FANDOM


Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.
Forums: Index War Room Unamed Middle Eastern Country locations
Forum logo

I believe it is time we finally dealt with this page. After looking at in-game screenshots and satellite views in Google Maps I have deduced where each mission takes place. While it has been debated before this forum will spilt the page into 3 pages as the Middle Eastern segment of the game takes place in 3 different countries. While no name is never given it is never not given, it is never stated the entire Middle East is one unified country, nor do any quotes refer to it as such. Below you can see my images and any further supporting proof that these locations match the real life counter parts.

The Coup and The Bog - Al Qunfudhah, Saudi Arabia The_Coup.png The_Bog.png The_Coup_and_The_Bog_Google_Maps.png Geography matches up in terms of location and nearby islands, also in-game it's stated in The Bog there is a highway that goes right though the town, Al Qunfudhah also has this highway going though it.

Charlie Don't Surf - Kuwait City, Kuwait Charlie_Don%27t_Surf.png Charlie_Dont_Surf_Google_Maps.png This one is down to pure geography.

War Pig - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia War_Pig.png War_Pig_Google_Maps.png This one is a bit fuzzy, and I'm sorry for that. But as can be made it, it's central Saudi Arabia, and due West of the centre of that "pokey out bit". To further cement the claim Riyadh is the capital of Saudi Arabia, before this level this city is called the capital.

Shock and Awe - Ahvaz, Iraq Shock_and_Awe.png Shock_and_Awe_Google_Maps.png Down to geography again. Also a news reporter calls this the capital, this is the capital of Khuzestan Province, Iran. And since War Pig was also in the Capital, either the Capital got up and walked, or this is a different country.

So basically, let's split up the page and put it into the correct segments. And if anyone wants to say "But it says The Middle East on the scan" I would like to point out that's just the region, which all three countries are in. 16:58, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Yeah I think we should do this. It's from the game and although they're never mentioned, these are definitely where the missions take place according to the levels' preamble. I Pictogram voting support Support — updating the article to reflect these findings. Nice work.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  17:12, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this still technically speculation, since it's an inference rather than anything buried in the game files? 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk17:35, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Game files refers to some levels as Saudi Arabia. And since the world doesn't like shifting around every 5 minutes, the Geography isn't that easy to call speculative. 17:57, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
That's true, but it also directly contradicts the game's assertion that all the events take place in, to quote the opening cinematic, a "small, oil rich nation". Unless Al-Asad somehow has the resources to take over large areas of the Middle East in a few days. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk18:15, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking for that quote, and it's illusive as Ghost's fireproof vest quote. 18:28, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Here you are. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk18:30, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
I can't find it in any of the transcripts though. So either we've missed a line, or that line is faked for that video. 18:56, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Its only used in the intro to CoD4 I think. That intro has a ton of differences from the actual game so it might not be a good thing to use imo. Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 19:02, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
We already use it on the page for the country itself as part of the evidence for calling it "oil rich" in addition to the evidence of the offshore rigs. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk19:09, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Looking over the intro video, all you can make it is "US Marines were given the order to invade the small...", but if you cross-reference that in-game, the first level US Marines enter The Middle East is Charlie Don't Surf, which has been tagged as Kuwait, which is a small country, unless we're willing to call the entire Middle East small. 19:11, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Which brings me back to the argument I made about the absurdity of implying that Al-Asad was able to conquer much of the Arabian peninsular in around three days, if not less. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk19:13, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Menendez was in multiple countries with his private army. Should we call any location he was in "Unamed Earth Country". He doesn't need to own the country to be there. 19:16, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
That's a strawman and you know it. Let's actually try and dissect the argument, rather than applying the slippery slop fallacy. But in any case, there is the strong implication that this is all territory controlled by Al-Asad's forces, rather than them simply being holed up there. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk19:24, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
I have provided in-game screenshots along with real world geography, as well as in-game files referring to cut levels in the area as "Saudi Arabia" and the in-game quote shown at the beginning clearly refers to Kuwait, the first mission where you invade the Middle East. You're speculating he gained his power in the Middle East in 3 days, yet prior quotes claimed he is "Currently the second most powerful man in the Middle East.", meaning he could easily of gained this power before his coup. The argument you gave isn't backed up by solid evidence and is mainly made up of speculation of your own. I'm providing actual evidence in this forum from the game to back up the locations of these missions - it's not speculative, and even if it were, using your own speculation leads to a circular debate. 13:33, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
If the forum was about assigning random place names to these cities then yeah, it would be speculation, but there's clear evidence here as to what cities they are. I wouldn't call it speculation.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  19:17, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — Good analysis of where this country could be on here, which you could find useful: http://metalzerofour.tumblr.com/post/44223248500/call-of-duty-4 Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 19:13, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Also this evidence seems to suggest War Pig and The Bog are in competently different cities which is 100% wrong. Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 19:20, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Those are in-game screenshots, I doubt the game is wrong. 19:21, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
But this is a case where the cinematic contradicts the level, and I'm more inclined to believe the level. Unless Arbrams tanks in the MWverse have the ability to teleport everything within a kilometer, since nothing about the locale changes despite what the cinematic would have you believe. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk19:24, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Per ravens. I think the gameplay actually being in the same city overrides some random satellite imagery from a cutscene. Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 19:35, June 4, 2013 (UTC)


