Talk:Assassin's Creed Shadows

Sweet Baby Inc.

Why wasn't it mentioned in regards to the Shadows controversy? The charges of racism are completely baseless. JBrownIII (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

No reliable source has mentioned Sweet Baby in regards to this. — Masem (t) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Ha! You mean this very site? Well I couldn't agree more. JBrownIII (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I see a number of random YouTube videos, neogaf posts, and unreliable sites saying this game is ruined by SBI, but no RS has tied the dissentment about the inclusion of the one character as something that could be attributed to SBI. Keep in mind the RSes themselves are not critical of this choice, only reporting that some fans are upset over the choice. Masem (t) 18:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

the company consults on video game narratives during development to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion

In 2023, the studio became the target of online users who claimed it promoted a "woke agenda".

Steam user created a curator group listing Sweet Baby's work, encouraging players to avoid the games as the studio promoted a "woke agenda". The curator group, known as "Sweet Baby Inc detected", received increased attention in February when a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report the group and its creator for violating Steam's code of conduct. The group's creator accused Sweet Baby of censorship. By April, the group had more than 355,000 followers and a related Discord server had thousands of members. JBrownIII (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with the game...? λ NegativeMP1 06:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

nothing, absolutely nothing 75.163.149.56 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Great contribution. JBrownIII (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Should we focus more on racism

As a Japanese man, it strikes me how many western publications want to denigrate Yasuke for not being born on this island. There are a lot of sources that discuss the racism, but its only mentioned once on the page. Should we add more about the sadness this has made in the Americas? 弥助は本物の忍者だった (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

We need reliable sources that specifically discuss and/or criticize the representation of Yasuke in the game itself. We know there are academic sources that discuss Yasuke as an historical figure outside the context of the game, certainly which Ubisoft used, but the "controversy" over how he appears in game was mostly driven by a small subset of gamers, to the point that most of the reliable gaming press mostly ignored it. Hence why it is only briefly touched on. Masem (t) 04:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

We could use

https://time.com/6978997/assassins-creed-shadow-yasuke-controversy/

https://gamerant.com/assassins-creed-shadows-yasuke-racism-george-floyd/

https://kotaku.com/assassins-creed-shadows-yasuke-backlash-racist-elon-1851539007

https://www.themarysue.com/assassins-creed-shadows-is-taking-heat-for-all-the-wrong-reasons/

There are lots of others, but the entire George Floyd face video says it all about angry American gamers 弥助は本物の忍者だった (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead and try to add it. If there is an issue with it it can always be discussed later Trade (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

And please keep it NPOV this time Trade (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Cool totally unbiased and very truthful sources there.

I guess while we're at it we'll also keep ignoring the massive Japanese backlash against nearly every aspect of the game, not even just Ubisoft's lie about their depiction of Yasuke being based on historical fact. 2001:1970:5A1C:F700:CDF7:F8BF:8B23:4F77 (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It was a vocal minority of right-wingers and no one lied. 186.152.149.7 (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

AC Liberation

The article wrongly states that Yasuka was "the second black protagonist in the series after Assassin's Creed Freedom Cry". This however ignores Assassin's Creed Liberation, whose protagonist is of Afro-French descent and should therefore also be considered black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.180.137 (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Japanese Reaction section

IP user deleted the "Japanese Reaction section" chapter due to "irrelevance", see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassin%27s_Creed_Shadows&diff=1246335224&oldid=1246313966

I think the text meets Wikipedia standards and would like to discuss it. Xslyq (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Your “sources” are a change.org petition and a crank looking for attention 117.20.69.134 (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask if you checked the credibility of the news reporting website? It is indeed a change.org petition, but it does reflect the discussion and reaction in Japan that I described.Xslyq (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

In the report from the second source, you can see the following: The 22nd lecture of the Tochigi "Seiron" Tomo no Kai was held on the 20th at Tochigi Prefecture's Gokoku Shrine in Yohnishi-cho, Utsunomiya City. Postal scholar and writer Yosuke Naito delivered a lecture titled "Decoding the Background of the Confused International Situation." Naito addressed an online controversy surrounding a game set in Japan's Sengoku period, scheduled for release in November, and emphasized the need for accurate information to be disseminated early, as misconceptions about Japanese history could spread internationally.

