This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.polygon.com/gaming/545774/assassins-creed-shadows-japanese-reviews-reframe-the-historical-accuracy-debate

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hey everyone, this section is a relic of an outdated article version. More Walls (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The examples say otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin%27s_Creed_Mirage#Reception - only mentions professional reviews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_2077#Reception - only mentions professional reviews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_2077:_Phantom_Liberty#Reception - only mentions professional reviews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_Zero_Dawn#Reception - only mentions professional reviews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur%27s_Gate_3#Reception - only mentions professional reviews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_(video_game)#Reception - only mentions professional reviews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Plague_Tale:_Requiem#Reception - only mentions professional reviews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Black_Ops_6#Critical_reception - only mentions professional reviews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_of_the_Tomb_Raider#Critical_response - only mentions professional reviews

"Critical reception" is use interchangably with "Reception" in many articles because the focus is for actual critics. The policy also says otherwise and that self-published material and user generated content isn't a reliable source. Just because someone has written about what bigots are saying online doesn't mean that should be put in the section intended for reviews of the game.

WP:UGC says "Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users (including the reported rating averages) are not. " BMWF (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy involved here. Its a MOS and guideline, with lots of room for flexibility.

At some point, when the game is actually released, we will probably have a better idea where to shuffle these issues over the characters better into the article. But until that point, placing it under reception makes the most sense. Masem (t) 01:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have you read the IGN article? He's not being a commentator on the game, but a commentator on Ubisoft's decision. Major difference from a typical critical review of a game. — Masem (t) 01:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop moving the information about the controversy to the development/release section unless you are able to reach a consensus here. OceanHok (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus here is against the position you have on this (1 2 3 4). BMWF (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those discussions are not about the Yasuke issue, you realize that? Masem (t) 23:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are. "The existence of outrage being noted does not mean it is encyclopediac information - especially when in this instance several are clearly based on identity (Outrage at playing as an African man, outrage at LGBT romance, etc.)", "The rest of the current Reception should be pared down too as undue weight", and so on. BMWF (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it *has* been trimmed down to appropriate weight. Yes, it probably will not stay under "Reception" once the game actually gets released, but there's no other good place for it presently.

Also, I am going to stress this again: the IGN article is not a reception on the character, but it is a reception on the decision of Ubisoft to present the character as they have. The continual split of that segment of the issue to treat is as reception is completely wrong, it is part of the same thought as other scholars praising Ubisoft for the choice. Masem (t) 12:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5 edits in multiple discussions don't make a consensus and edit warring to keep your changes in is disruptive. Nobody (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be trimmed down. I see no reason that it shouldn't be more than a sentence or two in the development section. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have further trimmed the section down. WP:DUE should really no longer be an issue. This is not a minor controversy at all if it attracts coverage from mainstream media (which typically won't cover video games). I have made a compromise to fold the pre-release reception to release (this was also how Hogwarts Legacy, a GA, handles its surrounding controversies). The context behind the controversy should not be removed as it is essential for the general readers to understand, and IGN's comment should not go into reception per Masem's argument. OceanHok (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think cote's comment on the general fantasy nature of AC games is still relevant but for now it's fine to omit. We will see what happens when the game is released if this controversy builds back up. Masem (t) 16:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the absence of the racial controversy in “reception” to the presence of said writing. It is intellectually dishonest and politically motivated to not include it 24.177.204.161 (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The controversy is discussed under Release, pending until we can flesh out the article more on the game's release and determine if there's a better location for it. --Masem (t) 13:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 24.177.204.161. What is there to figure out? Structure of the controversy section? Journalism consensus? More Walls (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The game releases in about a month. Then we will have more about the game's reception, including if there are continued issues with the character controversy or not. If it was limited to only pre release, it doesn't make to add it to the reception. If it does, we may need a sepearate section there Masem (t) 21:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true the new release date for Assassin's Creed Shadows sahres the same date as the Tokyo Metro Sarin Attack, there have been several games released on March 20th throughout the years (eg. Animal Crossing New Horizons, Doom Eternal, Elder Scrolls IV: Obilvion, Final Fantasy Type-0 HD, Sea of Theives). Notably Xenoblade Chronicles X Definitive Edition on Nintendo Switch is also planned to be released on March 20, 2025 as well. Don't get me wrong, this definitley another bad PR for Ubisoft and they could have choose a less sensitive release date, but I don't know if this should be considered another controversy. Sponge123 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The game is known for being anti-Japanese making it very unpopular among Japanese people causing a lot of controversy. Even the PM complained about it yet such mention is buried under "Marketing and release" looking like the article wants to hide criticism of the game.