I agree Owen1983 (talk) 19:42, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

There's a few differing opinions going on here. Whom are you agreeing with? 19:44, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, slight change, I've been looking over War Pig and Bog, I'm now changing my War Pig location to here: War_Pig_2.png

Which is here. Makes more sense to walk to than the capital, and looking over the transcript it does say they're still pushing towards the capital, which would explain why it's not the Capital itself. 20:19, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, looks good.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  12:25, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — At the very least, I believe it is appropriate to have this information in the mainspace somewhere, as it is definitely worth mentioning.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  12:25, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I'll agree with that, but I'm still a little iffy on assuming these countries to be correct. The fact that it's a fictional universe means that the real-life countries might not even exist in the game. Joe Copp 02:04, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
It's based on real life history and geography, it's never tried to input a made-up country, nor has it ever tried to take one out. 10:20, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
"Based on" does not mean "is". Unless we have some sort of proof that it is identical to the real world, I would not recommend assuming it is. Joe Copp 02:52, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
Well on the ISS Mission Earth looked like Earth. And all the locations have been put exactly where there are in real life. Asking for proof that CoD takes place on the same planet is getting a bit stupid. As stated earlier, cut files refer to missions in this area as Saudi Arabia. 11:48, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
You're still basing your findings on an assumption. Articles of encyclopedic nature should not revolve around potentially incorrect information, no matter how small a point it may be. Also, to suggest it takes place on another planet is absurd, but to imagine that IW would have created new countries to avoid tastelessness and inaccuracies is highly plausible. Joe Copp 01:56, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
And the "Unamed Middle Eastern country" is a page made on assumption. Because it never explicitly said a name we've assumed IW has tried to make its own country, but in a universe that is based on our own it is far more plausible that the locations are based on real life places than the wikis own assumption that it is its own country. 08:19, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
Then what would have been the point of not naming the country in the first place? Joe Copp 23:40, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
That's a question to ask Infinity Ward. Perhaps it was simpler just to call the entire area "The Middle East" instead of giving exact locations. A lot of the nav points just give a general location as opposed to an exact name. Point being they never named it "Unnamed Middle Eastern Country", in fact they never called the entire area a country. Just because IW left that fact out we've assumed that the entire Middle East must be a country. 17:25, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Plausible gaff

One thing I noticed that looks off is War Pigs locater, this is quite far Northwest of The Bog's. I believe (this one doesn't have as much backing, so this one does need some faith put into it) this may of been done purely to make it look like you moved (During The Bog you have to head Northwest to meet up with War Pig). Now if we're willing to call that 1 location a gaff, then every other location makes sense. If not, then I still have all the above in-game locations and geography. 12:15, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah imo they probs did it just to show that they moved northwest Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 12:46, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Why not call it The Middle East (Modern Warfare series)? The game calls it The Middle East, why can't we refer to it like that instead of Unnamed Middle Eastern Country?  QVw9GKe.pngTimelessPeople  00:50, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Since all of the Modern Warfare locations are near exact to the locations that Sam found, I think it is safe to say the levels take place in those countries. Call of Duty has made multiple mistakes before with real life info, so it would make sense that the Bog to War Pig transition was just to simulate movement. As long as that is noted in the trivia of those articles, I support naming the countries of what Sam suggested. AntiScootaTwo (talk) 00:59, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Me too. The earlier comment was like a "Plan B"  QVw9GKe.pngTimelessPeople  01:09, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I think I found another gaff, while we're on the subject. As Sam said, "The Bog" apparently takes place in Al Qunfudhah, Saudi Arabia. But according to the opening scene for the next mission, "Hunted", Jackson and co. have somehow moved to Iran. Sgt. S.S. (talk) 16:22, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

No gaff. At the end of The Bog + War Pig you're extracted via helicopter. 22:35, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
That's not the transition you're thinking of. He's talking about the cutscene that separates The Bog and Hunted, while the team is digging in around the tank. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk22:36, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
As in the one that's mentioned as the header of this section? Also he mentioned that it was the transition from The Bog's area to Hunted's area. 23:04, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
Misunderstood Hunted as one of the Middle East missions, but anyway, that's just a general sweep of the Middle Eastern area, it doesn't say "Tracking..." like most of the other sat images do. 23:07, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not see what has changed since the last time we tried to do this. The inherent problem is that you are applying traits of our universe to that of the Call of Duty universe, which we know to be both different and fictional. Articles should be written from an in-universe perspective, so as to treat them as real and actual entities – otherwise, they are not particularly notable.

I appreciate the research that you have put into this, but all we are doing is speculating on geographic placement (something we know to be incorrect based on the immense transition in later levels, such as from the Altai Mountains to the Russia–Georgia border). As it stands, there is no source material from the series that would indicate where in the world these missions are taking place in, and in the grand scheme of things, the implication is that we will never know because it is not important. The closest we ever come is "a small, oil-rich country," which is an ironic description given the spread of Act I of Call of Duty 4.