In his lecture, Naito stated that "a distorted image of Yasuke is spreading in the West" and warned, "If this issue is left unaddressed, it could lead to a situation similar to the spread of the comfort women issue. We need to raise awareness early and communicate that 'this is not the truth.'"Xslyq (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Xslyq This warning is could also apply for yourself and giving it after only the first revert of your edit was unnecessary. And per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD it should be removed until the discussion is finished, at this point it's you who's edit warring. @JeffSpaceman Not sure your revert and warning were that helpful in this situation. Nobody (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

So,The sites I cited include:Sankei Shimbun, a daily national newspaper in Japan published by the Sankei Shimbun Co., Ltd, ranking amongst the top 5 most circulated newspapers in Japan.FLASH, a weekly japan magazine published by Kobunsha, released every Tuesday. It was first launched on November 5, 1986. The official website of Satoshi Hamada, a member of the House of Councillors.Members discuss issues of national policy, oversee government actions, and represent the interests of the people at a national level.Xslyq (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This was intended to be the reply to 117.20.69.134. Sorry for the confusion.Xslyq (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't know about the first two, but the personal website of a House of Councillors Member doesn't count as reliable. See WP:SPS. Nobody (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sankei Shimbun is a nationalist publication that has engaged in WW2 revisionism, war crime denial and denial of comfort women. 117.20.69.134 (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just wanted to alert this user to the consequences of edit warring. I was trying to be helpful with pointing them towards WP:3RR and other policies, but I can see where you're coming from regarding my revert and warning. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If I may chime in? I believe a satisfactory compromise here would be to fold part of the Japanese reaction section into the protagonist controversy section, keeping the "Due to perceived disrespect toward Japanese history..." and excluding the politician's response, since as per what @1AmNobody24 pointed out, the source provided for that is a biased blog post. This would probably fit best underneath Ubisoft's acknowledgement.

Does this sound good to all? Sirocco745 (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I still have issues with using nationalist publications as a source but fine 117.20.69.134 (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

sure, sounds good. However, the government did investigate and respond. I'm curious if this source meets Wikipedia's standards: https://screenrant.com/assassins-creed-shadows-japanese-government-investigation-controversy /

Also, here's the government's response:

https://www.sankei.com/article/20240724-WTXDURJJXJAK7DGLOI6HQMTIIY/

The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology responded, "Regarding the potential harmful effects of home video games on children, in general terms, careful consideration is required when content is suspected to be contrary to public order and morals."

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated, "Since the issue pertains to games and is unrelated to diplomacy, we are unable to respond."Xslyq (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, we can use the sankei article with the government's response. Even though the paper is biased, everyone in life has their ideals that they stick by, including the politicians that made the response. While they may not represent a neutral point of view, they represent a point of view that shouldn't be ignored and deserves at least a mention. Sirocco745 (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Came back a few days later to see how this is going, and it looks to me like the article is in a much better place now! Thanks for compromising and getting this sorted out, guys! :D Sirocco745 (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that Sankei has published a series of articles outright denying the Nanking Massacre, and is very far from a reliable source. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This is misinformation/fake news I've seen repeated in online groups a few times, but in any case it's worth stating here that there was never a government investigation[1]. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, and what you say does not conflict with the text discussed in the RfC proposal.Xslyq (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Not only is the proposed section undue and gossipy (not what Wikipedia is for), but the sources are also of poor quality.

It would reduce the quality of the article. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is a very constructive reason, especially not one that justifies the removal of large amounts of content.

For the purpose of this article, the news cited does reflect the sentiments of some Japanese citizens. Moreover, the government did respond.Gossipy and quality are also weak reasons.

I also need to point out thatYour first attempted removal was made without discussion

Xslyq (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is not about a removal, it is about your proposed addition that has been opposed by multiple other editors due to poor source quality.

Gossip and source quality are not weak reasons, on the contrary they relate to fundamental Wikipedia policy (WP:!, WP:RS). Symphony Regalia (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

When you talk in general terms without listing specifics, it's probably a sign of bad faith.

I don't know why you don't continue the discussion in RfC, but okay.

If you want to argue that the source is biased, there are already WP:BIASED and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.NOPV Please refer to WP:POVDELETION.

I honestly don’t know what you mean by WP:WEIGHT, because it clearly says that if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; this has long been in line with significant minority.Xslyq (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I must remind you again that a consensus has been reached in he discussion you mentioned. Before you deleted it without discussion, the last discussion in this area was literally "Came back a few days later to see how this is going, and it looks to me like the article is in a much better place now! Thanks for compromising and getting this sorted out, guys! :D”

Xslyq (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This discussion certainly does not have consensus. There are only a few editors in this section, most of them opposing your change, and several threads of discussion still open. Symphony Regalia (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Good point, did you think about this before trying to censor content without even participating in the discussion? Especially suspicious considering you removed the reminder from the user talk page and marked it as a Minor edit. WP:MINOR A good rule of thumb is that only edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content may be flagged as minor edits.Xslyq (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

When you talk in general terms without listing specifics, it's probably a sign of bad faith.

