Talk:U.S. Army Esports

U.S. Navy Esport team

Is there an article for the U.S. Navy Esport team? -- William Graham ^talk 22:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Do they have one, User:William Graham? Chetsford (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@William Graham and Chetsford: None, and the Among Us article links to this article instead! Sorry I can't do more than report this here. —Geekdiva (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Criticism section

Should the "Criticism" section be trimmed to its first paragraph and integrated into the body of the article? Chetsford (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes This is an eight paragraph article, seven paragraphs of which is a Criticism section sourced exclusively to references dated July 2020. I believe this level of excrutiating, blow-by-blow detail is violative of our WP:UNDUE policy, our WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, and our WP:NOCRIT SOP. Chetsford (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Probably, on almost all articles a Criticism or Controversy section is a sign of bad writing and editing. Usually WP:Undue as well.
  If there is noteworthy instances they might be important enough to summarize in the WP:Lead, everything else should be integrated into the main prose of the article while staying NPOV, trimming is likely needed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• No to (drastically or blindly) trimming it to that extent, and the Twitch aspect must be included in some form, but it should be integrated, yes. We probably need a separate section for the Twitch outreach in particular, which should be expanded with other sources. I assume the subtext of "delete all but the first paragraph" is "delete all mention of the Twitch program and the response to it" (in fact, I somewhat dispute the wording of this RFC; while obviously the current structure has issues, this RFC seems to be pressing to omit everything related to Twitch without specifically saying so.) In any case, when most of the coverage is critical the article ought to reflect that (which seems to be the case here); but it should be structured to be a natural part of the article and not sectioned off. In particular, when you have things like the army temporarily halting its Twitch outreach in response to criticism, that clearly needs to be in the article - that's not just some rando opinion pieces, that's a significant event related to the topic and clearly cannot be omitted. --Aquillion (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong No - Removing the significant negative response to the team feels like censorship - if an extreme negative response compromises the majority of information about the subject, it's clear that it's fine to have the article reflect that. I think it'd be good to reorganize the information into individual sections e.g. "Reception", "Legal Concerns", "Controversies". For one, this apperently isn't up to date: they've recently been criticized for using racial slurs and joking about the bombing of Nagasaki on stream, as seen on Among Us. More information aside from controversies would be good, such as names of members, history, etc, but the solution isn't removing this content. Waxworker (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Strong no - Maybe the fact that the controversies section is so massive in this article is due to the number of actual controversial things the team is involved in? Such as saying racist, homophobic and sexist things, making jokes about the holocaust, banning people for mentioning My Lai, their hosts getting caught posting anti-black and anti-lgbt propaganda on facebook, joking about the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the fake giveaways they created to traffic people onto their recruitment forums, and getting sued by the ACLU American Civil Liberties Union. The number of controversies the subject of this article gets involved with is almost unbelievable, hence why there is so much information on it. If you think this is giving undue balance then perhaps you should take up the task of adding more information to the not so controversial sides of the topic. BulgeUwU (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

PerpetuityGrat vandalising the U.S. Army Esports wiki page

A user called PerpetuityGrat just scrubbed away half the wiki page without consulting anybody on the talk page and ignored the consensus that we came to concerning controversies in the talk page. He also doesn't seem to understand that people can see the edit logs because he came to the talk page to announce he was going to delete the anti-semitism controversy, where one of the hosts mocked the number of Jews killed in the holocaust, and then deleted his own entries on the talk page less than two hours later. Is less than two hours fast enough for the other editors to come to a consensus? He also removed from the article the reason why the U.S. Army Esports host was removed from his job, which was for his publishing of even more anti-semitic, anTi-LGBT, and anti-black bigotry. Also by making 10 edits in a single day just to remove one section, I think he is intentionally making it as difficult as possible for anybody to reverse his edits. No reason was given for this. This page is very often the target of vandalism and sometimes it seems that unregistered vandals with their raw I.Ps showing sometimes outnumber the genuine editors. Perhaps we should add more protections to the page? BulgeUwU (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@BulgeUwU: Hello! Hoping to discuss here the "vandalism" that I conducted a few days ago. You have stated that I gave "no reason" for my edits. Contrary, I included edit summaries in every single edit that was made. Do you have contention with any of these? You evidently are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH at all. The content that I removed was literally slander, and was relevant to a single host of the Twitch channel, rather than the Twitch channel itself. We have several lawmakers across the country who are involved in nefarious, odd, and good deeds all the time, but that does not mean that we include those in the United States House of Representatives. No, no one does that on Wikipedia--rather those controversies and other content is included in specific article pages about the subject. Does that make sense? I'd like to again stress WP:GOODFAITH... I am not seeking to vandalize anything on Wikipedia at all. Why would you assume that? I literally checked every one of those citations, and most of them lead to Vice Media. Are these credible citations for an encyclopedia? The prime "anti-semitic" accusation against the host, again who should have his own WP article, said this: "Yo, six million wasn’t enough, thank you so much for the follow, I appreciate you." He said this because a Twitch (troll) user named "6millionwasnt_nough" donated to the stream. Not every article that was cited stated this, however. The host literally said a username without thought, because he donated to the stream. Now, I don't know about you, but I didn't know that that phrase would have been anti-semitic if stated without any context. I now know the death toll of Jews from WWII, where I did not before. That troll user was subsequently banned by Twitch, as also noted in some articles...

Let me repeat this, I am not making these edits as difficult as possible... I have included edit summaries for every single edit. You can check my entire list of contributions where I explain almost every edit that I have ever made. I even ask other WP users to explain edits for this exact instance, so others can help identify the purposes of edits. I thought I made that clear, but maybe I did not. Please assume good faith.

TL:DR, the controversies are about an individual who is a host of the subject of the article. The host is not the subject of the article. Trump's improper deeds and controversies he made during his presidency are not outlined in the President of the United States article. I understand that sometimes that is appropriate. That's why I did not delete the War Crimes section. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I believe you are deleting large sections of the wikipedia because you are a supporter of the U.S. military and want to use wikipedia protect their image, not because you believe it doesn't belong on wikipedia. BulgeUwU (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@BulgeUwU: Are you serious? You believe that I am a supporter of the US military, and that's my sole reason for making my edits? Your lack of assumption of WP:GOODFAITH is horrendous. I can think of one U.S. military article I have edited, and it's some faux operation. Other than that I am not aware of a single edit I have made to any military pages. Why would you say this? And can you speak to the content of what I discussed above rather than making ad hominem judgements? Thanks!

To add, I only stumbled across this article because IP users were actually trying to blank the page completely, and I found those changes in recent changes. I reverted those blankings because cited content was being removed without explanation, and I was completely unfamiliar with the article beforehand (You can see this in the article history). I have now had a chance to familiarize myself with the subject of the article and I am trying my best to improve it. Any WP article I come across I try to improve, and I find it incredibly offensive that you would assume otherwise. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Still hoping to come to a consensus here on something. There were several issues with this article, and I sought to remedy them. Here are the issues I found, and I am more than open to discussing them rather than simply reverting them. WP:CITEKILL, WP:NPOV, WP:CSECTION, are a few issues I noticed at first glance. And for the record, I had no knowledge that this team even existed prior to my first edits here. I am just trying to improve the article. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)