The fact that it is unnamed should not really bother us. The ambiguity was intended and, in this case, is the most accurate, in-universe labeling of the country. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 17:23, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

The difference is in that forum I tried to name the entire region Kuwait, this time I've named at least 3 countries. Also your IRL Vs Notable debate is flawed in that many of our vehicles have not been explicitly named in game yet we use their real name, and none have been deleted for being unnotable. Also I do not understand your point about transitions for Russia seem mute here, since in those transitions they always had a helicopter or other form of transport, and in fact all of those places have a real geographical location set up. The very first Call of Duty's were set in World War 2, so we know Call of Duty is set in our world, and not some fictitious one, ergo we know real world locations are correct in terms of game. And again, there is source material in the game itself that calls certain cut levels "Saudi Arabia", yet we have no proof Infinity Ward wanted the entire place to be 1 country, nor that it no name was given for the sake of being ambiguous. And going back to the "Small country" quote, that doesn't exist, I don't know where it came from, but it doesn't. There is a quote in the game opening where you hear Marines have been given permission to enter a small country, and the first place you enter as the Marines is Kuwait, which is a small country, the entire area itself isn't small, in fact the entire Middle East covers 90% of Northern America, so it's hardly a "Small oil rich country". And finally it comes down to tracker grammar. Whenever we see the Marines it's "The Middle East", which shows it's just talking about the area and not a country, in a similar fashion it doesn't say "The Russia" or "The Germany". In short this time round I've put more evidence into this and have more backing than my last forum. Until someone can show me something from Infinity Ward telling me it's supposed to just be "Middle East" I feel we should use the real geographical locations. 19:35, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
Whether it is one country or several, it is still conjecture on our part. Many, if not all, vehicles of the series are actually specifically named, whether in gameplay, dialogue, loading screens, or game files. This Middle Eastern country is intentionally left unnamed in all source material for the Modern Warfare series, so to an extent, assuming there is a 1:1 transfer of regions from that universe to our own is being somewhat disingenuous.
We also know that the Modern Warfare continuity is that of a different reality, just as the Black Ops universe is. They share common points of history with regard to major events of the past, but to surmise that our universe and these two fictional ones are the same because World War II occurs in all three is absurd.
The geographic placement of Call of Duty 4 loading screens is also incredibly inaccurate. I mention the ones from Act III specifically since it makes itself obvious there: the beginning of "All In" resumes gameplay exactly where it left off in "Ultimatum"... yet the player is somehow more than 1000km away from where he was less than a minute ago – both in-game and out-of-game. The point here is that loading screen geopolitics are not very reliable.
Cut levels are not all that indicative of the present state of the Modern Warfare universe because, well, they are cut. They do not exist in the final product, and are thus irrelevant to the canon of the series.
As far as the source material quote that I cited, which you have decided that I have made up, I figured you might want to have a listen for yourself:
Call of Duty 4 - Female Newscaster's Report in "Blackout"

Call of Duty 4 - Female Newscaster's Report in "Blackout"

Apparently we are dealing with "a small but oil-rich nation," and while the smallness can be disputed by the often-inaccurate loading screens, the logic would follow that Al-Fulani and Al-Asad would be leaders of one country, not several. We really cannot make too many assumptions about it, because the details are never elucidated. Maybe it is Kuwait. Maybe it is Iraq. Maybe it is both. Maybe it is the newly-found country of Kuwaitaqistan. We certainly do not know, and playing matching games with our own world map is missing the point entirely: the country is never given a name because the developers chose not to give it one.
The present name of the article is not a case of semantics or pedantry, but rather all that is knowable about the region in question:
  • Unnamed - No game of the Modern Warfare series has named this country. It is not found in gameplay, dialogue, loading screens, or game files. Act I green text identifiers for the USMC never specify the region at the beginning of missions unlike those of the SAS. All in-universe material has not identified or specified the name of the country to us, the audience, and it thus remains a mystery.
  • Middle Eastern - This is the only descriptor we hear repeatedly from in-universe characters. Loading screens label this "The Middle East," which, while it could actually be the most boring name for a country ever, is taken to be a general definition. As far as specificity goes, this is the most we know to be certain.
  • Country - Perhaps it is a federation or union, but we use this term to be as general as possible. The newscaster and other assorted characters tend to refer the region as a single entity rather than several, and this is logical considering Al-Fulani or Al-Asad is understood to be the sovereign of a particular nation.
In summary, the in-universe perspective we should be writing in suggests ambiguity rather than real-world equivalency. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 16:41, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
Per everything Bovell is saying, this basically proves that it's one country and not multiple. Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 17:16, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
I checked. The first place is the correct place. The other is the Tank going to the location of the mission, also the "camera" zooms in the The First Location, and the mission starts.  

