Jump to content

Talk:Video game controversies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.65.245.94 (talk) at 17:07, 9 April 2009 (→Who was the 35-year-old who committed suicide?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Boothe

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

War Games

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

Cleanup

The templates at the top of this article show several unresolved issues. I think the proper course of action would be to start adding verifiable citations to any claims this article makes, then to apply fair treatment to any conflicting views.Oobyduby (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of some sources I used for a recent term paper about violence and video games, including some research papers and books:
  • Anderson, Craig Alan. Violent video game effects on children and adolescents. Oxford, New

York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Anderson, Craig A., Bushman, Brad J. “Media Violence and the American Public: Scientific Facts Versus Media Misinformation.” American Psychologist 56.6 (2001): 477-481.

  • Anderson, Craig A., Bushman, Brad J. “Violent Video Games and Hostile Expectations: A Test

of the General Aggression Model.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28.12 (2002): 1679-1686.

  • Anderson, Craig A., Dill, Karen. “Video games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and

Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78.4 (2000): 722-790.

  • Bartels, Lynn and Crowder, Carla. “Fatal Friendship.” Denver Rocky Mountain News 22

August 1999.

  • Benedetti, Winda. “Were Video Games to Blame for Massacre?” 20 April 2007. MSNBC. 27

January 2008. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18220228/>

  • Borland, John and King, Brad. “A Brief History of Videogame Controversy.” 9 September 2003.

G4 TV. 26 January 2008. <http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/features/45301/A_Brief_History_of_Videogame_Controversy.html>

  • Boyer, Brandon. “Senate Proposes New ESRB Legislation.” 27 September 2006. Gamasutra. 26

January 2008. <http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11030>

  • Bradley, Ed. “Can A Video Game Lead to Murder?” 6 March 2005. CBS News. 1 February

2008. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678261.shtml>

  • Campbell, Colin. “Editor’s View: Gaming vs News Media.” 2 February 2008. Next Generation.

4 February 2008. <http://www.nextgen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8940&Itemid=2&limit=1&limitstart=1>

  • Crawford, Chris. The Art of Computer Game Design. Vancouver: Washington State University,

1982.

  • Ferris, Duke. “Caution: Children At Play: The Truth about Violent Youth and Video Games.” 19

October 2005. Game Revolution. 22 January 2008. <http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames>

  • Fowles, J. The Case for Television Violence. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing, 1999.
  • Fuchs, David. "Questions regarding violent video game-violence link and evidence." E-mail to
  • Craig Anderson. 4 February 2008.
  • Freedman, Jonathan L. Media violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific

evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002.

  • Goldstein, Jeff. “Does Playing Violent Video Games Cause Aggressive Behavior?” 27

October 2001. University of Chicago, Cultural Policy Center. 22 January 2008. <http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/goldstein.html>

  • Gonzalez, Lauren. “When Two Tribes Go to War: A History of Video Game Controversy.”
  • Gamespot.com. CNET Network. 20 January 2008. <http://www.gamespot.com/features/6090892/index.html>
  • Graybill, Daniel, et al. “Effects of Playing versus Observing Violent versus Nonviolent Video Games on Children's Aggression.” Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior 24.3 (1987): 1-8.
  • Gunter, Barrie. The Effects of Video Games on Children: The Myth Unmasked. Sheffield,

UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

  • Grossman, David. Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill : A Call to Action Against TV, Movie

and Video Game Violence. New York: Crown Publishing, 1999.

  • Hillis, Scott. “Microsoft says ‘Halo’ 1st-Week Sales Were $300 Mln” 4 October 2007. Reuters

UK. 21 January 2008. <http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUKN0438777720071005>

  • Jenkins, Henry. “Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked”. PBS: The Video

Game Revolution. 28 January 2008. <http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html>

  • Kellerman, Jonathan. Savage Spawn: Reflections on Violent Children. New York, New

York: Ballantine Books, 1999.

  • Kirsh, S. J. “Seeing the World Through ‘Mortal Kombat’-colored Glasses: Violent Video

Games and Hostile Attribution Bias.” Childhood 5.2 (1998).