Nobody said personal website of a House of Councillors Member doesn't count as reliable. The unreliable ones have been corrected.

117.20.69.134 said I still have issues with using nationalist publications as a source but fine.

What do you mean most of them opposing my change?

The discussion was compromised to its conclusion, unreliable sources were removed, anda there already silent for several days before you censor the content. Xslyq (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC:Should Assassin's Creed Shadows include the Re-enactment flag controversy and Japanese reaction?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus against the proposed additions and no consensus that these controversies deserve sections of their own, but there seems to be a rough consensus that some mention of both controversies is appropriate, perhaps in the development section. (Note that the sources provided by Xslyq have been challenged, and those found by Masem and Senorangel would make a better starting point for writing something.) (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the article contain the flag-reenactment and Japanese reaction sections added in this and this edit? --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Currently, there are attempt to remove Assassin's Creed Shadows' Re-enactment flag controversy and Japanese reaction.

Based on previous discussions and text, Should Assassin's Creed Shadows retain the Re-enactment flag controversy and Japanese reaction?Xslyq (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• _{RFC reworded per WP:RFCNEUTRAL and concerns below. --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)}

Please respond only once with either Support or Oppose, and include an explanatory statement. To maintain clarity, do not reply to other editors' statements in these sections. Any back-and-forth discussion should be reserved for the Discussion section. Thank you!Xslyq (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. It's pretty clear that this is a major part of the game's coverage right now, and there's no reason to not include it. There are reliable sources discussing it, it's clearly not trivia and very relevant, so it seems good to me. Note that this vote is about whether or not the section should simply exist or not, and I'm not really keeping track of whatever is going on in the discussion above this one. λ NegativeMP1 07:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Both the backlash from Yasuke's inclusion as well as the spillover on both this article and the Yasuke page as a result of the so-called anti-woke crowd is clearly non-trivial and there's been a lot of talk as well as formal commentary about it. This isn't like in let's say Mafia III where the mere inclusion of a Black lead character as well as the overarching sociopolitical commentary in the game generated some furor on Steam but eventually dissipated into certain obscurity. God of War Ragnarök did have a bit of a DEI row with a Black supporting character in a Norse setting but even that pales in comparison to what poor Yasuke had to endure with the game he is set to appear in. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
3. No real proper reason not to include it. While the sources from which the section takes its information may have a history of bias and such, if we excluded all information based on our own biases and whether a source aligned with them or not, then Wikipedia would be a constant edit war between literally everyone. I support keeping this section. It's relevant to the game's reception and Ubisoft, it comes from a group of people relevant to the subject (Japanese people being vocal about their culture and what they believe to be acceptable portrayals of it), and 90,000 people signing an online petition plus a government response can hardly be considered trivial. Sirocco745 (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
   1. After having reviewed the discussion and taking some time away to reflect on both my views and the Wikipedia guidelines, I am rescinding my support vote but not going for an oppose. Consider this me changing my vote to Neutral. While I still maintain the view that it is important to show the Japanese reaction, I believe the whole section about the game's reception could be done better and could incorporate criticism to achieve WP:BALANCE. Another thing to note about this entire argument is that it's about a game, which makes reliable sourcing all that much harder since larger reputable networks don't see videogame drama as worth their time to cover (which is fair enough in some cases) and the ones that do get involved are well known for heavy view bias. If you want to find information about an apparent culture dispute but your only sources are, say, Fox News and IGN, then there's a bit of an issue there with trying to find concrete fact. Sirocco745 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
4. The way these sections are currently written avoid getting into the Gamergate-like complaints and focuses on the actual Japanese cultural aspects of concern from non-gamer/government sectors. That seems to elevate it beyond the typical "controversy" that happens when a small group of players target a game and claim it's "woke", so this all seems DUE. --Masem (t) 12:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
5. Support. It's self explanatory because the re-enactment flag controversy and the Japanese reaction is major part of the game's coverage right now, so there's no reason to not include it. Not to mention the re-enactment group has asked ubisoft to repeatedly remove the flag but ubisoft has ignored them. Now the group are suing ubisoft for using their flag without permission. And everyone already knows the negative reaction from the Japanese to this game, it's public knowledge at this point. So yes they should stay since these are important and relevant topic about the game. --Ronten5 (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
6. My point has been made below and I would like to draw special attention to WP:POVDELETION, WP:BIASED and WP:NOTCENSORED. In the absence of consensus, I think these should remain until further consensus is achieved.Even if the current sources are all deemed unusable (I disagree, and please consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:BIASED), there are still many additional sources.Here are some examples:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]Xslyq (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