Waka Waka (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given recent articles around the release, which it should be called "controversy", there is enough commentary and actions taken by Ubisoft to address the cultural concerns in the game. We were waiting until the game was released to figure out where such a section would best fit, and this still seems like it falls under development as it is Ubisoft responding to that. Masem (t) 17:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "real" complaints regarding this game (i.e. ones coming from actual Japanese public figures, as opposed to fringe ultranationalists signal-boosted by American gamergate-grifters) boils down the age old chestnut of "video games cause real life violence", which has been thoroughly debunked decades ago. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not really though https://gamerant.com/assassins-creed-shadows-japan-prime-minister-comments/ - FMSky (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been outright debunked. An unnamed politician brought the subject of the game up during a budget hearing, and the PM, who never heard of the game gave a generic response. Politicians are allowed to ask any questions from the PM during a budget hearing, and one of them used the opportunity to go viral. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ishida complained about the game destroying Japanese shrines and killing Shinto priests in the same temple which its anti-Japanese. He never said "video games cause real life violence". They are valid concerns since the game shouldn't promote bigotry towards the place and the people they are representing. Waka Waka (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is already present in a short two-sentence summary. Masem (t) 03:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The PM never complained about the game. He was talking about real-life shrine vandalism. It should also be pointed out it wasn't even a genuine topic of discussion. There is a budget reconciliation process in which house members can ask the PM any question about anything so this is largely clickbait/fake news. Furthermore the game is not unpopular among Japanese people. It was a top seller on Steam Japan, Amazon Japan, Rakuten, and others. BMWF (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it isn't unpopular among Japanese people?

https://x.com/Pirat_Nation/status/1904156280035352625

"Major Retailer Bic Camera In Japan has Stopped Selling Assassin's Creed Shadow" Waka Waka (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassin%27s_Creed_Shadows&oldid=1281582415 I've created a separate section for the portrayal of Yasuke and the controversy surrounding it and added a brief sentence to the lead. Its one of the main talking points about the game and the reason for its delays, so I think its highly due. What does everyone else think? --FMSky (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think in your edit and in the previous version, the material that was moved was in Development and Release respectively. I'm not sure if either of those sections are appropriate. The Development section usually has to do with the actual development of the game. This game is exceptional in that there was controversy brewing even during the development of the game, but that doesn't make it relevant to the development of the game. Similarly, the Release section usually has to do with the release of the game (release date, promotional material, platforms). Looking at articles for other recent games with notable coverage, I see that Stellar Blade has a section called Portrayal of Eve under Reception and that Starfield has a section discussing controversy that occurred pre-release under Audience Reception. Because of this, it may be best to put this under the Reception section, and create separate subsection to separate it from critical reception. I'm not sure what the appropriate subsection title would be.

Second, regarding the edit in the lead, I don't think the current sentence "Yasuke, an African samurai inspired by the historical figure of the same name whose portrayal drew controversy" works. The "drew controversy" part is vague and implies a lot without saying much. I also don't see similar material in the leads of the two aforementioned articles. How it was before was preferable.

I'll ping users who were editing similar material recently. User:BMWF User:HardFix User:AwfulReader

It may help to request assistance on WP:WikiProject Video games. Truthnope (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really care where exactly the section is placed, its just important that it has a separate subsection/header. We shouldn't bury this obviously important aspect under a wall of text. As for the lead addition, do you have a suggestion on how to change it? --FMSky (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead was fine the way it was before, i.e. not mentioning the controversy. If there must be discussion of the controversy of the lead, then I would want it to be more explicit. Here's a rough draft: "The game faced backlash for the choice of Yasuke as a protagonist and for portraying Yasuke as a samurai, although historians have supported this portrayal." WP:FALSEBALANCE would give more weight to scholarship, which generally describes him as a samurai, over fringe theories that he was not one.