 QVw9GKe.pngTimelessPeople  21:46, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

The tank doesn't move. And as I've stated, no matter the actual location the tracker shows, it's wrong and just used to showcase movement by the character. Unless you want to vote for option 1 then it should not be an issue. 21:49, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
In the cutscene before Shock and Awe, they are showing the Shock and Awe location. Also, how do you know that the tank isn't moving?   QVw9GKe.pngTimelessPeople  21:58, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
Because they clearly state it's broken, and you start War Pig where you ended The Bog. 22:00, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
The Bog is in the same place as The Coup and War Pig is in the middle of Saudi Arabia, the camera zooms into Jackson in the middle of Saudi Arabia, the place were the the tank is is just the tank, not the whole mission location, I can see the squares below the tank moving. I'm telling the truth. In the cutscene of Hunted there's a gaff, it shows Jackson in the middle of Iran, but in the cutscene of Shock and Awe, the place were is locating Jackson is in Shock and Awe, the title of Shock and Awe says 18:00, like in the cutscene.  QVw9GKe.pngTimelessPeople  22:08, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
No, the point of this section claims that The Coup, The Bog and War Pig are all the same location. Also it is clearly shown the tank does not move because it can't. The point of the Bog is to get to War Pig because it's been immobilized. There's no way the Marines could walk that far, but on a tracker it makes it appear like we moved to get to the tank. And someone brought up Hunted, that's just a general location of The Middle East, not a locater tracker. 22:12, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
I found something. At the end of The Bog. This conversation happens:
Lt Vasquez: Command LZ secure. Bring the engineers and let's get this tank moving.
Command: Roger that. They're on their way. Good Work. Out. 
Also, they get to the tank. The fix it. They enter, they go to War Pig's location. In the War Pig cutscene, they appear in the middle of nowhere going to the middle of Saudi Arabia, not in the location of The Coup and The Bog. The plot in the page of War Pig says that the engineers fixed it and they went to the middle, trying to push forward into enemy territory.
 QVw9GKe.pngTimelessPeople  22:21, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
They fixed it, and it moved during War Pig. War Pig itself starts where The Bog ended. Also if you look at the map and the date, it would mean that the Marines and 1 tank went several hundred miles in 1 night, which further strengthens that it's a gaff that it moved that far. 22:38, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
War Pig happens at 16:30 while The Bog happens at 5:00. 11 hours. The camera zooms in, in the middle of Saudi Arabia. Also a distance like that, it would get there inm 9 hours.  QVw9GKe.pngTimelessPeople  23:00, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
[1] - It's not possible to walk as far as they did in 11 hours, and with only 1 tank there's no way they could drive. Not to mention most of the time would be taken up with waiting for the engineers and having to repair the tank. Although it's already shown that The Bog ends where War Pig begins, the timelines clearly showcase that there's no way they could get to the capital in that amount of time, hence why I believe this particular locater beacon is just a gaff on IWs part to give it the impression the player has moved. 23:10, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
Lt. Vasquez: Command this is Lt Vasquez. War Pig is en route. We're not missing this party.
 QVw9GKe.pngTimelessPeople  23:32, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
"en route" just means they were heading there, and the point of War Pig is to cover them while they move, but the level does not start over 1,000 KM away from The Bog. 23:36, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
But what happens in the place were it zooms? Why does it zoom there?  QVw9GKe.pngTimelessPeople  23:41, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
Like I said at the begining of this section. It's likely just a gaff to make it look like you've actually moved. 23:48, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
Why would it be? They didn't lie in the places the characters were.  QVw9GKe.pngTimelessPeople  23:51, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
Because it gives the player the impression you've actually moved. You move Northwest in the mission and the map shows a Northwest location. It's not lying, it's just a minor gaff on IWs side. IF you don't like that you can vote for option 1 instead of option 2. 23:52, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
How do we know that they didn't move?   QVw9GKe.pngTimelessPeople  23:58, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
I already noted why. The tank is immobile, and it starts in the same location that you ended the Bog. 00:06, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
It's safe to assume the tank is immobile, considering that makes up part of the mission anyway.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  00:12, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Written locations on Transcripts/Level Pages

Once we get the final agrement on the exact locations of the cities, feel free to apply them on the transcript [Titles] as well as the cooresponding levels' pages. EvErLoyaLEagLE (talk) 05:26, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Final vote

It's a bit word heavy, so using the old fashioned vote system is an easier way of getting a consensus, so there are 3 options available.

  1. Firstly we change the locations that I provided.
  2. Secondly we change the locations to those I provided, but consider War Pig's location a gaff on IWs side to showcase movement.
  3. Lastly we leave the name as is.

