Talk:Gaming chair

Criticism of gaming chairs

@NinjaRobotPirate: Even though it's been a while since I removed the criticism of gaming chairs added here to the lede, I want to explain why I made those changes. The edit summary provided by the editor who added that criticism was, "article was overly positive towards gaming chairs, so I've added some information about criticisms towards the modern 'gaming chair'." It's true that parts of the article weren't exactly neutral, e.g., "A gaming chair is a type of chair designed for the comfort of gamers". However, the simple fact that a POV exists in an article isn't always a good reason to turn half the lede into a criticism of gaming chairs. My main concern was that the onus to include the criticism wasn't established, and a single source isn't usually enough. With regards to most similar subjects, there will almost always be many hundreds, if not thousands, of reliable articles on the internet for us to choose from, and criticism will almost certainly be covered in at least some detail.
After I removed the criticism from the lede, you restored part of it. Currently, the criticism still takes up almost half the lede. Again, my concern is that the onus to establish that the criticism is worth being placed in the lede hasn't been shown. I ask that you consider moving the criticism from the lede to a new section, perhaps one named "Marketing", that could explain how office chairs are marketed, and everything else about how they "tend to be designed and marketed primarily for aesthetics at the expense of having worse ergonomics than modern office chairs". Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are you trying to so hard to whitewash this article? Can you state whether you have a COI? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I have no COI with regards to gaming chairs, and my intention isn't to whitewash this article. I am engaging in the normal BRD process; I don't want to remove the criticism again because my deletion was reverted, so I am trying to discuss this with you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add the source, and I think it should stay, which I think is pretty solid evidence that WP:ONUS is satisfied. Now the relevant policy is WP:PRESERVE. If you think that whoever added the content didn't do a good job of neutrally summarizing the source, fix it. I think the article is generally poor, but it's about a chair, so I don't really care that much if it's a poor start-class article. If TechRadar thinks that some of the chairs marketed to a tech audience sometimes don't live up to the hype, that's a major tech news website talking about its specialty. It's not some random blog written by a computer programmer criticizing vaccines, so, no, I don't think it's undue, fringe, or anything else that would justify removal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Like I said, I believe the article would become more neutral if the criticism is moved to a section below. The article could be restructured slightly. If the criticism warrants a mention in the lede, it should probably be shorter, or the rest of the lede should contain other descriptions to make it more balanced. Is it okay with you if I do so? Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain how the article would be more neutral if every statement in the lead treats the marketing material as if it's a scientifically proven fact? Especially considering that WP:NPOV says "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure", which sounds like what you want. I think the lead is already more than positive enough, anyway. Half of the lead is dedicated to trying to convince people that these chairs are better than office chairs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

An option is to shorten the criticism to "Gaming chairs may be criticized for being designed and marketed primarily for aesthetics at the expense of having worse ergonomics than modern office chairs", since the current wording of "there are criticisms of gaming chairs" doesn't actually add much information, and is a bit too general. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No, WP:NPOV says "expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another", which is exactly what you're trying to do. Stop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Removing the sentence "However, there are criticisms of gaming chairs." won't present any expressions of doubt. The criticism in the latter sentence is fine because it is well explained. The former sentence, however, provides no context and no information, yet only serves to create a false balance, an attempt to equally mention the "good" and the "bad". There are no other mentions of criticism in the article, so why should it be so vague, in addition to the fact that it's in the lede? There is no evidence that there are plural "criticisms" of gaming chairs, when only one criticism is mentioned. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

hmmmmmmmmm...

Doesn't this type of chair run video games?????????????????????????????????????????????? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Video Gear Command Center, Gaming Chairs Before 2006.

a youtuber named Kurtis Conner uploaded a video about a viral tiktok "gaming chair" from 1999, this isthe source for many edits about it. But where does it go? i think it counts but i remember a few products from the late 90's that were like it, are there any earlier gaming chairs? 162.196.139.251 (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It was a substantially different product than the subject of this article - and this article shouldn't be linking to, citing, or even mentioning YouTube or TikTok videos unless they are mentioned in reliable sources such as major news outlets. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

that is why it says; "The known first form of gaming chair" 124.170.48.153 (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We still can't mention it without a reliable secondary source. MrOllie (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)