Again, I would just prefer not to include this in the lead, and this is just the alternative I would present if consensus is that the lead should mention this. Truthnope (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also against including this in the lead. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok and why? and why did you change "critics" to "conservative critics" without a source? FMSky (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservative critics" is what the source says. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comes across as a roundabout criticism section and isn't necessary. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its the main reason this game is discussed this extensively and the reason for its multiple delays. FMSky (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that it is the reason for the delay? I don't see that on the article Relm (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2025/01/09/the-real-reason-assassins-creed-shadows-just-got-delayed-again/ "“This additional time will allow the team to better incorporate the player feedback gathered over the past three months and help create the best conditions for launch by continuing to engage with the increasingly positive Assassin’s Creed community.”" FMSky (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that Forbes Contributors (yes, even Tassi) are not reliable. Masem (t) 00:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its the company statement, here is it again https://www.ign.com/articles/assassins-creed-shadows-delayed-again-this-time-by-another-month FMSky (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't mention Yasuke at all. Relm (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've posted two sources on delays and neither of them even contains the word Yasuke. You're providing evidence that proves the opposite of your point. Truthnope (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"and the reason for its multiple delays." The article doesn't mention this. The sources in the article describe the delays being because of reevaluation after Star Wars Outlaws underperformed, and again because Ubisoft may be planning a buyout. I don't see any evidence that either delay has to do with the character Yasuke.

"Its the main reason this game is discussed this extensively" The game has received additional coverage due to this controversy, but it also receives coverage because Ubisoft is considered a AAA studio. Past Assassin's Creed games have also gotten plenty of coverage. Truthnope (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think isolating the Yasuke to a separate section is the right action. Per reports just prior to release [47] they were anticipate more cultural problems that they didn't want devs to post to social media and had anti-harassment plans in place Masem (t) 00:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And as part of the reception section? Seems like people's aim here is to pointlessly bury facts and run from reality FMSky (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if its a reception thing or part of the release. We don't have yet any data points related to any of these controversies post release (the closest being the removal of destruction of some buildings but that was before release). It seems at this point to treat all these cultural aspects as impacting how the game was changed and its release to address the cultural issues that were raised, rather than a reception aspect. Masem (t) 00:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the Yasuke discourse started before the game's release, so I'm not sure if Release is the right section. Assuming the controversy didn't affect the game's development (excluding the recent changes, which were post-release), I don't think Development would be the right section either. It seems like Reception fits best, in which case this material should be separate from Critical reception, so maybe this should go in a subsection called Audience reception? Truthnope (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassin%27s_Creed_Shadows&oldid=1281704873 before self-reverting due to ongoing discussion FMSky (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Relm (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuke shouldn't be singled out. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because reasons or what FMSky (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After having looked at the participating user's wiki pages I have now concluded this wont lead anywhere so Im out for now --FMSky (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? Please clarify as this is definitely a breach of WP:CIVIL Relm (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really just that we're probably not going to come to an agreement here. You guys are obviously correct. The controversy should be burried under a long wall of text. --FMSky (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But why does our user pages tell you that? This is why it is concerning. Relm (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idk seems you guys arent approaching this topic from a neutral perspective. Could be wrong though FMSky (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really answer the question of what about the pages gives you that impression lol which is why it is an aspersion.

For my part I just asked you to clarify a claim from a source since I couldn't find the attribution, the sources given did not contain the original claim. I do not have a dog in the fight other than having the page watchlisted, I just want to follow policy in reflecting it or separating sections. Relm (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you may be trying to be sarcastic, but we purposely want controversy not called out and instead incorporated with other material, per WP:CRITS. Putting it "under a long wall of text" is following the style so that we remain more neutral nor give it undue attention. Masem (t) 12:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wildly inappropriate behavior for a contentious topic. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my two-penny. This isn't my forte, so I'm coming into this with complete neutrality. I think that the controversy should be mentioned, and have dealt with an article that included similar pre-release issues that didn't amount to much beyond a two-paragraph subsection in "Release". There is more than Yasuke being discussed that caused issues with groups, and we shouldn't compromise encyclopedic neutrality. Seeing the discussion above, it feels like this is degenerating into a shouting match. Sorry if that's too blunt, but I have no personal investment. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Ubisoft saying that it had reached over a million players on launch day." supposed to mean ? Ubisoft has not released any sales numbers. Do they include player who received the game for free as part of a subscription? This is completely misleading, it makes it sound like 1 million actual copies were sold which is unlikely. So I think so sort of clarification needs to be added maybe in the form of a note 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:4AB:AB6B:715D:E5D8 (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We dont know how Ubisoft counted players, so we have to go by what Ubisoft said, but that's also why its attributed to Ubisoft and not being made as a claim of fact without attribution. Masem (t) 11:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Release and promotion" section (shouldn't it be "Marketing and release"?) is dominated by coverage of controversies. It reads like an unresolved edit war, a clumsy compromise to keep other sections clean without removing any content. If the content is to stay, it should be moved. Here's some comparable articles for recent games.