Option 1

Option 2

  1. Pictogram voting support Support — I find this is the best option, and has the most backing evidence. 21:16, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting support Support — I agree. E2uiO5T.png SmilularTalk KNXWYe1.png 21:48, June 20, 2013 (UTC) Bovell makes a compelling argument. E2uiO5T.png SmilularTalk KNXWYe1.png 03:25, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting support SupportLVpfGvE.png Pucho00 talk  21:59, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Pictogram voting support Support — Works for me. It gets us out of the whole "unnamed X" business without throwing around random names.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  22:00, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
    Is this inherently a problem? We should not feel obliged to give things names merely because they do not have one; we document entities as they are, not as we wish them to be. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 04:10, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
    We're not really giving them names for the sake of giving them names. We're giving them names because we found evidence for their names from cutscenes for those missions.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  12:25, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
    I would dispute that given the odd discomfort that seems to be expressed in this thread toward having something unnamed, but I suppose that is beside the point.
    The purported evidence is not really evidence if it requires merging two universes into one. The inductive reasoning makes the assumption that all countries in the Modern Warfare continuity, particularly that of the Middle East, are the same as those found in our reality, and have a 1:1 transfer. This makes little sense given the story arc of the trilogy, which features a volatile world with an ever-changing big picture.
    The research conducted in this thread cherry-picks characteristics of the Modern Warfare universe and that of our own to try to reach a conclusion and alleviate some sort of perceived dissonance. Either the two universes are separate or the same; stuff like this is quite binary. Since it would seem the intention is to suspend our in-universe perspective for the sake of naming a country that is never named, I will work on the assumption that we are treating the Modern Warfare universe as our own. This actually only serves to further complicate matters:
    • The country is never referred to in the plural form. Unless Al-Fulani was a sweeping reformer that democratized the governments of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait while president of Iraq, and then united them as one entity, this does not support the premise. I reckon the Saudis might have something to say about their capital being moved to Iraq, too.
    • The geopolitical scene is dramatically different. It is the developers' predictions from 2007 about a fictional world in 2011. The logic holds for all game universes; if my Europa Universalis match depicts the Germans taking over most of Asia in 2015, the borders of the world are not going to be the same. Here, we seem to be assuming that the international boundary lines of a fictional universe—taking place in a divergent timeline—are one in the same with Google Maps.
    • OpFor is OpFor for a reason. Even if we are to entertain the idea that the Great Federation of Saudi Kuwaq was usurped by Al-Asad, the real-world mirroring would render the specific army of a sovereign nation. However, the OpFor is paramilitary organization, and this label avoids portrayal as the army of a particular nation or coalition. Again, the option to name the country is passed over.
    • Mountains cannot be moved. I will again cite the lack of correlation between loading screens and gameplay narrative, made especially apparent in Act III of Call of Duty 4. Loading cinematics depict a journey of hundreds upon hundreds of kilometers for Bravo Team, but gameplay, in addition to green text identifiers, support the notion of relatively little movement. If the loading screens are to be treated as a higher level of canon, then we better update Russia's article to state their five year plan to relocate the Altay Mountains, and the SAS's invention of faster-than-light travel.
    Call of Duty 4 has a relatively simple storyline, with the biggest twist being the death of a player character. There is not a whole lot to read into, and generally the plot exists to further gameplay, rather than the other way around. We are never told the name of the country because: a) it is not important to players, and b) the ambiguity avoids complication of the plot. Real-world equivalency was never the stated intention of the Modern Warfare narrative, as we, the audience, are asked for suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy and experience the world being created for us. We are supposed to write articles in a similar manner, and if comparing the world map of a fictional universe to one found online is the more attractive option for this wiki, then we should at least be consistent. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 21:39, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting support Support — Fine I'll support it, until I find some intel, let's keep it like this. QVw9GKe.pngTimelessPeople  22:15, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Pictogram voting support SupportTheUltimateH4M Talk 22:40, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Pictogram voting support Support — Since it'd make sense to call it a gaff, I guess this will work GhKJh.pngP90DeathmanuceaHlB.png23:05, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Pictogram voting support Support — Per everybody. Evidence is clear and the War Pig issue could easily be explained to clear any confusion. 4XBy83R.pngAntiScootaTwotalk  23:37, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Pictogram voting support Support — Per all. mostly cod4. OpalNyx SigNyx Sig talk 02:43, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Sam has provided more than enough evidence to pin a name to this country. KUDLq.png 02:16, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Pictogram voting support Support — With cut levels being coded "Saudia Arabia" one can suspect that the devs wanted this country involved. But later they decided on unnaming it, but gave hints and clues to what the countries where involved in MW. With all the conclusive evidence supplied, It can be clear to see what the name for the country is. 132527029757.gifArgorrath おしゃべり%E7%95%B0%E8%AD%B0%E3%81%82%E3%82%8A.jpg02:30, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
    But it was all scrapped so I don't see how it is still relevant. It must have been scrapped for some reason. Redskin-26 02:23, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
    So now we're speculating that it was "scrapped for a reason" so we shouldn't try to figure out what country it is? KUDLq.png 02:26, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
    Chances are it was cut for time. We have no proof it was cut for name, and even then it would of just been renamed prior to release. The file still shows they had planned to give missions those names. You can't say "It's cut, therefore it was never planned". 02:56, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
    I have no doubt that the geographical location of the unnamed country is Saudi Arabia. But just because it is located in real world Saudi Arabia doesn't mean they wanted the location to be known as Saudi Arabia. We have no evidence that the nation of Saudi Arabia actually exists or goes by that name in the fictional world of Call of Duty. So why should we deem the country "Saudi Arabia"? The name Saudi Arabia had to be taken out for a specific reason if it actually is indeed referred to that in the games CUT files.Redskin-26 03:05, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
    Because the Call of Duty franchise is based on our world. Second Sun confirms that the planet is called Earth. And we have no proof there's a country called "Shanghai" yet we're all happy to call Die Rise Shanghai, based on the Jin Mao Tower, which we also have no proof exists. In fact on the Washington D.C page we've named the landmarks, like the WW2 memorial, Herbert C. Hoover Building and Washington Monument, yet none of these are named in game, so surely they should be named "Unnamed Memorial", "Unnamed building" and "Unnamed monument". It's true this game takes place in another universe, but it's based on our own, and unless they tell us that The Middle East is its own country (which they don't) we can't just take Occam's Razor to it. Also, I severely doubt they would cut an entire level based purely on the name. 03:12, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Option 3

