Talk:America's Army/Archive 9

message: In the example shown on the main page, the US soldier appears to be Caucasian, whereas the enemy soldier appears to be non-Caucasian, perhaps Middle Eastern (the main differences between the two figures appear to be that the enemy figure has darker skin and facial hair). Is this true of all the figures in the game?
--Apeloverage 08:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question Regarding the Depictions of US and Enemy Soldiers 

message: So here it is: a mixture of all edits I found reasonable together with a lot more information. It took me several days and I had a look at all the other edits. If there are linguistic mistakes, please fix them. If you have problems with the content, don't revert anything, Ele, as you're always telling me because I've reconsidered ANY edit and will give you reasons for ANY change. Just talk and I will consider any statement with an open mind and reply. I will not include more information because to me, the article is brilliant now, and so I will try to prevent any drop of quality for the article in future. After all I can only say that working on it was worth it but since it completed in my opinion, I will not create a further total overhaul.
Before I forget: if you think information about weapons and maps should be included, I can only say "RTFM". Yes, installed with AA is an over 200 pages manual with all the trivialities a player could want to know. Likewise there are explanations for the other edits as well. Just ask me if anything else doesn't appear rational at first glance. My ICQ Number is 201-401-028 in case you want a quick replyNightBeAsT 22:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC
24.60.104.71 02:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: First off, NightBeAsT please note that no one owns an article, and in my opinion you have no support in saying "I won't justify why I reverted, justify why it should be changed!" Now, reasons why the version you revert to cannot stand:
*POV: distributed free by the US Army as a global public relations stunt to present the current US Army in a glorifying way so as in part to help raise the US Army recruitment numbers
**No opinion but fact and it answers the WHY question. Not answering the question would be biased. Say: AA has been alleged to be a first-person shooter if you like weasel speech
*POV: America's Army is primarily playable and subliminal video game propaganda and a virtual recruiting tool
**No opinion but fact and it answers the WHAT and WHY question. Excluding them would be as biased as above.
*POV: America's Army falls into the subgenre of an online infantry wargame and serious game. Contrasted to reality, it is relatively authentic in terms of visual and acoustical representation, especially pertaining to weaponry, but not modern war. Unlike Special Force and Under Ash, the game does not belong to the category of realist games.
**Please explain in what way and why it is POV.
*POV: The game also extends the military entertainment complex
**DOES IT NOT??? Read the external links.
*POV: globally promotes a one-sided and self-glorifying message about this army with its interventions
**The world's premier landforce fighting terrorism and for freedom. Isn't it self-glorifying? Isn't it one-sided?
*POV: Although America's Army claims to represent the real Army and gives largely true information, it contains partisan bias and fails to paint a complete and balanced picture of the US Army along with its conflicts, mainly playing down or excluding negative facets of the Army.
**Do you know sf_Abu_Ghraib, the new map? Doesn't exist. Nor do civilians on the maps (with ONE map exception). Nor does the readme's of the game or the game itself include traumas, crippled soldiers, cries of fear, hostages, ambushes, verbal abuses, hysterical soldiers, ugly soldiers etc. Where are such things in that "accurate portrayal of soldiers experiences"? My opinion? 
*POV: Research papers of four different universities that have analysed America's Army all confirm that the game is propaganda
**You can remove that sentence.
Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for information on the "non-negotiable" requirement set down that articles not state opinions as fact. Furthermore, it's just poor writing to define something primarily by comparison to another thing ('AA is similar to Counter-Strike'). That won't explain anything to people unfamiliar to this topic, nor stand up to time. You've also overwritten a lot of formatting and general writing corrections. 119 18:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting 30 March 2005

