Talk:Grand Theft Auto V

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2024

Since i dont have 10 contributions yet i cant edit this myself but i think someone else can, its kind of a useless change but its still a change.

The change being to add a predecessor and a successor in the infobox Paniniguy69 (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Revenue update

The sources that I have attached below indicates that the game's revenue figures have increased to "nearly $10 billion" this year. Please update the article with this latest revenue figure. Thanks. https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/grand-theft-auto-vi-trailer-surpasses-475-million-views-in-one-day/article69552079.ece

https://www.finance-monthly.com/2025/05/how-much-money-has-rockstar-made-from-the-grand-theft-auto-games/

This figure is further confirmed by Fortune (https://fortune.com/2025/05/06/grand-theft-auto-vi-second-trailer/), stating that the game has earned more than $9.5 billion in worldwide revenue. 45.121.88.211 (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Done: revenue updated FormulaFreak1 (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Why was the latest revision removed?

this was a trans woman airing her greviences against censorship. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not YouTubers' grievances. Your edit also included a 600+ word quote, which is incredibly overkill—sources should be summarised, not copied directly—and was poorly formatted. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

you mean a youtuber that has years of industry experience, is a trans woman. and has also done research on such things. and has a voice to say not only from her own skin but on the bleak affair of weaponized calls for compassion? i'll edit it better but goodness. to call it "a youtuber's grevience" is to REALLY not know who she is. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Unless there is prior recognition of the YouTube being an authority, this is basically the inclusion of one person's complaint about the game (even if it morally correct) and not appropriate at all. Masem (t) 13:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

so it can only be recognized if her authority. where she has many articles out speaking on such things. published.

How is this different from "you need prior work experience to get an entry level job"? and that some how a morally correct complaint isn't... appropriate when this article allows the complaints about... ?

i'm just having a really hard time understanding.

and then with her publications, how, through benevolent transphobia has forced her out of other publications and to be freelance because of the very homoginous corrupt media she reports on making sure she, a trans woman, stays silent? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

My use of "grievances" was simply mirroring yours—not a judgement of the video or its creator. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Mirroring? how?

you publish and accept the same kind of opinion piece by Peteit only one type of grevience from someone who arguably has less credentals, that arguably when she "says she doesn't call for censorship" then call for censorship in the next few paragraphs and makes a very unscientific grevience with the words.

"Anti-trans rhetoric and imagery fuels the flames of transphobia, making our lives harder, more precarious, and more dangerous....

In many ways, we trans people are fighting for our lives right now. Rockstar has to decide if it cares about that enough to make a few adjustments to its eight-year-old game, or if it wants to keep perpetuating these negative stereotypes even as they feel increasingly dated, callous, and harmful."

when that is reductive, assuming intent as if she mind reads.

Yet Carolyn isn't seen in the same light all because she's published in a certian place... that has problems of vericity and validity and been caught many times as such? that's some how up to standards? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

that some how, a publication that has been proven guilty, multiple times, of lying and a contingent that has accused cyperpunk 2077 of "cauising harm" to trans people. harm that did not and does not manifest. that has not manifested despite the panic about 'harmful' things in the game that was removed due to pressure arm twisting and coersion in the conceit of tolerance and safety...

that same source less grevience is some how more credible than someone doing a youtube video? despite her having the best footage of the riots in 2020? when she was on the ground there?

some how that makes her less qualified than someone doing the same thing on kotaku that has far less credibility as a publication?

she's called a garbage human by so called mental health advocates in the gaming space just for expsing the dirt. she's been published in state media and cut ties after the invasion. But she's not pro putin. she's slandered as such to be sure.

but ok. how would we go about VETTING her? when Carolyn is some how showing a low or no standard of vetting?

https://x.com/SophiaNarwitz/status/1602793655047184384 MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

If you would like to raise issues about GameSpot or Kotaku, or discuss Narwitz's reliability, the best venue would likely be WT:VG/S. I would strongly recommend doing so succinctly and with evidence. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

ok how would i do that? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The same way you started this discussion here; alternatively, there's a big blue "Click here" box near the top of the page. Present your evidence and wait for responses. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

thanks.

i hope this iis enough https://archive.org/details/gta-5-virtual-rape-controversy MisteOsoTruth (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

You appeared to take issue with my use of the word "grievances"; I was just clarifying that my use was only mirroring yours. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Hi. so how would i even BEGIN to add these sources in to the wikipedia page

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.