  1. Pictogram voting support Support — I can't see anything wrong with it as it stands. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk21:32, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting support Weak Support Pictogram voting support Strong Support — (Changing to strong support per everything bovell said above) Even though you provided a lot of evidence, it still seems to me like it's speculation considering we don't know that it's meant to be 3 separate countries. Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 22:02, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
    We also don't know it's meant to be 1 country, which also speculative information. 22:03, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
    From the evidence we have, it is a greater leap of faith to state that it is several, real-world countries than a single, fictitious one. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 16:41, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
    And what evidence is that? Because none of it has been given in this forum. Just 1 fact that we presume it's 'supposed to be ambiguous. 18:00, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
    The games, perhaps? The material that is supposed to be our primary source? I composed a detailed reply to your suppositions in the main discussion section. In it, I used Call of Duty 4, which can be categorized in the highest level of canon for the Modern Warfare continuity, to support the established title of the article. The basis for your renaming proposal stands entirely on matching characteristics of a fictional country in a fictional universe to that of our own reality, a a perspective which we are to avoid when possible. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 19:02, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
    And I've also drawn from the same well. We're both using what the game has said and use it to fit our own debate. Everything you've said can also be used to support my argument. 19:31, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
    If I may respectfully disagree: you are extrapolating material from the game and are applying it to real-world geopolitics. If we are to disregard the existence of our universe and instead examine matters through a Modern Warfare universe lens, it is simply a Middle Eastern country, one that we do not know the name of. This is the central tenet of my argument in favor of the status quo, and I will again refer you to my more detailed entry in the main discussion section to avoid repetition.
    I would also contend that precedent suggests leaving the nation unidentified due to the lack of a start-of-mission, green text location. It is obvious from the loading screen cinematic that "All In," "No Fighting in the War Room," and "Game Over," are nowhere near the Altay Mountains. These missions in particular take place in rapid succession, yet the loading screens depict the first two to be clearly on the Russia–Georgia border, and the final one several hundred kilometers away to the east of the Caspian Sea. Yet, we take the green text identifiers to be the actual location for these articles, over the incredibly misleading loading screen. The USMC missions of Act I are notable in that they never provide a location in the green text, and thus we are again robbed of finding out the name of the place we are invading (a potential commentary on post–9/11 U.S. foreign policy, but I digress).
    Yes, we both make use of the same source, but your line-of-thought involves real-world equivalency, which would throw the ability to remain in-universe out the window, and conflict with current policy. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 20:24, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
    If this were true, than why is it we have the locations for TranZit and Die Rise, despite the location never being stated in game we've used real life landmarks to determine their locations, and this is in Zombies mode, which is even further away from real life than the game itself. Getting locations based on real life information is being done on the wiki quite a lot, in fact the only page that doesn't use it is this one. Even the transcripts and the Call of Duty 4 multiplayer maps, such as Showdown use real life locations. 02:35, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
    I don't know why that is. Do you know why that is? If there's no source material that directly specifies these locations, why are they there? We can put as much "research" as we want behind these conjectures, but at the end of the day, they are still speculation.
    I really cannot make my argument any more clear, and I risk beating a dead horse at this point. We're not playing some guessing game with the developers to figure out the hidden name to this country. There is no level of established canon that makes reference to the name, and all we know to be true is general descriptors. If the only thing that lends validity to the implementation of your extrapolated assumptions is wiki tradition, then I suggest you motion an update to current policy to indicate the absence of in-universe perspective. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 04:10, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
    Well according to our naming policy for weapons, if the name is not given in game, we should use real life names. This is what has been done for maps such as TranZit and Die Rise. The same rules apply here, it's just never been expanded beyond weapons, this can be shown in the fact we utilise the same rule for vehicles. IF you would really like at the end of this forum I can update our naming policy to reflect this. 16:10, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
    Furthermore, the IRL policy states we can use a real world persons birth, and I know some people also want to introduce the death dates as well. By right we shouldn't even be comparing them to their real life counter parts since that would also draw a comparison between the game and real life. 16:25, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
    May I ask the very serious question of, when evidence is provided to us that gives us an idea of a real life location, we wouldn't then use that evidence? KUDLq.png 02:18, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
    (Resetting indent) Because some of evidence provided is absolutely wrong, like the distance between The Bog and War Pig, even though those two missions are supposed to take place in the same city. Also, if we're operating off the assumption that the events take place in Kuwait, then we run into a mess of other issues, such as Kuwait City, Kuwait's real-life capital, looking entirely different from the capital of the country in Shock and Awe. The game files state several of the missions were intended to take place in Saudi Arabia, but then this would contradict the plot of the final game, such as President Al-Fulani (Saudi Arabia IRL is a monarchy), the country described in newscasts in-game, and even the general equipment of Al-Assad's army (Soviet equipment, such as BMPs and T-72s). MetlTalk 02:49, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
    Oh I'm sorry, are we now using IRL information in the argument against using IRL information? Cause that's what it looks like. KUDLq.png 02:51, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