  • Morris, Dave. Game Art: The Art of Computer Games. New York : Watson-Guptill, 2003.
  • Satcher, David. “Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General.” United States Department

of Health and Human Services. 2 February 2008. <http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/toc.html>

  • Schwann, Philip. “Evaluating Evidence for A Violence-violent videogame link.” Journal of New

Social Science 2.16 (2003): 106-109.

  • Schiesel, Seth. “Author Faults a Game, and Gamers Flame Back” 26 January

2008. New York Times. 27 January 2008. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/arts/television/26mass.html?ex=1359003600&en=dc98d4989e01466e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink>

  • Sherry, J.L. “The Effects of Violent Video Games on Agression: A Meta-Analysis.” Human

Communication Research 3.27 (2001): 409-431.

  • Smith, Tony. “Grand Theft Auto Firm Faces ‘Murder Training’ Lawsuit.” 17
  • February 2005 The Register. 26 January 2008. <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/17/taketwo_gta_lawsuit/>
  • Sternheimer, Karen. “Do Video Games Kill?” Contexts 6.1 (2007): 13-17.
  • Tilley, Steven. “New Windows Open up to Halo 2.” Toronto Sun 12 February 2006.
  • Trautmann, Eric. The Art of Halo. New York: Del Ray Publishing, 2004.
  • Wollheim, Richard. Art and its objects, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1980.

  • Wright, Brad. “Sounding the alarm on video game ratings.” 18 February 2004. CNN. 26 January

2008. <http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/fun.games/12/19/games.ratings/>

  • “Law Library.” 20 December 2007. GamePolitics. 26 January 2008.

<http://gamepolitics.com/law-library/> It's a bit random, but I'm sure there's good stuff in there for using here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Rob I think you are so right parents are to blame and not video games. In Columbine however sad it was it wasn't Video games I mean seriously don't you think some kids are just dam syco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.247.165 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page rename

"Controversy" may be POV, but "explicitness debate" does not adequately cover the scope of this article. Although it does a poor job of talking about the subject (I wrote a term paper on the subject recently, so when I get the time I might be able to go through the thankless and boring task to improve it), this encompasses both concerns about explicit content, as well as violence-video game links and supposed 'man-child' crap and social issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even concede that having the word "controversy" in the title is a violation of WP:NPOV. When two parties disagree on a topic, there is a controversy. We are allowed to and even expected to report on those disagreements when they are encyclopedic. WP:NPOV requires only that we report on and talk about the disagreement in as fair and proportionate a way as we can. Rossami (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Controversy" is very rarely, if ever, used legitimately on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, what do you suggest? I'm trying to come up with a succinct title, but me mind's failing me at the moment... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Opposition"? Sceptre (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute Sceptre's contention that "controvery" is never used appropriately on Wikipedia. I'd point editors to the debate over this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unacceptable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive138#Unacceptable. Rossami (talk)

DC Snipers and Virginia Tech shooter

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

Uninteresting/Uncreative games

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

Counter Arguments

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

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

General Information on Violence in Video Games

The public should be aware of the harmful content that can be found in video games. That type of content is named human to human violence. The term itself should be easy to define, so no time will be wasted. Games such as Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, Goldeneye, and Hitman are all games that contain human to human content. Those games are all very popular in today's video game market. The public, especially parents, should be aware of what types of games their children are playing.

David Gale reports in his article, "Research Links Violence to Video Games", that nearly 145 million Americans play video games on a regular basis, and over 80% of those games contain violent content. Gale doesn't specify which type of violence are found in those games, but chances are that it is probably pretty harmful to the player and others involved. There is a problem there and something should be done or things will simply just keep getting worse.


What kind of harm is being done? How is that harm any different from the detailed violence (and explanation of how to commit violent crimes) that is presented to all viewers every night on one of 3 CSI shows? Taking into account how few violent incidences occur out of 145 million video game users solely as a result of video games (i.e. none, so far as we know--some component of mental health issues, abuse, etc are usually present and always more important, and video games are never the only violent stimuli present), I'd say that makes any links between the two statistically insignificant: you wouldn't be able to get even a decimal fraction of a percentage ratio...

However, test violent kids for abusive/troubled homes and/or mental health issues, and I'm sure you'd hit an easy 30% correlation at least... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.16.62 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Should be Done

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


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

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

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

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

Just archiving the external links from the article.--Kozuch (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rating systems

Legislation

Viewpoints of the video game controversy

Proponents of video game censorship

Proponents of video game caution, but not censorship

Neutral

Opponents of video game censorship

Reason for removal?