• EA Sports UFC 4
• Genshin Impact
• Cyberpunk 2077
• Diablo Immortal
• NBA 2K20
• Ion Fury

No matter their nature, controversies are always covered in "Reception"; often with "Pre/Post-Release" subsections, as would be appropriate here. From my search, the only articles that don't have controversy covered within Reception are for games so controversial as to merit mention in the header and/or dedicated sections.

• Hogwarts Legacy
• Devotion (video game)
• Star Wars Battlefront II (2017 video game)
• No Man's Sky
• Pokémon Go

Torrenz25 (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All those other cases are situations of controversies after release. Shadows generated controversy before release including changes Ubisoft made as part of that, and there's no indication that there is continuation of that controversy after release, so moving it doesn't make sense. Masem (t) 15:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That said, Ubisoft sent an email to staff (covered by RSes) which address there is probably some post release review bombing going on over the cultural aspects [48]. So there may be reason to move to reception. That said if we do move it, I think that section should be named "Criticism over cultural elements" (avoiding "controversy") Masem (t) 18:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's less of a standard for subsection names, but is there any particular reason you would avoid the generic Controversy? Not every grievance currently on the page would fit the more specific "Criticism over cultural elements" title, such as the sales restriction in Japan, which is being attributed to the game's degree of violence. Maybe that's one of the things that should stay in Release. Torrenz25 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to avoid creating "controversy" sections, per WP:CRITS. Additionally, the issues do not stem from normal criticism of a game (not from game journalists reviewing the game), so treating it as criticism is inappropriate as well. Framing it as actions that Ubisoft has taken in response to cultural issues raised by others is the way to avoid a "controversy" or "criticism" section. Masem (t) 03:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me, as far as the wording is considered. Having looked at some more articles, most don't specify even in the subsection, simply naming it "Pre/Post-Release" and listing the actual reactions without further labels.

It still belongs in Reception, though. I don't see a standard for "normal" criticism anywhere else. Wouldn't that be a biasing label itself? Torrenz25 (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand if there's a concern here about perpetuating controversy that may have been addressed already, but that doesn't mean it never happened. Half of the articles I compared to have explicit Pre-Release subsections, and the others are otherwise adequately worded ("Prior to launch," etc), all within Reception. If that's the standard for the absolute minimum of controversy coverage, it can and should be done here too. Torrenz25 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that pre-release material doesn't belong in reception. I don't agree that there should be controversy or critique sections though WP:CSECTION. BMWF (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but have you looked at the articles I linked? Or any article for any commercial entertainment product?

I looked at the guideline in your link. It fits my observations on existing articles, and makes this one an exception. "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section". This is exactly why negative reactions need to go into Reception, too. It doesn't matter when or why they happened. By that logic, positive anticipation reactions would go into Release because they happened pre-release. This is not the case, "Accolades" or "Pre-Release" subsection in Reception are used instead. If you don't know what I'm talking about, please do look at some articles so we can be on the same page. I did not pick them, I literally went up this list until I got bored. The only examples I omitted have little content or no article at all.

