Talk:Dr Disrespect/Archive 1

Archive 1

Awards

In awards section, the 1993 and 1994 awards are self reported by Beahm. No independent secondary source has been found yet. Unoc (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is because he's acting. Making outrageous claims is part of his character. I went ahead and removed the awards. By the way, there was no 1993 Blockbuster World Championships. Look up "Did Dr Disrespect Win the Blockbuster Video Game Championships? - Tales From the Internet" on YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.77.44 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Name

If this article is kept, then we do need to discuss the article name. I cannot remember where I saw the exact policy or guideline, but I believe it stated that we should not have honorifics in the title, especially if they are false. Tutelary (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The article title "Dr DisRespect" makes sense per MOS:AT. It's how he's known professionally, similar to how we use Dr. Dre for Andre Young. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have somewhat of an issue, but not related to honorifics. Nowhere does Beahm use "Dr DisRespect" ... he uses "DrDisRespect", "DrDisrespect", and "drdisrespect" but never the title of this article which is now "Dr DisResRespect". How is this mistake possible? --SVTCobra (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. Nowhere do I see him refer to himself as "Dr DisRespect". Instead it's always DrDisRespect and I believe this needs to be fixed 2600:6C48:767F:FF1B:3409:8097:8F64:8F24 (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

I suggest we change the main infobox to Template:Infobox Twitch streamer. Dr Disrespect is primarily an entertainer, not a professional eSports competitor. The few tournaments he does enter are celebrity tournaments more than anything. --SVTCobra (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Since no one commented, I have transitioned the infobox. I also embedded the YouTube infobox as a module, so now everything is neatly contained in one box. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

New section for twitch ban?

Should there be a new sub section to discuss his twitch ban? Rather than discussing it in the main lead article box? Viewratio (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

he got banned? news?--SVTCobra (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The event of the ban/suspension is covered for now in the career section. Please do not add it to the lede as it is a breaking report and we should not violate WP:BLP. If you have information with no source, please post it here on the talk page first instead of adding it to the article. Thanks. --SVTCobra (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Doc was indeed banned today SVTCobra, but there is no reason as to why so I feel it shouldnt be added in just yet. Link to a Polygon article here:https://www.polygon.com/2020/6/26/21304828/twitch-bans-dr-disrespect Thanks! Jiiiiiiii (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that the previous discussion was from over a year ago after the incident of streaming people urinating from a bathroom, and does not relate to the most recent ban. 81.154.110.34 (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Right - this one seems more severe. We are all sort of waiting for updates/more information on the situation, because right now there is a lot of lack of information (including statement by him too, so perhaps there is some legal reason why there is silence now.) 2A02:8388:1641:8380:9B78:5DE0:8D45:58AC (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Just like to remind you now of the two interviews he did this morning to be added: Interview with PC Gamer / Interview with the Washington Post (there's also analyzation by Forbes and YouTuber Jake Lucky if you need to). In both interviews, the former Twitch streamer insists that he still doesn't know the reasons or actions taken by the platform to ban him (with his final moments of live streaming having to do with "the state of the world" instead of what was about to happen); he also claims that he's not into any theory (like the fake Brime or his connection to conspiracy theorist David Icke) regarding his sudden ban and focused on his upcoming "Doc 3.0" personality. Appreciated. --2603:9000:A511:9E76:983E:58EA:BE0:53E6 (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've recently requested semi-protection as there are misinformation being posted on the article. Find it here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - Dr Disrespect --2603:9000:A511:9E76:85F1:C7BA:A507:7733 (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we keep the Twitch or YouTube template?

I noticed that the template for Dr Disrespect changed from Twitch to YouTube given that he did a comeback on the latter. However, there is reportedly no exclusive deal (a la Ninja and Shroud) and he may go from one platform to another. In addition, if he even does return to Twitch one way or another, information on his stats on there should be kept for a record. Just saying, should he decide to stream on his website next, there won't be any dedicated template for that right away unless he ends up banned on YouTube. --2603:9000:A511:9E76:3CC1:9F8:D718:9293 (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Just noticed that EoRdE6 changed it. I guess leave it as-is unless discussion overturns. --2603:9000:A511:9E76:3CC1:9F8:D718:9293 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, unless he does stream on YouTube next Friday or starts to do so every weekday, the template may need to be kept as if he is still on Twitch (since that is where he became notable). Who knows if the Doc himself has seen this article? Otherwise, it's dead and not moving. --2603:9000:A511:9E76:3CC1:9F8:D718:9293 (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Update: He did another live stream, which was focused on him becoming a partner of [Rogue Company] after tweeting to the developers that he is to develop a themed arena, to which they responded. Still waiting for someone. --2603:9000:A511:9E76:3CC1:9F8:D718:9293 (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

not a controversy

Is there any evidence that there is a controversy around him making fun of chinese speakers? Some news company making a (clearly biased) article about it does not suffice. It's not a controversy if only one or two people are running with the story.

The idea that it is racist to make fun of the way human language #205 sounds relies on the claimant's implicit assumption that any speaker of that language is indeed "dorky" or whatever, making the claimant racist on the exact same basis as he accused the other of being racist. So it's not really believable that there is a controversy around this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaghblahblah (talk • contribs) 18:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Section Coronavirus conspiracy theories

The first version of this section from August 2020 underwent several changes, indicating imho an editorial process that has reached a consensus. Nonetheless there have been several complete deletions of this section and subsequent reverts not only recently. But in result this paragraph was part of the article for most of the time.

As the main section title allready states, we are talking about a controversially viewed point. Therefore I don't think a whole section should be removed, but only additions or changes should be made.

Following this belief I will reintegrate this section. Regarding the concern of User:Grifteryaya, I will try to better clarify that the referenced Kotatko article contains mainly commentary. --Murata (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Murata If it has been deleted in the past, it should not have been re-added until there was talk page consensus per WP:ONUS. Also it was written in an unclear style. It was not clear what he did (shared media, said it?) and how what he did was discreditable. Also also, one article in a video gaming blog does not demonstrate notability. These things need to be addressed. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Solipsism 101 WP:ONUS is about the inclusion of a topic as whole. Do you dispute the notability of this section or that it is written in an unclear style? Reading the first part of your deletion comment, I asume second and therefore want you to note WP:EDITCON, where there is no deletion, only compromise. I advocate for an editorial process instead of deletion especially as it is a ... controverse ;). As stated above there has been a process reaching consensus to include this section. But that does not mean there is no room for improvement, lets try to acchieve a new consensus, improving the unclear style: Can you think of a wording that improves this section? He shared media, thats why it said "shared [...] media". I deem sharing misinformation on critical subjects, especially with his reach, discreditable. You do not? The blog article is a source reference not the claim for notability. I do think notability in general should be discussed in the talk pages, probably including sources, but rarely has to be mentioned explicitly (or referenced) in the article. --Murata (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Murata Per the policy (WP:ONUS, if content is contested, it is on you to gain consensus in order for the content to be included. You should remove the content you have re-added until that consensus is formed. I would support inclusion if it were clear what he did, in what context, and we had sustained coverage explaining why it was bad rather than a single article (thinking about WP:10YT). We do not have that at the minute. Best wishes, Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)