else.

As for Paz, criticsm of her portrayal is already covered in Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes which is a separate title. It seems more appropriate to add a summarized version of the this in Metal Gear (series) (along with criticism aimed at other Metal Gear games).

Peter ^Isotalo 15:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be as inappropriate as referring to harsh reviews as "allegations of poor gameplay" or "allegations of substandard graphics".

We seem to be in agreement. Notice how we don't have sections titled "poor gameplay" or "substandard graphics". Sections to which we would, using your example, counter-criticize by saying "allegations of X".

There's usually NEITHER the "allegation" side NOR the "specific criticism" side ;)

If there are no sections titled "substandard graphics" or "poor gameplay", why should there be a section with the criticism in question?

You've demonstrated pretty well that you do understand what is acceptable and what would constitute a good article.

It's ok to integrate this criticism (with a more professional wording) with the critical reception section, like it's usually done. You won't lose face. GaussDistribution (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay, graphics and the likes are all part of the regular review process of games. This is an issue that has been covered in reviews, opinion pieces and news articles. It's an unusual but notable exception. As such, it's perfectly normal to cover it under a separate section. And the heading for that section is still perfectly neutral.

You're making a very clever argument, but it's based on the false assumption that any exceptional content or layout must be removed unless we can come up with some paragraph to support it. That's not how things work. No policies are being violated and the conensus is that neutrality is not an issue.:Peter ^Isotalo 16:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130601152527/http://www.gamespot.com:80/shows/gamespot-live/?event=the-core-of-mgs-ground-zeroes-20130327 to http://www.gamespot.com/shows/gamespot-live/?event=the-core-of-mgs-ground-zeroes-20130327
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121016015329/http://www.gamespot.com:80/news/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-includes-mother-base-day-night-cycle-6397373 to http://www.gamespot.com/news/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-includes-mother-base-day-night-cycle-6397373
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130208224458/http://metalgearsolid.nl:80/?p=4571 to http://metalgearsolid.nl/?p=4571
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130122015109/http://www.youtharabia.com:80/gaming/one-on-one-with-hideo-kojima/ to http://www.youtharabia.com/gaming/one-on-one-with-hideo-kojima/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121209075903/http://www.gamespot.com/news/the-phantom-pain-revealed-6401275 to http://www.gamespot.com/news/the-phantom-pain-revealed-6401275

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of quotes in 'Portayal of Quiet'

I don't agree that removing the direct quotes in this section aids the section, nor is it 'more professional'. Also, changing "that typifies Kojima's work and the Metal Gear series as a whole" to "intended by Kojima and present in many games of the Metal Gear Solid Series" changes the meaning of the text to something not intended by the source. As such, I have reverted the edit by brand new user ShiningExample. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I take it you're not willing to compromise to improve the wording of the section? That would be unfortunate. If you are inclined to open yourself up for compromise it would be prudent to offer alternatives which reflect the source better (if you think the message has been altered too much). I will, in any case, remove that unnecessary blanket-statement (funny sidenote: "A negative affirmation" -> Isn't that a negation?), while we can work on figureing out a way to make the latter part sound more professional without reducing the criticism. Edit: Not a brand-new User. Just a brand-new account. I'm not interested in associating my primary account with this. I will, of course, not participate in any votes on this account. ShiningExample (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, your bold edit doesn't stay on the article until a consensus is achieved. Why do you believe including this direct, sourced quote is unprofessional? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you believe it is? It's not only not very notable, it's irrelevant to the article, as it talks about the game-industry and tries to characterize a diverse group as something negative, which is (as you know) unacceptable anywhere else on the wikipedia. We don't use sources to call every muslim a terrorist (or every terrorist a muslim for that matter) just because a source happens to have that opinion (or calling every white person a racist for that matter. The list goes on and on). Do you think you can find something that's better suited than calling the game-industry "full of man-babies"? btw: the second edit was auto-reverted via Huggle. You remain the only editor so far who seems to disagree with the removal of contentious labels and blanket-statements. I invite you to contribute to improving the article together with me, rather than edit-warring. ShiningExample (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop acting like you don't share the blame here, you're equally involved it the editing, yet it's you who has failed to follow WP:BRD and failed to find a new Consensus for your edits. I don't find your edits to be an improvement either. Your edits looks like the same POV pushing this article has consistently seen since the game's release - fans trying to soften the wording of a viewpoint they don't personally don't agree with. We write according to what sources say, not your personal opinions or poor analogies. The original version is completely sourced and put on proper context. Sergecross73 msg me 10:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"I'm not interested in associating my primary account with this."

That's suspicious in itself. There's only a handful of legitimate reasons for having multiple accounts, and almost all of them require disclosure of ypur having multiple accounts.

'I invite you to contribute to improving the article together with me. "

Firstly, this kind of rhetoric is almost identical to the rhetoric used by every other editor who has attempted to remove the sections that you're objecting to.

