"=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  

=="