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

contested statements removed

  • Critics to these argue that many of the studies involved fail to use standardized and reliable measures of aggression, and many selectively discuss findings that support their hypothesized link between video games and aggression, and fail to discuss findings that disconfirm this link. {{Fact|date=December 2006}}
  • This episode of 60 Minutes has been criticized by the video game community. {{Fact|date=September 2007}}
  • In fact, there is considerable evidence that children actually represent a minority market, and the vast majority of players are adults, whose much greater disposable income represents a vastly more attractive market to game developers. {{Fact|date=July 2007}}

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

Rehabilitation

This article is atrocious. Having recently written a term paper on the subject of video game violence and controversy, I'm feeling like this can be a long-term goal for improvement. Here's a shortlist of what I think needs to happen:

  • Create a good overview of the history of video game controversy (prolly the hardest thing to do, since its not just violence, but content and game play itself)
  • Next: the breakdown of violence, nudity, obscenity, game play, sociological effects. These need to have their "counter-arguments" sections incorporated into the text, not segregated as troll fodder.
  • Legislation: Why not merge into NA, EU, Asia, et al sections?
  • Source and language: everything needs to be sourced, obviously, but I think of more pressing concern is reworking and reorganization, and the removal of total POV garbage.

Thoughts? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical

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

Quick Review

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

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

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

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

Merger proposal

In a few days (unless I hear howls of displeasure) I'm going to merge List of controversial video games into this article, largely replacing the bulleted list format with the table. I will also generate some internal links to sourced explanations of the controversies. However I will likely remove several unsourced or dubiously sourced "controvery" claims during the merger. If anyone objects to this or feels it should be conducted in a different fashion please let me know, I'm happy to do this a different way (or not do it at all) if I'm provided with some feedback. Protonk (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would get rid of the list entirely, but the resources found within the list are crucial to improving this, so we could do the change in stages... support the merge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a similar list a while back, which I have temporarily requested be userfied for the purpose of merge discussions (thus, anyone wanting to merge may make whatever use of the userfied page) at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/List of controversial games. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and quite strongly at that, I don't see why this is even desirable, let alone necessary. Embedding a navigational list into an article doesn't improve either, List of Virtual Boy games has no more entries than this list can realistically achieve so it's not about being to small either. A major problem with this article is the lists of games, which are doubtless there through good-faith but inexperienced editing, 'scaffolding' is a lot easier to throw together than flowing prose. When the article is about the subject at hand, not individual games within that subject, it will be possible to improve it. Instead of merging, I'd suggest leaving the list to grow and culling inappropriate lists from this one. Once that has happened, both will be easier to maintain because it will be obvious what kind of information and sourcing are expected. Someoneanother 17:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It lists all the controversal video games, but this article never said much about them. It's suitable for the article to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.152.24 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism

The article should definitely mention another issue about video games, sexism. I'll throw some topics oth there with counterpoints, hopefully we can all have a discussion before adding a new section.

    • Some games demean men as well. Additionally there is sexism in books as well, but this is an effect of the game creators themselves and varies with personal views. Women are not often scantily clad, they are only so with some games, generally the same as the ones in which men are also.

68.126.6.213 (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lead Paragraph

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

Err...

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

A biased article

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


POV much?

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

Publicized incidents

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

missing from the article

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

Joshua Nimm

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

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

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

"Weasel Words"?

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

Controversy outside the west

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

RapeLay

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

Citation?

"Several major studies by groups such as The Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health, The Journal of Adolescent Health, and The British Medical Journal have shown no conclusive link between video game usage and violent activity." Can someone give the citations for this claim? Link to the abstracts, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.110.110 (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally included the statement along with references. Those references are still in place, however another user later inlcuded an addendum, which while completely true, makes it a bit difficult to discern which references support which statements. I've repeated the appropriate references after the new sentence to make it clarify that they support both statements. S. Luke (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the 35-year-old who committed suicide?

His mother tried to sue Nintendo, blaming them for his death. What was his name? I was expecting to find it in this article.--70.65.245.94 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Video_game_controversies&oldid=282801644"