Secondly, and more importantly, if you want to make constructive edits, you can start by dropping the straw man arguments, such as this:

"We don't use sources to call every muslim a terrorist (or every terrorist a muslim for that matter) just because a source happens to have that opinion (or calling every white person a racist for that matter. The list goes on and on)."

As has been pointed out, the consensus is to keep the article as it is. It has endured multiple challenges, and I will remind you that discretionary sanctions are still in effect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Local Consensus appears to be frozen. I wonder if anyone is happy with that. "I don't find your edits to be an improvement either." I cordially invite you to offer an alternative. If you're not interested in working together with other editors, even if they have a position which differs from yours, please do not participate (or worse: stonewall).

"fans trying to soften the wording of a viewpoint they don't personally don't agree with." how about not being prejudiced? Not everyone you encounter is your enemy. I can only offer my assistance again: Let's work together. I'm sure we can find a good solution, if you just drop the unnecessary hostility. Also, as I have mentioned on PeterTheFourth's Talkpage, I have no particular viewpoint on that game. I'm actually opposed to the unnecessary amount of praise and I'm in favour of reducing it, if consensus can be established for that. People shouldn't get their game-reviews from the wikipedia. There are sites dedicated to that. The difference between the praise and the criticism is that currently, the criticism sounds hostile and antagonizing for no good reason. It also focuses on the game-industry (based on some tweets, no less) and does so in a hostile, unhelpful and overall irrelevant way. Criticize the game all you like. I don't mind. Just don't use the wikipedia as a vehicle to bash diverse groups.

"As has been pointed out, the consensus is to keep the article as it is." Do you have diffs that prove there has been a consensus for that? As far as I can tell, someone inserted it and it went pretty much un-challenged. I also dislike the fact that you interpret polite and charitable behaviour as some sort "rhetoric". What's the alternative? Being impolite? Uncivil? Will anything I say be confirmation for your assumption that I am for some reason your enemy?

I hope your next response will be less hostile and more productive. Unless you're not interested in cooperation. In which case I hope you say so outright as to not waste my time. I do believe that you are willing to improve it, but for that, you gotta relax. This applies to all participants. I get that being involved in all sorts of conflict can make editors cautious. Starting to see enemies even when there aren't any comes with the territory, unfortunately.

If my edits offended you, I apologize. I wasn't aware people are this invested or even entrenched. Let me know if you're open to compromise. (If not, this might need to go the formal route of dispute resolution. I'll leave it up to you if you initiate it, if need arises.) I'll wait for your suggestions before I offer mine. ShiningExample (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"I can only offer my assistance again: Let's work together. I'm sure we can find a good solution. "

We already have one - the article is fine as is.

'Local Consensus appears to be frozen."

No, local consensus has been established and stable for some time. Just because you disagree doesn't automatically mean that the consensus is unresolved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Still no diffs. Would you mind presenting them? Edit: Stable and Frozen are different things. If people are unwilling to edit this article because every new editor gets bitten and the experienced editors have grown tired of it, doesn't mean it's stable. It just means people have grown apathetic. I couldn't care less, but I think your behaviour is very unhelpful. And although you have been blocked on several occasions, I believe you are capable of cooperation. Also, your argument that the "article is fine as is" is of course a red herring. It's neither a GA nor FA and I don't see it being nominated in the future either (assuming it will remain in its current state). You'd have a point if it was. As long as it doesn't, it needs to be worked on, assuming people won't bite or stonewall.ShiningExample (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"If people are unwilling to edit this article because every new editor gets bitten and the experienced editors have grown tired of it, doesn't mean it's stable. It just means people have grown apathetic."

None of which has happened. You're assuming that a lack of consensus in line with your preferred edits means consensus has frozen. Did you ever stop consider that the consensus was formed was in the best interests of the article?

"And although you have been blocked on several occasions, I believe you are capable of cooperation."

In this case, "cooperation" means "agreeing with me".

You have yet to make any compelling argument for the removal of the content. It boils down to "I don't like the source", and you don't like it because you disagree with the composer's opinion. All of it is nothing more than a POVPUSH. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• ShiningExample - The past discussions on this are present on the talk page, and on the archive pages for the talk page. You're free to propose rewordings, but 1) if they don't garner support, then per WP:NOCONSENSUS, they aren't implemented (which is your current situation) and 2) Wikipedia is to be written by what is conveyed by third party sources, and your current approach of removing the direct quotes because you don't agree with them goes against that. I mean, conceptually, how is removing direct quotes going to get the message closer to the source's content? Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with the removal of that quote about "Man babies", it definitely does not come across as something made by a neutral person, it doesn't come across as encylopedic, it's colloquial and thus doesn't make sense to everyone, no reason is given as to why the individual's opinion is relevant, and while my knowledge of Halo is loose at best, he is a designer on a game with a naked blue AI character yes? Just doesn't belong. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