   You cannot register a vote on a discussion you have started, though it would be sketch regardless due to the user's nature as a single-purpose account created to solely edit Assassin's Creed Shadows. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

   As far as I've seen, it is extremely normal for RFC initiators to signal support for an option during an RFC. That is different from other discussions, such as requested moves and XfDs because there the nominator is assumed to support what whatever the nomination statement says. The RFC body itself needs to be neutral but the initiator does not need to stay neutral in the discussion. (See Wikipedia:Help desk#Can you comment on an RfC you started? for a current discussion about this very question.) WP:RFCNEUTRAL for example links to WP:Writing requests for comment which says The RfC question should not include arguments supporting or opposing any particular outcome, unless included as part of a brief summary of all sides of the argument. Your own opinions should be posted in a separate comment, not in the question itself.) Skynxnex (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

7. Include but improve. When dealing with computer games, it is understandable that more "serious" RS like the Wall Street Journal may ignore it. Nonetheless, as explained by other editors, these are notable controversies, even if we have disagreements about how different aspects should be covered. They have caused Ubisoft to delay the game launch specifically to address, among other issues, cultural and historical concerns from the Japanese community. Senorangel (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
8. Support brief and to-the-point coverage of a) some Japanese people considered the game cultural appropriation and b) the company briefly used someone else's trademark/equiv. flag, then removed it and apologized. The fact that a game can have these issues even if they are a small or moderate deal is part of due coverage of video games in general. "Not every cultural appropriation accusation is a humongous deal" is useful information. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
9. Support. Its clear this is a huge point of intreast related to the game currently. As shown with Xslyq, there are plenty of sources for it as well. I don't see why not.