• List of controversial video games

I understand that this list is not necessarily representative or even to be taken seriously, but you'll arrive at the same conclusions looking for articles yourself. I wasn't looking for opinions. If I'm wrong, please demonstrate. Torrenz25 (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2025 and 1 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zhangyiyang Zou (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zhangyiyang Zou (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Musk recently was criticial of the game at release, and yes, Ubisoft via the game's official account responded in a manner to poke fun at the frequent claims Musk has about game boosting. However, at the core of this recent string of events, nothing specific about the game was mentioned at all that is new (we already have Musk calling the game "woke" earlier, which is appropriate to include), and the essence of these recent events is closer to gossipmongering, edging on poor judgement for inclusion by BLP standards, and feels like trying to WP:RGW in that "oh, the media has criticism about Musk, we must include it." simply because Musk is a well-hated public figure. Musk and game boosting is discussed at his article, and I believe there could be more there, but in terms of what this adds to this game's article, beyond his earlier "woke" criticism, its a big nothingburger at this point. Should he take action like to block the account off X, then we can go into more but right now all that is it silly and petty remarks between both accounts, with no obvious encyclopedic long-term impact at this point. Masem (t) 03:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does something specific about the game need to be mentioned for it to be due? I'm not familiar with that part of policy or guideline, please educate me through specific quotes and links. Your position feels like RGW... You're looking at significant independent coverage and deciding that you don't like it because its connected to Elon Musk who you apparently feel has been unfairly criticized by the media. The reliable sources don't treat it as silly and petty, where are you getting that from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically does the recent spat between Musk and the Ubisoft account have to do with the game, as well as going into his a count boosting issues? Just because the game is mentioned doesn't mean it is appropriate content. It is reasonable to include Musk's claim the game was "woke" because we already are talking about various groups that also spoke to that. But this recent stuff gives the reader zero insight to the game nor has yet any relevancy to the long term coverage of the game. If this is all we can say about this social media spat in ten years, we'd clearly omit it, so it doesn't make sense to include now, as it's basically a RECENTISM issue. Maybe if Musk blocks all of Ubisoft accounts, then it will be important, but for now, it's the type of 24/7 news style coverage that we shouldn't be giving that much weight too. Masem (t) 15:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not the Ubisoft main account, the game's account. If people want to remove it in ten years they can, we have no crystal ball and that isn't an argument against including it today. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it actually is reason to exclude today. It's speculative that it would have any impact. It's trivia at this point since nothing else has happened from it, and seems to exist only to throw the zinger at Musk. Masem (t) 15:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only one speculating here... I'm saying we don't know and you're saying we know that it in ten years we would clealy omit it. Thats why I told you we don't have a crystal ball. We just have the coverage we have today and based on thats its highly due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also ask you a second time to stop making it personal, you're making insinuations about my motives which aren't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the wording and inclusion that gives the impression we are only including this to include the zinger made by the game account back at Musk, which in turn, without any indications of having a larger impact, gives the impression of WP purposely including this just as a proverbial pot shot at Musk (which I am sure a lot of us would want to do, but which we absolutely should avoid per NPOV). This is just not encyclopedic content without any other context in terms of the impact on the game itself (which is what this page is first and foremost).