message: Now here is the list of explanations for why most of the sentences I wrote spending 5days should be kept rather than "new" changes. Probably I spend more time on the explanation than you on the edits. I'll also restore "my" version, which includes recent changes of other contributors, again. Why justify that something should not be changed, when it is more reasonable to demand a  justification that something of a version containing outcomes of discussion should be changed totally. Stableness of an article is an aspect of a great article according to wikipedia. I've always included reasonable changes of other contributors. You? You just reverted, alleged the other version of POV, failed to explain why it should be POV, reverted again, alleged again, failed to explain again. Really fair...
Changes: 
#Why delete "This article is about the computer game America's Army". It is what America's Army is in one word: a computer game. It also explains that the article is about this game instead of the real army. Is there a faster way of explaining it to the reader?
#Why deleting that the game was developed by the US Army and some NPS scholars? Should the reader be tricked into thinking the game was developed by some independent institute called "MOVES Institute"? "The MOVES institute" is just a name for a little part of the army, not a different organisation, and might therefore mislead.
#I count 4 links for "US Army" on one screen. Please Make only links relevant to the context. That's why I've not linked many things that used to be. The article was overlinked. Why revert that too?
#It makes no sense at all to write US, then U.S., then US etc. Keep consistency! No matter if you like U.S. or US (where's the difference except for two unnecessary dots?), they have the very same meaning and it's totally pointless to exchange these words if they don't need to be changed. Never change for the sake of changing. Should every reader who has read the article just exchange the words just because he loves dots? Then comes the next one who hates dots and changes them and so on. Same with the dates. July 4, 2002 or 4 July 2002 are changes that make no sense and are only preferences of one's own point of view. Stableness belongs to the characteristic features of a great article, not a train of thought. Some subpage of wikipedia says US should be spelt U.S. while USA should be spelt USA. That's why I changed them all to U.S.. Why revert a jumble of US-U.S.-US-US?
#Why write "Tactical shooter". Tactical shooter is not a subgenre of first-person shooter, but a vague definition of sth that only MAY include fps. It is more unknown than "FPS" and more vague. You might just as well then use "serious game", "computer game", "propaganda", "Advergame" or whatever for "genre". So which can be used to keep "genre" NPOV? If you click on the link to "genre", you see what only fits: "First-person shooter". 
:Why did Bond not recognize that? I almost forgot. How long should this child's play continue, Bond? You're just faking support of versions that I disapprove of not because sth is wrong with them... but because I disapprove of them. You did not revert "America's Army is the best simulation" because although it is POV and would be deleted in the German version of this article within ONE minute, you knew I wouldn't like the sentence. Indeed, you even reverted Ele's version twice. But apart from that, brilliant info box, Bond.
#Why delete " (AA)"? It is the abbreviation for "America's Army". Even the cover proves that. Why delete that?
#Why delete propaganda and recruiting tool? They're the reasons for the game, the answer to WHY for the game. It is without one of the most important questions a reader could have, if not THE most important. Excluding the question would without any doubt make the article completely biased, I told you. If you feel it doesn't fit propaganda, read through the first two archives of the talk page and the definition of propaganda. I'm sure as hell not going to spend another 100kb of text for every new contributor one that issue. If you like the term "alleged case of", use it for every picture you find for propaganda and see if this POV term. Or how about this: "911 is an alleged case of a human being". You see how it sounds? But without any points accusing me of POV twice and using it as an excuse to restore real POV. Sorry but this hypocrisy inflames me.
#Why delete the fact that it is fully financed by taxes? It's nowhere else in the article.
#Why mention the Navy in the opening paragraph? Are they important AT ALL? I put them to history where they will still get more space than the lack of relevance should actually allow.
#Why delete the short description of realism in America's Army. The game is a statement - no matter if you regard AA as an accurate portrayal of reality or an intentional misrepresentation of reality. It is only intended as a statement in the guise of a game, not simply as a game, no one would spend million of dollars for a game without any intention, and the game's intention is delivering the statement. Now, a statement can only be between true and false. What is true, represents reality - it is realistic, it is truly. What is untrue, is unrealistic. What is in truth is in reality. I've tried to keep the description of reality/truth in America's Army fair. Is it not?
#Why only write "inspired by CS"? I've tried to describe the extremely close connection between the games months ago till the fact that the devs say they had the game actually taken as model convinced all. Why play that down by words such as "inspired".
#Why put the game's popularity away? It needs no section. What should that section all include???? In the otherwise idiotic and uninformative (IMO) CS article that was called a good example of video game article, popularity is also summarized in the first section. Also your depiction of popularity neglected the contrast between the devs' "number of players" and the real number of players.
#Why delete the picture of training? Compared to the only 2-3 hours a player would spend on training, the multiplayer part is totally dominating (this can be seen in the number of average "honor" (34). However, I think the proportion still deserves a picture. The picture taken depicts the first training level, the level that really everyone who has played the game must have seen. The article surely should not become a picture book, but pictures enliven the text. Just look at propaganda. Beautiful, isn't it? It's certainly one of the reasons why it became a feautured article (see its talk page).
#Picture description: Why did you revert "Difference in depiction of the same player, the left as the "US Army" and the left as "OPFOR"? What's right then? Such changes/reverts just prove that you're ignoring what I edit.
#Doesn't "round-start of the game's most often played map" explain more than "User interface during gameplay"?
#Why did you revert V.I.P.? Longer words, such as USA should be written without dots in Wikipedia according to the same source that said US should be written with dots.
#Why is the professor suddenly only "of the NY University"? Should the reader be tricked into thinking it is just a student of the university?
#Why did you delete the correct interpretation of what Galloway said? Leaving out negative aspects of the US Army would be one way of intentional lack of realism. What about the fidelty of content or the restricted code? You didn't read through the text, did you?
#Why did you include the sentence about Hitler? Was he crucial to understand the next sentence? Anyway. It further demonstrates the propaganda behind so I left it like it.
#Why did you change that about military entertainment complex? Three or four sources of academic articles included that aspect, and isn't it logical???
NightBeAsT 19:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Justification" 