---

https://archive.org/details/gta-5-virtual-rape-controversy/GTA+5++Virtual+Rape++Controversy.mp4

this touches on a lot of topics of censorship and the like and also goes beyond the scope of this article. however. relevant things are relevant. and we have Sam Mags furthering one of the most sensationalist instances of journalism.. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear what changes you're seeking to make with this link. The CityNews report seems slightly beyond the scope of this article (more about gamers/mods than the game itself), and the second video is a YouTube video, a self-published source. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

which i've put in the request for her to be recogonized as a journalist in her own right. there's also the soft language and bias against the criticism of the criticism of the game. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

what isn't clear. it's distinct yellow journalism and a sensationalist panic. going right under controversy. that the claims of problematic content were and are a moral panic. such that people were lying about the content in game. there was no virtual rape in game. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

all directly and with a huge focus on gta 5. because controversies pay. truth and reason be damned. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I should note that the person critiquing the game for potentially offensive elements wasn't the same as the news organization claiming it had "virtual rape", and it's absurd to conflate the two as the same thing. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

FAIR! 24.177.54.113 (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

oh dang it i thought i cited the video over here https://archive.org/details/gta-5-virtual-rape-controversy

because it litterally says "virtual rape concerns" right at the beginning of the CITY NEWS REPORT.

however. i think i cited it incorreclty and didn't give the proper writing or dellination it deserves. the yellow journalism still is extent because that news report is. indeed, misleading by sheer fact that such features in the game do not so exist.

it's sensationalist and false to say the least. is that not the same? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The CityNews report is not referenced in this article, so your issues with it seem to have little relevance here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

i referenced it in my edit. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If you have significant concerns about a source's reliability, you probably shouldn't add it to the article yourself. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Making claims of yellow journalism without reliable sources to support it is original research. We can't make those accusations ourselves; we need to attribute those to others. This article does not mention "virtual rape" at all. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

oh dang it i thought i cited the video over here https://archive.org/details/gta-5-virtual-rape-controversy

because it litterally says "virtual rape concerns" right at the beginning of the CITY NEWS REPORT. 24.177.54.113 (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

VERY FAIR oh dang it i thought i cited the video over here https://archive.org/details/gta-5-virtual-rape-controversy

because it litterally says "virtual rape concerns" right at the beginning of the CITY NEWS REPORT.

which i thought i cited there . i copy and pasted the wrong dang thing. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

You shared the video correctly, but it still does not cite your claims of "yellow journalism". – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

how? it's lies about what is in the game's content and explosively sensationalist and misleading headlines for shock value over something that was not extent.

the news media was lying. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

As has been mentioned many times, this is all original research: it is your own analysis of the topic. That's fine, but it has no place on Wikipedia without being explicitly supported by reliable sources. We cannot make claims that the CityNews report is "yellow journalism" unless reliable sources do it first. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I think your patience is admirable, Rhain. This to me looks like MisteOsoTruth is willingly WP:NOTGETTINGIT that Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been loosely following this discussion for a while, and I feel that, given this recent edit, I'm inclined to believe MisteOsoTruth is just trolling at this point. GSK (talk • edits) 14:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Their account is entirely focused on advocacy and arguing, and not on actually writing content (their talkspace edits outnumber their mainspace ones by over 100—only a single edit in the latter before this week). I really want to take them seriously, hear them out, and explain Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, but I fear we're just going in circles at this point. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

well if you already have your mind made up and believe it then how am I going to do anything different? because when it comes to advocacy I see that the places I've edited have been nothing but that MisteOsoTruth (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

that's called dismissal.there are the facts there are the sources I included them the best I could. on a clearly biased article. but for some reason that bias seems to slip under your radar. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

and yet some of the Articles remain incredibly partial. even with edits and the like that had been maliciously done with the edit Wars. advocacy absolutely runs through you there have been revisions and very curious ones to certain pages to reflect only certain ideas. impartiality be damned MisteOsoTruth (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2025 (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.