Unti we know if there is going to be an impact on the game, we shouldn't be including this type of material. Just because it can be sourced to RSes doesn't mean it needs to be included, and given it's been a few days and nothing yet has come of it, it has all the hallmarks of being trivia. Masem (t) 16:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who separated it out, as originally added[49] it was a single piece which covered the entire reception of the game by Elon Musk. Notable zingers don't get blacklisted simply because they're zingers, they're as due as anything else (especially when the sources say that their ratio was signficant). Why does there need to be an impact on the game to cover it? The game's impact on the world is also due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masem here that this detail is extremely trivial and has no place in an encyclopedic overview of the game, unless coverage of the games impact on the world or the culture war stuff became more concrete. In that case, maybe we can say that the game was criticized by many, including Elon Musk, or something along those lines. λ NegativeMP1 16:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this context trivia/trivial would be something like how long it took Elon Musk to finish the game's main plotline... Trivia does not receive full length coverage in major newspapers. I'm also still unsure why his 2024 comments would be due but the 2025 ones not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His comments in 2024 also came at the same time that we had several other right wing and conservative ppl come out claiming that the game was woke for including a black samurai. (which has been a long discussion on this page, see talk archives) It is logically part of that story. Since release there isn't much coverage of this, likeky because the gaming media is properly not giving those views any time of day. So to just tack on this tiny spat over social media seems unnecessary. That's actually a good reason to back to this talk page archive and see what trivial complaints have been cut despite having some coverage. Not everything reported in sources must be included. Masem (t) 17:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the RS both are part of that story. Again with the minimization... If it were tiny it wouldn't be receiving significant coverage from both the gaming and mainstream media... You can add that to the list below, if you have any sources that call this tiny, bickering, silly, and/or petty I would like to see them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage beyond what is currently in the article: [50][51][52][53][54][55][56] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also in double checking the Independent.co.uk source, the key point is Ubisoft standing up against the calls of "wokism" which is has been doing for several months (which we have covered). That one comment on the social media a count fired an insult back at Musk is not the massive revolution that the article claims, nor without added impact is it that significant in the bigger picture of the *+"woke" situation around the game, how Ubisoft has defe ded it, and how game journalists have dismissed those claiming it to be "woke". That whole tweet is very much into the weeds of the situation. Masem (t) 16:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If thats the key point then the article's layout (which centers on other things) and title ("Assassin's Creed makers fire back at Elon Musk by mocking his alleged cheating at online video games") don't make any sense... I think thats what you want the key point to be, but it isn't. Its not our position to second guess reliable sources. If you have a source which disagrees you may present it, but you thinking that the source is wrong doesn't count for anything. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about second guessing the sources but sticking to a summary that is appropriate for the long term view of encyclopedia. This is particularly true when we have media trying to fill content 24/7, rather than be more curating of news. This little spat got a brief amount of coverage but so far nothing else has come from that. If nothing comes of this in the week (which looks to be the case), it clearly wasn't significant and definitely shouldn't be included. It should have been included in the first place because of how trivial it is to the entire aspect of how Ubisoft has responded to the woke criticism, and only if it grew to something more significant then inclusion makes sense. Masem (t) 20:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who calls it a little spat? If it got any more significant it would almost merit a stand alone article... Your repeated minimization of this against the best opinions presented by reliable sources suggests that you may be attempting to RGW... You see "we have media trying to fill content 24/7, rather than be more curating of news" as a wrong and are trying to right it... You seem to have a bone to pick with the media and you're making this article your battleground to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musk said something, the account said something back. Nothing else has happened, and coverage of that has been limited to a small window of time so far. That's very much a spat. Masem (t) 23:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats missing a good chunk of it. A streamer was paid to promote the game, Musk said something about the promotion, the account said something to Musk (they were not the target of the original comment), the response was signficant (multiple sources say that the ratio was significant). The sources also present both the 2024 and 2025 statements as part of the same extended conflict. Are the sources wrong? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are doing newspaper-y and/or blog-y things, in that they have a 24/7 feed to fill so they are filling it with anything they see interesting. As we are not a newspaper or blog, how they cover a topic is not how we cover a topic, as we are looking to summarize, not detail. The summary that is appropriate is that Musk was one of several conservative/far right voices that complained about the game being "woke", which Ubisoft and academics and game journalists have defended to refute the claim. So far there's been nothing else of significant impact relative to the game or the developers themselves .

Again, I'll point out that earlier this article had a much longer section on the various controversies it raised eg [57], but on the talk page it was agreed to keep it to a high level summary (see the earlier sections on this page). While I don't see a problem with adding someone as visible as Musk's statements as an issue, going into any excessive detail on the spats he's raising with others over this is beyond appropriate per these previous discussions, until that itself creates documentable actions that show an impact on the game or developers. Masem (t) 00:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the coverage is not from sources with a 24/7 feed to fill nor would it matter if they were... NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." and you are asking us to use editorial bias to exclude "newspaper-y and/or blog-y" reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, we have WP:NOT#NEWS and we also have WP:RECENTISM. We prefer what is said in the long-term over short-term coverage. We don't include "routine" coverage (for example, while many sources report on the day to day stock market or every baseball game, we don't use NPOV to include those details into WP), and while I would agree this is absolutely not "routine", its the type of routine news around Musk that has come up day after day since the start of DOGE (if not before), with every left-leaning media source trying to cover Musk's activities in a negative light. (which I cannot blame them for doing).