    Now, to answer most of your raised 'concerns'. Firstly, War Pig and The Bog is addressed in the "possible gaff" section, which for a game makes sense, a player likes to think they've moved. Also using IRL info for the section that claims we shouldn't be using IRL info is a bit contradictive of your argument, you really can't have it both ways. And finally, according to your comment about IRL Saudi Arabia being a monarchy, keeping in mind this came out before it was 2011 IRL, the Unnamed Middle Eastern Country already covers this, "It was a monarchy before a revolution and afterwards became a republic.". 03:05, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Pictogram voting support Strong Support — I credit Raven's wing for putting it in the most simple of terms: the renaming proposal stands entirely on an inference that we are not supposed to make because it is illogical. The geopolitics that dictate the world of Modern Warfare are entirely separate from our own, and any comparison steps outside the in-universe perspective this wiki is meant to maintain. Just as we cannot use the Modern Warfare trilogy as evidence for matters in our universe, we cannot use our universe as evidence for matters in the Modern Warfare universe. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 21:39, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting support Support — Call of Duty 4 (as well as the Modern Warfare series in general) is in a fictional universe that doesn't really correspond to our own. There are multiple errors and inconsistencies in Call of Duty 4 alone (why G36Cs appear in 1996 Pripyat, how MacMillan and Price were suddenly able to produce a .50 caliber Sniper Rifle, how the Russian Amry is still, after 60 years, using the AK-47), but we generally assume that this is a work of fiction, so in this universe, Russia is still using AKs and RPDs (even though the Real Life Russian Army uses AK-74Ms and RPK-74Ms). The Middle Eastern country was intentionally left unnamed by Infinity Ward, just as the enemy faction was given the vague and unassuming name of "OpFor" (which even that name isn't mentioned in the campaign, it's given in multiplayer to name the faction versing the US Marines). The Cutscene locations are mostly the result of either laziness on IW's part, or they assumed players wouldn't really care (which they don't, as most people don't notice them playing through the game). Therfore, it is best that we leave the country's name as it is. It actually makes less sense trying to turn the Unnamed Country into three seperate real-life countries. MetlTalk 04:51, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but is your main argument that these geographics are wrong because of the guns they're using? That's a moot point. I'm providing evidence as to why they are where they are, while your counter argument is "No, they're not there because Russia uses AK-47s". 18:28, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
    You're missing the point. Call of Duty is filled to the brim with inaccuracies, so we just assume it is set in a serperate universe, because it is simpler to understand it that way than to try and place it in our own universe. Sure, real life events are included in the Call of Duty series, like World War II, the Cold War and the invasion of Panama, but a fictional spin is placed on them (the Nova 6 plot, Raul Menendez, and Fidel Castro's meeting with Dragovitch), because it is set in a fictional timeline and universe of events. What sense would it honestly make to turn a "small, oil rich nation" into a mega-alliance of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait? Infinity's Ward's "gaffs" were made because they generally assume the playerbase doesn't care about things like locations, and they are unimportant to the plot and setting regardless. MetlTalk 20:02, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
    And when is it stated it's a coalition? Now you're using speculation to bolster your argument. 20:38, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
    That's the thing, it's never stated to be anything other than a small oil rich country. However, the locations Infinity Ward put down are spread out over quite a large area, spreading over 3 real-life countries. We're simply lead to assume that this a small country that has been taken iver during a military coup, and that's the only information given to us. We shouldn't assume much more than that. MetlTalk 23:35, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
    No, we hear MArines were given permision to invade a small oil rich country, not that the whole country is a small oil rich country. This fits with Kuwait, but not with a region that is 90% the size of N. America. 23:42, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Pictogram voting support Support — Agreeing with llevoB. -- laagone (talk)  20:08, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Pictogram voting support Support — Standing by my original position. Per Bovell because I am not nearly as eloquent. The fact of the matter is that regardless of anybody's evidence, we are to avoid assumptions and speculation, which comprise the entirety of the proposal. Joe Copp 01:02, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
    I fail to see how evidence = speculation. Most of the Zombies maps have been given locations based on real world evidence. The main argument seems to be "No name is given, therefore any name, even one with evidence is wrong". However the same rule applies to vehicles and no one seems to care that they use IRL names based on real world evidence, as well as weapons that haven't been released yet we use the real world counter part. 01:09, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
    Please refer to Bovell's explanation in the voting section in rebuttal to that point. I believe it came down to most, if not all of those particular objects being named in game files, loading scences, etc., thus giving us actual canonical evidence to support a specific name. Joe Copp 01:21, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
    "In several scrapped missions the loading screens refers to it as Saudi Arabia.". Game Files support my case. The fact they've been cut means nothing, they were still planned for use as the name. 01:24, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
    And that's where I disagree. If they were cut, they are simply irrelevant. If that information were important it would have appeared elsewhere. Joe Copp 01:26, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
    Well we have pages on cut missions, and it still makes them completely relevant since it shows IW were going to give the locations a name. In fact the cut files are the closest we have to a name, and it seems they are being discredited purely to stop them being used in counter argument. 01:29, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
    Furthermore, Die Rise, TranZit and many other zombie maps have their locations based purely on landmarks. Die Rise is based purely on the Jin Mao Tower. We also have Birth dates for characters from real life based on their real birth date, whereas if we wanted to keep the two realitys different we would not know their birth date, nor we would we know Nixon is the 37th president since he's never called president in any of the games. 01:31, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Pictogram voting support Strong Support — Per all. Redskin-26 02:22, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Per Bovell E2uiO5T.png SmilularTalk KNXWYe1.png 03:25, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Compromise Solution