Oppose

1. Oppose. This RfC has very misleading wording. This does not appear to be about retaining, but rather about a proposed addition on your behalf[25] that was contested by other editors. You were warned to wait for discussion[26], which you subsequently ignored[27]. As called out by multiple editors above[28] your proposed addition has a number of problems including poor quality sources, biased self-publishing, and WP:UNDUE weight. In particular one of the sources is an opinion piece on a website that has published a series of articles denying the Nanking Massacre. The others appear to be self-published blogs with clear political angles (including one that looks to be a personal Wordpress blog with a hotmail email address in the header)[29]. Not only that, but you are attributing an anonymous change.org petition to Japanese people in a way that is not supported by any sourcing at all (not even the unreliable sourcing above) since it concerns a petition that was open to the entirety of the global internet population, which brings severe WP:OR and WP:V violations. This comes across as POV pushing and there isn't really a policy argument for a dedicated "X Reaction" section (WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:CSECTION not withstanding), and it would result in major WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE concerns. Anything that becomes notable on its own can easily be represented in other sections. There is significantly more material published in French (and by actual reliable sources unlike the above), yet we have no "French Reaction", nor do we have an "American Reaction", etc. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose There is hardly any controversy, besides highly WP:FRINGE sources and random X users who are angry that a real historical figure is being used in a game. It's sufficient for one or two sentences of discussion, but we shouldn't be giving serious credence to the idea that people should not be able to write the story they want - with someone based on actual samurai Yasuke no less - because someone is mad online, otherwise Wikipedia risks being WP:PROFRINGE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose I think elevating obscure gamergate controversies based on unreliable sources is problematic. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to the Japanese controversy and to Japanese sources: why should we focus only on the reactions (and sources) from Japan? Compare with the section in the Yasuke article, Yasuke#Assassin's_Creed_Shadows, where the sources include TIME, New York Times, Japan Times. So the proposed text includes the views of a marginal politician, Satoshi Hamada, and doesn't mention that Elon Musk has criticised the game as an example of how "DEI kills art". The controversy is not only about Japanese people, but about right-wing gamers from all over the world, including the US; the controversy is not only about cultural appropriation, but also about anti-woke sentiments if not racism against black people. Instead of keeping this text, we should expand it by merging it with the one on Yasuke. Moreover, suggestive and misleading sentences as It is worth noting that Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology emphasized in their response that, “careful consideration is required when content is suspected to be contrary to public order and morals” should be removed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose If it's that big a deal there should be better sources for it. I also oppose the constant edit warring by Xslyq. (Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3) Nobody (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
6. Oppose per UNDUE. This should be one sentence in the development section, not an airing of grievances. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
7. Leaning oppose. The fact that various ranty-pants people are mad about something on gamer forums is not really an encyclopedic topic (or subtopic). There's not enough coverage of this in actually reliable sources, and what little there is really is about gamer culture and far-right elements within it or affecting it, about cultural appropriation, about a Japanese politician, and about other things than about this game in particular, from what I've seen. E.g. the Time piece is not in-depth coverage and proper journalism, but editorial off-the-cuff summary, and mostly consists of quotation of rando gamerdudes; it is not a secondary source, but a primary one. A Change.org pedition is not a source at all. The three gamer e-zine sources are kinda-sorta usable sources for some things (like release dates, system requirments, etc.), and potentially useful in an "is there in-depth coverage?" WP:N examination of the game itself, but these pieces are also largely just regurgitation of primary-source "reaction" junk from nobodies. The "It is worth noting ..." mini-editorial quoted above, from material removed from our article, was completely inappropriate. So, even if we did include a sentence or two summarizing this stuff, it would need to be written from scratch in a neutral and WP:DUE manner, and using what little actual secondary analysis that there is, not quotoids from pseudonymous forum posters and bloggers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
8. Oppose per agreement with @Gitz's comment. I think there is undue weight to the controversies given their fringe nature. Namely, that the existence of outrage being noted does not mean it is encyclopediac information - especially when in this instance several are clearly based on identity and Gamergate (Outrage at playing as an African man, outrage at LGBT romance, etc.) When stuff of this nature is included from what I have seen these sorts of controversies are normally handled on the page of the individual character rather than the game (See: Guilty Gear Strive does not mention the misinformation about Bridget's gender, but Bridget (Guilty Gear) does). I think the section on Yasuke is sufficient and fits with this and does not belong on the page for the game itself. I think the flag controversy on the other hand has some merit to be present though but I am unaware if there is concensus among WP:VG for whether minor controversies like this are encyclopediac. As it currently stands though the section on 'protagonists' fails WP:NPOV and if it stays needs to be rewritten heavily. Relm (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Based on the sourcing, a dedicated section is indeed undue weight. It would be sufficient to further paraphrase and include as part of § Development, possibly as a single sentence but no more than a few. It isn't Reception. The rest of the current Reception should be pared down too as undue weight—it should be a summary for a general audience, not a blow-by-blow accounting. czar 10:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
10. Oppose. A section is WP:UNDUE for the flag controversy based on current coverage, which was brief and not sustained; this was a flash in the pan of no real significance relative to the overall coverage the topic has received. Also note that many of the "support" comments above seem unclear on what we're discussing (most of the comments are about the Yasuke controversy, which is not what we're discussing, and few mention the flag controversy.) Finally, note that this is a disputed new addition, so the "retain" wording is inappropriate for it (and I have tweaked the RFC's wording to address this per WP:RFCNEUTRAL.) The Japanese reaction section is better covered more briefly as part of the Yasuke section... where it already is discussed with more appropriate weight. --Aquillion (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Undue weight and bad sourcing. BMWF (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

To clarify Symphony Regalia's statement, current references to the above areas include IGN, gamesradar, flash,siliconera, screenrant, inside-games.jp, rpgsite, and Sankei Shimbun. The blog references are not core and have been removed.

Among them, the one currently considered controversial by Symphony Regalia is Sankei Shimbun. However, for the purpose of this article, I think Sankei Shimbun is appropriate.

Other claims about original research are not ture. as an example，Here is a quote from FLASH

If it were blatantly obvious that the game was a highly fictionalized 'fantasy Japan,' such criticism might never have arisen. However, the series has built its reputation on accurately portraying the history, culture, and customs of the periods and regions it depicts. Given that, the criticism is perhaps inevitable," the game magazine writer concludes.

