Remove the controversy section[]
I personally do not appreciate us going out of the way to add a "controversy" section to this page. We're not Wikipedia; I don't think documenting media and fan drama is necessary for our purposes. On the contrary, we may unnecessarily amplify these fan vitriol by the inclusion of this section while also giving undue weight to them. Of the three "controversies" mentioned, only the Yasuke debate has been substantial enough in the community for our mention to surely not be giving undir weight to it. And yet we can address this debate factually in the BTS section of his article. We do not need a controversy section here about it. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 14:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm agree but do we delete the controversy section from previous game like AC3 and Unity? Francesco75 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say keep them all. Interestingly, earlier this week I was reading the list of Wikipedia controversies and one of them brought up the undue weight policy and a criticism that it leads to conservatism (not of the political kind) in article writing. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- While I haven't read the discussion you're referring to, I would dispute the notion that mindfulness of due weight leads to conservatism in article writing. It is an important principle in not just wiki writing but also journalism. Observing due weight isn't just refraining from including controversies, it is also about ensuring content is properly proportionate to one another in accordance with their significance, worth, relevance, and credibility. Another example—and a clearer one at that—of giving undue weight is if more than half the page on Odyssey was about fans' negative reception to Kassandra being the canonical protagonist. Another example of the policy in practice is to not start documenting every or just any opinion from randos on Reddit. Observing due weight means just that: weighing what should or should not be included and how much so as not to overemphasize the credence and importance of something.
- I'd say keep them all. Interestingly, earlier this week I was reading the list of Wikipedia controversies and one of them brought up the undue weight policy and a criticism that it leads to conservatism (not of the political kind) in article writing. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway, after taking a look at the AC3 and Unity articles, I think it depends. Obviously, we shouldn't just censor every controversy, but I'm not in favour of adding every little quibble fans have that the media just happened to pick up on. We should exercise our judgement regarding what controversy is actually a major one.Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 01:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The controversy was about new findings regarding the Haymarket affair in 2009 through 2012. Lead to an article being published in the Chronicle of Higher Education called 'The "Undue Weight" of Truth on Wikipedia' and a further article in Harvard Law School's National Security Journal. Anyways I will say the LGBTQ+ "controversy" was fine to delete as you did since this isn't even a new development after Odyssey and Valhalla but I think the Jonathan Dumont and samurai stuff is warranted. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway, after taking a look at the AC3 and Unity articles, I think it depends. Obviously, we shouldn't just censor every controversy, but I'm not in favour of adding every little quibble fans have that the media just happened to pick up on. We should exercise our judgement regarding what controversy is actually a major one.Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 01:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
remove them —unsigned comment by .WKR (talk · contr) 14:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have anything to add beyond just the two words? I think Unity and Shadows' issues could stay, though I'm unsure how important AC3's early alleged anti-Brit stance really is. – Darman (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to keep the two controversies that are still on the page, I feel they are important enough to note. - Soranin (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- For AC3, I remembered that there was a trailer where Connor killed American soldiers and it was modified for US. On the other spectrum, the DLC about King George was seen as a way to tarnish American history.Francesco75 (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- For the Jonathan Dumont issue I could see that being moved either to his page or the Ubisoft/Quebec page because for that issue the game is incidental and is more a problem with company culture rather than an inherent aspect of the game. I think if we are taking a page from WP's undue weight policy then maybe we should also look at what they do give weight to? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I find it laughable that the US required a "special" trailer so as not to hurt their nationalistic feelings, when AC even by then had established that evil came in any form, even if it was the holy Vicar of Christ himself. The fear that King George would "tarnish American history" is also absurd. The database directly names and blames old "Town Destroyer" himself for his IRL actions, no simulated monarchy DLC necessary, never mind that AC3 broadly showed even the Patriots were not as noble as people like to think they were (see: Paul Revere and Surry). In any case, Lacrosse makes a good point that the Dumont issue is likely better on the Ubisoft page. – Darman (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I second (or third?) moving the information about Jonathan Dumont to his page. I'm curious what Sora thinks about the importance of keeping the controversial reception of AC3's presumed anti-Brit stance. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 03:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- About AC3 and King George, I think it was more related about French bashing, as some articles said that a French Game company want to kill ashington. But for Unity, in France we had a similar controversy. The far-left leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who openly said he admire Robespierre, was scandalize by the Rob Zombi trailer as it depicted Robespierre as bloodthirsty and Marie-Antoinette as a victim. He said the game was a conservativ propaganda and rewrite history. Some years later, strangely he said that Assassin's Creed was good to see the old Paris and learn history. Politicians, turncoats, etc. Even Shay had some standard.Francesco75 (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I second (or third?) moving the information about Jonathan Dumont to his page. I'm curious what Sora thinks about the importance of keeping the controversial reception of AC3's presumed anti-Brit stance. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 03:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I find it laughable that the US required a "special" trailer so as not to hurt their nationalistic feelings, when AC even by then had established that evil came in any form, even if it was the holy Vicar of Christ himself. The fear that King George would "tarnish American history" is also absurd. The database directly names and blames old "Town Destroyer" himself for his IRL actions, no simulated monarchy DLC necessary, never mind that AC3 broadly showed even the Patriots were not as noble as people like to think they were (see: Paul Revere and Surry). In any case, Lacrosse makes a good point that the Dumont issue is likely better on the Ubisoft page. – Darman (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- For the Jonathan Dumont issue I could see that being moved either to his page or the Ubisoft/Quebec page because for that issue the game is incidental and is more a problem with company culture rather than an inherent aspect of the game. I think if we are taking a page from WP's undue weight policy then maybe we should also look at what they do give weight to? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- For AC3, I remembered that there was a trailer where Connor killed American soldiers and it was modified for US. On the other spectrum, the DLC about King George was seen as a way to tarnish American history.Francesco75 (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to keep the two controversies that are still on the page, I feel they are important enough to note. - Soranin (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm for keeping, but probably need to gauge the "controversy" so we aren't drowning in minor nay-says. Even that latest one I added about people against the LGBTQIA romance was probably unnecessary, but I believe the one about the sexual misconduct and Yasuke are deep and important. VilkaIsBack (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)