Here's an idea I had for a compromise. We could include in the Trivia section of articles related to the Unnamed Middle Easter Country (such as levels) where the real-life location is that the level takes place in. What do you all think? MetlTalk 03:01, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

No. We're not going to compromise, we'll let the vote decide. 03:06, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
I agree, a compromise is out of the question; let's decide this once and for all. Redskin-26 00:36, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

Closure

Evidence is there. Option 2 prevails with a majority of 10-8. Arguments that seem to use speculation to combat accused speculation are very unconvincing.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  19:27, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

Further explanation after concerns being raised mere minutes after I closed this: The reason I have closed this in a favour of one side when the votes were indeed close is because a strong backbone of Options 3's supporters' arguments is using speculation to try and debunk so-called speculation. It's not a particularly legitimate approach in this situation. So yes, while the votes were very close, a certain amount of circular argumentation means that I don't believe Option 3 really has much more going for it than voting in numbers, and since we operate on consensus numbers aren't really enough.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  19:42, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

To be honest it seems to me like you're closing this using your opinion on the matter and not showing closing it via a neutral viewpoint. Surely someone who has not voted on this should close it when this is actually ready to be closed? Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 19:46, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about my own opinion, if this went the other way then I would have closed it accordingly. What matters is the arguments; something I've noticed throughout the entirety of this forum is a strange insistence on using speculation to combat speculation... it really doesn't mean much if that's the case. All active admins have commented in this forum; even admins who oftentimes hold neutrality have voted here. There's no need to wait for a semi-active/inactive neutral admin to come along so we can close this.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  19:57, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
That does not change the fact that this is a blatant conflict of interest and incredibly dismissive to the points raised without actually providing explanation. You immediately label the opposition as being speculative—never actually providing us with insight as to what evidence that was—and then describe the situation as being analogous to fighting fire with fire, which would actually suggest that you interpret the proposal to be speculation itself and thus non-canonical.
You then ironically cite consensus policy, which a) demands the best possible resolution between two sides, b) advocates for neutrality, and c) suggests that this proposal would fail under a rough consensus. I do not follow your logic here of this being cut-and-dry unless you clarify what you found so unsatisfactory about Option 3's critique. As it stands, I am just as fit to close this thread simply because I find the proposal to be lackluster in its argumentation. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 22:42, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you were far more involved in this forum than Callofduty4, and you were very supportive of option 3, the losing vote, it seems you're only upset with the closure because you lost. 22:54, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
I suggested that in a half-jokingly comparative sense, in that it would have probably been appropriate for us three bureaucrats to recuse ourselves from deciding the outcome, given our investment into the issue. I apologize for the lack of clarity there.
As for being "upset [...] because [I] lost," no. Actually, the statement itself saddens me because it suggests I am in this for personal gain. This is ultimately a community-driven project, and I must respect the decisions made in this forum, whether I agree with them or not. Although my lengthy discourse can sometimes be captious, critical, cynical, or even all three, I do it for the sake of ensuring all conclusions are well-drawn and as meticulously constructed as possible. Unfortunately, it can give off the aura of egoism or wiki-lawyering, but rarely have I seen sophisticated debate on these forums to be anything but healthy for the decision made in a topic's closure. If both the central thesis of the proposal and the opposition are extensively examined and challenged, I would argue it makes for a better resolution.
I know when to lay down my arms and accept defeat. Nobody wants to see or hear a pedantic egghead such as myself drone on and make a bureaucratic mess of a closed thread – I certainly don't want to either. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 01:36, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
The best possible resolution was to go with Option 2, because the arguments presented were more believable and discursive of the material itself, when taking all discussion on the forum into account. Option 3's supporters supported Option 3 on the speculation that Option 2 was speculative, that's a circular argument that is inefficient. I get your point, but it doesn't pierce me hard enough. Nowhere did anyone state any specific reason why those locations were speculative, when screencaps are literally right there at the beginning of the forum. A reason that was provided is that Call of Duty is in a universe of its own, and the conclusion drawn is that it cannot possibly ever correspond to the real world in any way, so those screenshots are obviously wrong. That's not a particularly persuasive argument in this case, nor is it an effective conclusion - it fails to cover why those screenshots given above cannot possibly be correct, and it fails to cover why the level cutscenes have suddenly become totally unusable for canon information.
The rationale for giving these locations names doesn't stand on some grey area like "it looks like Iran" or something weak like that. The argumentation is based completely on screenshots lifted from in-game material. I don't really see how that is lackluster; it's full-on game material.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  23:07, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for elaborating. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 01:36, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.