message: A participant in this discussion requested an advocate, which may be of benefit to many users in this discussion.  If it was you you didn't sign your request so please see it for more info.  If you are interested in the service of an advocate please see the AMA page.  --Wgfinley 19:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocate Request 

message: This article is in need of a major POV-ectomy.  I changed the opening sentence which was obvious POV pushing.  Readers should make up their own mind whether a video game for recruiting is a good use of their tax dollars and whether or not that is a good thing.  The replacement is factual and neutral and allows readers to do just that.
I'll look at it some more but this appears to be a pretty hot dispute.  That said, the POV pushing in this article as it currently stands is blatant and obvious. 
Positions regarding the game being a propaganda tool are adequately covered in the "Controversy" section although some polishing is needed in that section as well. 
I also added the NPOV tag as quite clearly there is a raging NPOV dispute on this article and that needs to be noted for anyone visiting it or editing it.  --Wgfinley 19:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-ectomy 

message: Is it possible that an addition to the article be made that talks about the community that has sprung up around the game?
*100% agree with you. There is a vast, and dedicated community of gamers for this game. I added a few minor things about them to the article but the topic deserves its own section. It is also worth noting that this game has really dedicated Beta testers that contribute greatly to testing and development of the game. --Igor at work 00:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community. 

message: Realism is defined as, among other things, "fidelity in art and literature [and computer games] to nature or to real life and to accurate representation without idealization".  Realist in most cases is a noun which usually refers to a person who holds beliefs that are accurate without idealizing.  When used as an adjective, it usually is applied to something associated with that type of person, as in "the realist movement" or "realist art".  Realistic is an adjective that modifies a noun having the qualities described in the definition for realism.  The essay on "Social Realism in Gaming" tries to draw a distinction between "realistic-ness" (not a real word) and social realism.  To do so, the author has invented new uses for existing words.  I do not wish to diminish Galloway's core thesis: that a game can be very realistic in terms of rendering visual and aural reality, while ignoring other important aspects of a virtual experience that give it verisimilitude.  Applying existing terms in new ways is common in thesis papers, but using realist as an adjective alongside realistic is no more valid than business-speak turning solution into a verb and using it alongside solve as in "if we solution this dispute quickly we can work to solve other problems." –DeweyQ 16:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Word choices for realism

message: How come a game like this gets a Teen rating, as it is a instrument for recruiting - therefore manipulating the opinion of a young person who still has to develop his own opinion about Army? --Abdull 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teen rating 

message: People like self-proclaimed 'NightBeAsT' seem to want to force their own polticial views on people all the time. They are so hypocritical it's amazing. See Talk:Kuma\War for an example of his exploits..--86.132.35.147 00:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, an IP claiming to be from the UK alleges anti-Americanism. Normally only people who feel a country is misrepresented come from that country. How many times have I touched an article mainly dealing with America? Almost only this and other games? Maybe that's because I've actually played that game for (two?) years and that was also the first article I edited in the English wikipedia. I've never been to America, I don't really know or care about them either. I'm not hostile towards ANY nation, I hate generalisations about people. Anyway, Brite, what a coincidence that soon after you came here, 86..., an American IP deleted everything related to the message of the game, in other words what you've been complaining about, so that makes who a hypocrite? I'm telling you 86...etc, look at the version history of the game, look at the version history of the talk page, do you really think I would not stand up to your recent imPOVment after eleven months of work on it? I've even planned to rework it in a few months so that it has a chance to become a featured article. Before you think you could just terrorise it and me, you'd best have an exit strategy because when I chose to keep up work on the article months ago, I knew I'd have to keep up for years to keep what was achieved, and next year I'll have a lot more time to spend on any case due to my community service, that is, if you can stay the course until then.NightBeAsT 16:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  86.132.35.147