I see this whole story of this last set of tweets, from the media's perspective, as a way to make Musk appear to be on the losing side given the account's comeback mocking his account boosting. But we're not here to write about every single little faux pas that happens to a person that most editors likely detest that gets documented in reliable sources, and it is very very very easy to fall into this trap that "Oh, the media gave a burst of coverage that makes this person look bad, we can include it in WP and appear completely neutral because we're using media coverage!". (And lots of editors fall into this trap, including me, its human nature to want to be critical of people you dislike, but something we should recognize as an issue and should strive to be more neutral if we find ourselves in that trap). Add that we're talking about this on a video game page, and not on the actual BLP page, and that makes it feel like a coatrack to allow this page to cover Musk in a negative light but based by the neutrality of the media, in the absence of any actual effects or impacts to Musk, Ubisoft, the developers or the game itself. Its why we write as a summary from the long-term perspective, smoothing over brief but inconsequential events even if they get wide coverage.

The fact that doing a google news search on "musk assassin's creed" gives results principally only from 4-5 days ago suggests how limited in time and impact this entire thing had, further proving that RECENTISM should apply and we should not be including it since there appears to be no impact at all. To contrast, when Musk first commented last year on the game being "woke", that was among several other voices making the same call, and several journalists coming to defend Ubisoft in addition to Ubisoft's own messaging that they weren't going to change it. That had a far longer tail and thus makes it more due for inclusion than compared to a off-off tweet exchange. Masem (t) 07:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to be specific... Provide the quotes from WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM which you believe are at issue here. Google news searches give preference to newer articles over older ones. You also still have to support you claim about gossipmongering and you also abandoned the BLP discussion as well as the request that you support your assertion that this is bickering, silly, and/or petty with reliable sources. Also note that if we really did want to cover every little detail and make it scandalous we could[58]... All I'm asking for is a very bare bones summary (but do check the date on that aricle, I believe that it says March 29). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style."

RECENTISM: "Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens.", "Over-use of recent material does not by itself mean that an article should be deleted, but the quick and contemporaneous passage of events may make any subject difficult to judge as actually notable enough for a permanent encyclopedia entry. Proper perspective requires maturity, judgment, and the passage of time" (I know this is talking to the article level but it absolutely can apply to content too)

The BLP issue is still that we're using a video game page to make a negative statement related to Musk in regards to game boosting, which is coatracking criticism of Musk here. Which is also why I see that as gossipmonger, in that we're using unrelated articles to spread negative info (even if true) about a BLP. Its not a "delete on sight" BLP violation, but its very much unnecessary here and as BLP applies everywhere, we have to concern how much of that is really necessary to understand this article as a video game. Over at the Musk's page is a whole different story.

A summary exists: Musk, along with others, called the game "woke" due to the inclusion of a black samurai, and Ubisoft and others have defended it as being historically accurate. I just cannot see the twitter exchange of adding anything new or relevant to that summary without any further events falling out from it. Masem (t) 09:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are not trying to include most events, just one and the disputed content is not written in a news style. We have not overburdened the article with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens, we're actually under burdening it which is worse... We're expected to keep the article up to date but you don't want to include any of the 2025 information even if you're fine using sources from 2025 for the 2024 events (you're clearly not doing a good job summarizing them though). You were already given a article about a further event resulting from it (Piker's interview with Musk's daughter), we have fallout you just don't like it for some reason. Would you object to coverage of this at Ubisoft? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the gossipmongering aspect? It all appears to have taken place in public so we aren't talking about rumors and The Independent does not engage in idle talk... So you're going to have to explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the BLP concern? You're questioning my judgement which feels unnecessarily personal, explain yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of game boosting, for example. We only have claims and assertions related to a BLP so that needs to be handled carefully. Masem (t) 15:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musk himself has asserted that he engages in game boosting, he justified it by saying that everyone does it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still is not a facet to be bringing up on a random page outside his biography (since that actually should be on his bio page that he self claimed it, and getting g into that here would be really coatracking that onto this article). Masem (t) 15:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources treat it as key context (the comment from Assassin's Creed Shadows doesn't make much sense without it). It is on his bio page that he justified it by saying that everyone does it: "Musk has justified the boosting by claiming that all top accounts do it so he has to as well to remain competitive.[398][397][399]" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you support your claim that this is bickering, silly, and/or petty with reliable sources? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masem and NegativeMP1. The part about the person's gaming behavior on POE2 or Ubisoft mocking him for it on social media is simply not relevant for the topic of this article (WP:OFFTOPIC). --Cold Season (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the topic of this article not the game? And if it isn't relevant why do the reliable sources treat it as relevant? I would be interested in seeing how you would summarize this article [59] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]