David Ellis's opinion is both relevant and notable, given his position in the video game industry. I think being a designer on Halo should afford him some measure of respect for his opinion on video games. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

He's a notable, AAA industry veteran, and his commentary was covered by a number of very reliable sources in the video game industry (GameSpot, Polygon (websites), etc.) Industry commentary, by the industry members, covered by reliable sources? That's extremely usable and relevant in the Wikipedia world. Also, take note that he's not calling them that, but rather, he feels Quiet reinforced that already existing stereotype. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

New cat

Need to add Category:Video games containing microtransactions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.27.214 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Metal Gear Online (2015)

Shouldn't Metal Gear Online get a separate article? It's technically a separate game with its own title screen, play mechanics, rules, ect. There's already a Metal Gear Online article, but it's for the 2008 version that came included with Metal Gear Solid 4 until 2012. I'm thinking of either, merging all the info there or just split them into two articles (Metal Gear Online (2008) and Metal Gear Online (2015)) and create a disambiguation page for both. Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think its just that no one's gotten around to making a separate article yet. I would think there's enough coverage/sourcing for all of the games to have their separate articles if someone were to actually write them. You'd want to make them decently detailed though, if you go about making a stub that just says Metal Gear Online is a 2015 video game, its just going to lead to redirect/mergers and ensuing arguments over it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you buy Metal Gear Online without purchasing The Phantom Pain? If it isn't standalone, I definitely think we can expand it here, instead of splitting a page for it. "Metal Gear Online" also exists in Subsistence and Portable Ops, but they don't have their own page. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://gamingeverything.com/48904/snakes-voice-actor-in-metal-gear-solid-v-to-be-revealed-during-konamis-pre-e3-show/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120902084914/http://uk.gamespot.com/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes/previews/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-shows-off-fox-engine-shine-and-possible-open-world-elements-6393924/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes/previews/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-shows-off-fox-engine-shine-and-possible-open-world-elements-6393924/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.at7addak.com/en/Articles/226681/Features/PS3/Hideo-Kojima-Interview
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151114024126/http://thegameawards.com/nominees/ to http://thegameawards.com/nominees/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Game portal/topics

@Dissident93: Hi, I would like to discuss about this, instead of continuing reverting edits.

You're right, maybe Biology portal could seem inappropriate but, I support its insert here, since Metal Gear's top topics have always been genetics, for example, which even in this game is relevant, but above all because of thematics about evolution and things like vocal cords parasites, which are central in this game. Sure it's fictional, of course, and because of this "Speculative fiction" portal is there to remind it. It would be wrong not to add the other portals, but to remove speculative fiction; don't know if you understand what I mean. "Speculative fiction" is there to say to you "this games is also about speculative fiction".

"Japan portal" simply because it is one of the recent japanese modern games, along for example with Final Fantasy, to be a mainstream success. But I can understand its removal, so I can agree.

"Linguistics" well, no need to say it. If you know this chapter, you know they are probably the true theme of the game. And "Weapons of mass destruction"....I mean, come on, it's a Metal Gear game - Metal Gear itself is a weapon of mass destruction, sure fictional, but it's so.

So while I can understand removing Japan and Biology portal, I would suggest to keep the others. Then the fact that it's just fictional, a video game, yes it's true, but this does not exclude the themes it talks about. Then it's simply Metal Gear, a series known for its strong thematics discussions, as the article itself says "acknowledged its emotional power and exploration of mature themes".

I hope I well explained my reasons. A pleasure to collaborate. 87.19.216.216 (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've played the game, so I know full well the context of all of these. I simply think that if the article isn't a part of the relevant projects, such as WP:BIOLOGY and WP:LINGUISTICS, then it shouldn't use those portals. It's a work of fiction, and I can only see these belonging is if it had an impact outside of the in-game universe, such as Pokemon, Mario, or Pac-Man. The themes of the game better belong as categories, as you can see with Category:Genetic engineering in fiction and Category:Parasites in fiction. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. It's just that I think a bit link to those portals was good, nothing more or less. Not to say that it is directly related, just because of the themes it has. I would not underestimate Metal Gear impact outside of the in-game universe. But sure, it's not Pokemon. On the other hand, those portals in this article have been there for months and other users didn't see them as an out topic.

Well, if you do not agree, I give up. I tried. I'll make it easy, no sense to keep reverting edits. 87.19.218.62 (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC) [Previously 87.19.216.216]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2017

The third paragraph currently states "The Phantom Pain was critically acclaimed upon release, add Morgan Turville-Heitz on facebook..com with its gameplay drawing praise for featuring a variety of mechanics and interconnected systems..." The part about adding someone on facebook should be removed. 4.16.80.62 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Vandalism was reverted. – Hounder4 18:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)