Note that the reference is only because the Japanese controversy exists per se, not about whether Yasuke is a samurai.Xslyq (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The entirety of sources in your proposed and challenged "Japanese Reaction" section[30] are:

• A Yahoo News! opinion piece[31].
• A personal Wordpress blog[32]
• Sankei Shinbum, a nationalist website that has denied the Nanking Massacre and downplayed Comfort Women [33]

Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, What does the nationalist website have to do with this? They represent the thoughts of some Japanese people, and this is a fact.Fox News can prove that some Republican members are unhappy with the border issue, I don't think that is controversial.

in the text of the current RfC version, the sources for the "Japanese Reaction" section are as follows:

Articles from FLASH magazine founded in 1986 (Yahoo News itself is just an aggregation site)

Various news articles from Sankei Shimbun

screenrant

gamesradar

inside-games.jp

rpgsite.netXslyq (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, I need to remind Symphony Regalia of the following.

A consensus has been reached in the previous discussion you mentioned. Before you deleted it without discussion, the last discussion in this area was literally "Came back a few days later to see how this is going, and it looks to me like the article is in a much better place now! Thanks for compromising and getting this sorted out, guys! :D”

Interestingly, Symphony Regalia also removed the reminder from the user tlak page and marked it as Minor edit.Although Symphony Regalia can do this, it's still worth mentioning.

Xslyq (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Didn't notice that one, thanks for pointing it out. Isn't editing talk pages to reflect a view you hold meant to be against Wikipedia's rules? thonk

- Sirocco745 (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned above, your previous discussion certainly did not have consensus. There were only a few editors in that section, most of them opposing your change. Symphony Regalia (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

When you talk in general terms without listing specifics, it's probably a sign of bad faith.

Nobody said personal website of a House of Councillors Member doesn't count as reliable. The unreliable ones have been corrected.

117.20.69.134 said I still have issues with using nationalist publications as a source but fine.

What do you mean most of them opposing my change?

The discussion was compromised to its conclusion, unreliable sources were removed, anda there already silent for several days before you censor the content. And once again, you did not respond to your actions.Xslyq (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant because Sankei has demonstrably proven itself to be unreliable when it comes to history related topics, and their mention of this topic is over its relation to the real historical figure.

screenrant is not reliable for anything controversial.

inside-games (not to be confused with the Youtube channel) is an obscure blog where every article on the front page has 0 comments.

rpgsite also appears to be an obscure blog to the point that it has not even once ever been written about by another website[34], and most of its writers are "contributors".

These sources are overall exceedingly poor quality and should not be used to push the WP:FRINGE/POVs. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how to make it clearer, Sankei representative is that some Japanese people hate this game. The Japanese government is not investigating the game out of thin air.

Furthermore, you don't list all the sources, and there are many additional reliable sources that can be provided. In fact, the part of your sources doubt is only around whether Ubisoft canceled TGS exhibition, which can be easily proved. Xslyq (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The Japanese government was never investigating the game. That was fake news[35]. Symphony Regalia (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, have you read the actual text form that section?The government responded instead of investigating.Glad you agree with the literal text.I'm not arguing this, it's a typo.

House of Councillors member Satoshi Hamada stated that he has reported the issue to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and other relevant agencies. He plans to inquire about the government's position and future response. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology will not be investigating the game stating that “historical fiction isn't really their concerns at all”.It is worth noting that Education, Culture, Sports , Science and Technology emphasized in their response that, “careful consideration is required when content is suspected to be contrary to public order and morals”.

And what's interesting is that you used current sources to confirm that the government did respond.

Xslyq (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No, the Japanese government isn't investigating Ubisoft's game[36]

Direct quote. Not sure what part of this is unclear to you. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the point you want to prove. Because this does not conflict with the text discussed in the RfC proposal. On the contrary, it is confirmed.Xslyq (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I have pointed out the reliability of Sankei in this case many times, and you have not responded directly.

Your Screenrant statement does not provide any reason.

Inside-games.jp has a corresponding wiki page, and it only reports that Ubisoft canceled the TGS online exhibition.

A simple Google search will reveal that rpgsite is listed on Metacritic.

Once again, your statement is dubious and potentially malicious.

Xslyq (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I have pointed out the reliability of Sankei in this case many times, and you have not responded directly.

You made the argument that while Sankei is biased, that does not necessarily mean it is unreliable. This does not hold because, as mentioned above, Sankei has demonstrably proven itself to be unreliable when it comes to history[37] [38] [39] and their primary mention of this topic is over its relation to the historical figure.

Your Screenrant statement does not provide any reason.

Screenrant was found by consensus to be an entertainment site that is unreliable for controversial topics.

Inside-games.jp has a corresponding wiki page, and it only reports that Ubisoft canceled the TGS online exhibition

The wikipage is not for Inside-games, it is for what looks to be the owner brand (which says nothing on the reliability of the site), and the only citations on it are from 8 and 11 years ago.

Regardless it is an extraordinary obscure website that gets no comments.

A simple Google search will reveal that rpgsite is listed on Metacritic

Metacritic is aggregation software. I am referring to coverage in a secondary or tertiary capacity. Far from coverage, I couldn't find a single passing reference on any notable source, or any source period referencing anything they've ever written.

With the most generous interpretation you might cite them for a game review score, but certainly not for anything related to politics or culture wars.

The sources are fringey and are overall low quality, and this circles back to the crux of it, which is that the "Japanese reaction" is overall not supported by reliable sources. It is mostly something pushed on social media fringes by Gamergate-types hence WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV become very important. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You again claim that Sankei is unreliable because of historical figures involved.

WP:POVDELETION It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.

The cited Sankei was a protest against the game, rather than its use to confirm the existence of samurai.For example, FLASH magazine founded in 1986, you have no objection, so I assume it can be used. You repeatedly say that the authenticity of historical figures themselves is very difficult to understand.Do you mean that the Japanese who protest and resent gaming in 2024 are themselves historical figures?

Screenrant was found by consensus to be an entertainment site that is unreliable for controversial topics.''

Citation needed

The reliability of Inside-games.jp and rpgsite

Do you really want to question the source of the quote that On September 24, Ubisoft announced it would cancel its Tokyo Game Show 2024 online exhibition due to various circumstances?

Sure, there are many sources of supplements

[40][41]

WP:NOTCENSOREDWikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.Xslyq (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want to argue that the source is biased, there are already WP:BIASED and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.NOPV Please refer to WP:POVDELETION.

I honestly don’t know what you mean by WP:WEIGHT, because it clearly says that if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; this has long been in line with significant minority.Xslyq (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe that this would be of note to the context of why we're even talking about this flag controversy in the first place: an Arbitration discussion from four years ago, where Symphony Regalia was "indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes, controversies, or social movements" due to their involvement in the GamerGate and SARS-CoV-2 articles. Read the linked discussion for the full details, I won't recount them here.

While this current discussion over Assassin's Creed Shadows doesn't fall within the lines of such, their past and recent contributions and the Arbitration discussion lead me to believe their involvement in this discussion are not to keep Wikipedia as correct as possible, but rather to simply be disruptive. In attempting to use WP:NPOV as a tool to get the flag controversy section removed, Symphony Regalia also seems to have conveniently glossed over trying to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV and have also neglected WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM by simply sledgehammering the offending section with the sections of policies that suit their views. Sirocco745 (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly you are a brand new user who made your first edit two weeks ago[42] to push POVs, and here you are talking about arbitration and citing WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, which leads me to believe you are an obvious sock.

I have never edited GamerGate and SARS-CoV-2 has nothing to do with anything, but I do find that interesting in that it is precisely the Gamergate-types that are attempting to push this controversy, the fringe "japanese reaction", and other reactionary talking points here despite having essentially zero reliable sourcing. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

... I don't see how my first edit was trying to push a POV? I was just cleaning up an article that my Wikipedia homepage recommended to me as a simple copyedit. I even stated my intent in the edit! "This page clearly has a bias towards promoting the organization, but as a new Wikipedia editor, I am unsure as to how I should edit this in an unbiased way that remains factually correct but not exultant." That is why my edits in that diff you are referring to are merely changing two words and deleting a couple of spaces. I stated that I was unsure how to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM due to my inexperience, and so I limited myself to doing what I knew how to do: fixing incorrect sentence syntax.

Your reply detracts from the points I'm making: there is substantial enough evidence that your edits are made in bad faith and with the intent of disrupting Wikipedia. Counter my original statement's point with your own point, that's a worthwhile use of your time instead of pointing out a few bytes worth of syntax clean-up.

I will admit that I didn't properly read what the Arbitration discussion was linking to. I merely saw GamerGate, not that it was actually linking to the discretionary sanctions around GamerGate. Anyway, it's almost 10pm here and I'm heading off for the night now. I won't see your messages until the morning, so take your time in replying :3

- Sirocco745 (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The only one who appears to be engaging in disruptive behavior is yourself. I will kindly remind you to stay on topic.

