Talk:America's Army/Archive 5

message: "While whether it has achieved it's aims has yet to be seen, America's Army is a propaganda and virtual recruiting tool."
I replaced a sentence stating (paraphrased) "This game is propeganda though some people don't know it is."
While it removes an unsubstantiated claim, it's still a little rough looking. Any suggestions on how to phrase it? -GregNorc (talk) 22:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
:I changed it to "....America's Army is considered a form propaganda and a virtual recruiting tool.". The sentence above about -people not knowing it is- is rubbish. I don't think anyone really denies that the game is a "form of propaganda", the problem is the use of the word propaganda which in our present day has taken on a negative connotation. Perhaps instead of linking propaganda to the article on propaganda we link the words "form of propaganda" to the controversy section where it describes it more in detail. (and thus link to the propaganda article wherever in that section is next uses the word) K1Bond007 23:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
There's a HUGE difference between is and is considered. You imply it is not necessarily true but just say that one person (or more)  regard it as propaganda. A woman is a human being. A woman is considerd a human being. If you say that you didn't think anyone denies it, why make these indirect suggestions? 
"Whether it has achieved its aims has yet to be seen". How can you see it? After 1999 there were much changes that have an effect on recruitment numbers. There was 9/11, there was the Iraq war, there was a huge advertisemet campaign. "Army of one" slogan, etc. You'll never be able to say what effect America's Army had exactly. But AA was effective, otherwise they wouldn't have invented "Close Combat: First to Fight" and wouldn't still be spending millions on AA.217.185.104.236 11:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made my edit clear stating that propaganda has a very negative connotation and therefore is NOT CONSIDERERED propaganda by numerous people. Thats why I worded it like that. I didn't go and plagarise an article like you and change a few words (after being found out). The sentence: "America's Army is primarily a playable and subliminal piece of video game propaganda" came from http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/features/story/0,,1242262,00.html -> was inserted here notice it in there word for word and somewhere along the line to changed to the trash we see today. Where's the evidence that the game is subliminal? K1Bond007 16:59, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
Lol that's great: every day there is another try to improve the picture about AA. The great thing about that is that you're mostly wrong and thus usually one cannot be unsuccessful argueing with you. Now, if people consider something as something it is not, only because the truth has negative connotations, these people are intentionally blind. It is less important what some blind people consider the game than what the game really IS. It IS propaganda. Some people consider the Earth a slice, but the Earth IS a globe and that's decisive. The Guardian article used DIFFERENT words. Who cares if the sentence has the same meaning? Not sublimal? Oh yes? How many people think "Propaganda, propaganda!" when they hear "Good morning, soldiers, and welcome to the blah blah blah" as if the film "Full metal jacket" hadn't realized how friendly the army is to the soldier? How many think it when instead of "Do you want to quit the game and would be sent to court if you were a soldier and did the same?" they see "Do you really want to quit America's Army"(or something like that)? I'm 100% sure you had not noticed before I've now told you. How many think when enemies are described as "terrorist forces" (neg.) instead of "freedom fighter"(pos.) or something neutral? How many think it when they notice there are no civilians around? If you say the game is an accurate summary of soldier experiences, it is a lie as if they had never heard of "collateral damage" or anything. It is subliminal because people in general do not realize it. Just join an AA server and ask them if the game is realistic and where there are differences between it and reality. It can ONLY be successful if it is subliminal, because if it was consciously perceived as propaganda, the forum would be full of the word "propaganda" and the game would never be perceived as realistic. You have the choice: either you mention it is subliminal or that most players do not know it is dishonest propaganda. That piece of information should not go unmentioned, or it cannot be understood why the game is considered a total success. Because of the number of players? No, even if billion players played the game regularly, it would be unsuccessful if players noticed the game's intention. They are happy because despite the extremely small number of players (counter-strike has had more than 200 000 play the game but I cannot find accurate and reliable sources for that) their propaganda is effective. It is effective because it is generally not considered to be propaganda.
Yeah, you're right about the truth of the university research paper: it might be wrong. Of course it is not, but too be totally accurate, I'll fix it.62.134.105.247 13:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit by me 

message: It's considered bad form to revert without at least adding an edit summary, Rememberme; a reasonable explination would be nice, as all I did was make the article more readable at points. No information was cut, no information added. humblefool 02:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rememberme's rv 

message: Okay, whether you think that AA is 'the best game' or 'pure propaganda', simply reverting each other's changes will not help and may result in breaking the 3RR rule. Neither it will help for the article to be NPOV. If you feel why the other side's edits are too extreme that you have to revert, please do explain here. - Mailer Diablo 18:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute