" 

  
 == Alledged hypocrisy of Big Boss? == 

 "" However, Big Boss can also be viewed as a hypocrite, since his very objective with establishing Outer Heaven was violated by using Solid Snake as an expendable chess piece in the Zanzibar Land Incident. ""  

 When I take a look at the canonical context of the Outer Heaven crisis, I have to say that this comment strikes me as being subjective in nature when compared to any of the other current content of the article's ""Motives"" section.  Solid Snake's infiltration of Outer Heaven was, for all intended purposes, an operation which was instigated by the government and thus by The Patriots, with Big Boss being the obvious and unavoidable relaystation of these orders in officially being the FOXHOUND commander at that time.  In the end, the decision wasn't his, the plan wasn't of his making either, nor was he the player who was ultimately moving this expendable chess piece.  Also, in being FOXHOUND's commander and thus someone officially partaking in the infiltration of Outer Heaven in the capacity of Solid Snake's commanding officer, it could be argued through this logic that Big Boss too was nothing but such a chess piece in the hands of The Patriots, at least within the lines of the operation.  Though that was something he was intending to change, and not only for himself.  Lastly, according to the canonical storyline, Big Boss never expected the rookie Solid Snake to be a genuine threat to Outer Heaven as is evidenced by the fact that he does not begin to attempt to hinder Snake's efforts until well into the later stages of the operation. 

 The bottom line is that this issue seems simply too debatable to be permanently added to the article's content in my opinion.  In contrast to the 'may even elevate Big Boss to the level of anti-hero' part, which is an objective conclusion based directly on the canonical events of Metal Gear Solid 3, in which Kojima himself clearly labored to give Big Boss a more human dimension without therefore excusing the character's future actions at the same time. 

 Unless the original author of the 'hypocrisy' statement can provide very clear reasons as to why it shouldn't be considered subjective even in the light of the issues raised above, I propose we remove it permanently.  "