Edit: Just want to note that Sirocco745 later retracted these claims and apologized to me for being uncivil. Thanks Sirocco745! Symphony Regalia (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Noting at least a few sources outside gaming media attributing these criticisms as contributing to Ubisoft's devision to delay the game and the impact that had on its market price [43] [44] in addition to VG centric media. I agree that how some of this is present is a Due as to how much weight it's given but it should be ignored at this point. Masem (t) 21:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think many agree that the overall anti-DEI backlash is broadly due for a mention (note: not to be confused, not under discussion here), perhaps briefly in the development section. As it pertains to this RfC I think both of these sources actually highlight that the proposed "Japanese reaction section"[45] is undue though. Neither of them mention Japan or a Japanese reaction. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Another source that ties some of the delay to them reworking Yasuke as a reaction to the fan criticism (but not the only reason) [46] — Masem (t) 16:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

From the content, it looks like the section says "Some Japanese people think the game is cultural appropriation" + "The game, possibly accidentally, used someone else's trademarked/etc. flag, got caught, removed the flag, and apologized." What does this have to do with Gamergate?Or was there a Gamergate or Gamergate-type controversy about the character Yasuke but not about this flag issue? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It started with the Yasuke issue, with those still clinging to GG claiming Ubisoft went woke with that choice. They have continued, not as great a degree, to berate the game for these other issues. Masem (t) 13:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reception section doesn't mention racist backlash

The reception section here entirely misses references to the small minded racism that surrounded this game. I think there should be a section dedicated to the racist backlash from basement dwellers. Duane Suave (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This is all covered under the Protagonists section. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Undue criticism and non-reception in Reception section

Hi, I noticed that users Czar, Zxcvbnm, Aquillion and Relmcheatham made comments above (1 2 3 1) that the reception section is too long and gives undue weight to many things so I attempted to shorten it here just containing the most crucial portions to the average reader (1) but it was opposed by Masem and OceanHok.

It presently includes undue things like

• A YouTuber called it "pandering" to use Yasuke instead of a "real Japanese hero in a Japanese time period."
• Some critics also attacked the option for LGBTQ relationships.
• Critics on social media reacted negatively to the inclusion of a Black samurai protagonist instead of an indigenous Japanese one, accusing Ubisoft of going woke

That I don't think belongs in an encyclopedia. The reception is 8000KB long and most of it has nothing to do with reception. It is more like an Conservapedia grievance airing section or some kind of attack page. And since it is under the "Reception" section it unfairly gives the impression that the game was reviewed when in reality it isn't out and is in development.

I attempted to compromise and remove less so I made that version that keeps 99% of it but places it in the development section. You can see that version here and how it still includes all of the undue drama. That was also opposed by Masem but I'm not sure why. I read WP:BRD so I'm starting a discussion for everyone.

Thank you BMWF (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It really isn't undue when there are two paragraphs in the article about Ubisoft's justification of including Yasuke. They are certainly reception materials (pre-release responses to the game), and they certainly belong in an encyclopedia (supported by mainstream media sources like New York Times, Forbes, Time and Wired, arguably of much higher quality than any gaming-focused press). I am ok with it being trimmed (we probably don't need to single out the YouTuber, and Ubisoft is essentially repeating itself throughout the next two paragraphs). Leaving only the IGN opinion in the reception section, however, is undue. OceanHok (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Ubisoft's updates are development info not reception.

IGN isn't undue because that's the only actual published critic. Vague internet drama doesn't belong in the reception section which is intended for published reviewers. The rest is undue weight to things that aren't reception. Things on development updates or commentary on development choices should be trimmed down and moved to the development section. BMWF (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

No one said we should only limit to "professional reviewers" for the reception section. We include all sorts of reviews (from both users and the audience) as long as they are supported by secondary reliable sources. The "vague internet drama" is well-supported by mainstream media and do not fall under WP:USERG. I still failed to see how undue weight is a problem because the section includes both viewpoints already. They can be trimmed, but they should not be removed. OceanHok (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

At this point, IGN's comment is not "reception" but additional commentary about the controversy (in this case, supporting Ubisoft's choices here). We also try to avoid creating single sentence paragraphs and sections, which that version forces and is unnecessary.

Once the game is out, and we have more to talk about the game, we can review how to approach the controversy around the characters better but the current version is the best way to do it well before release. Masem (t) 12:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The current version can be greatly trimmed by combining and generalizing sentences rather than giving quotes of specific opinions. Basically think how would you describe this to someone in a paragraph or two and then what sources would you use to substantiate it. The BMWF edit cut out too much of the actual controversy and left too much quoting from Ubisoft. czar 13:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The current version needs to be trimmed down a lot. I would be okay to move IGN's comment to the development section too but its the only published critic currently. BMWF (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)