Talk:Assassin's Creed Shadows

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Straw Poll: Verifying that the Yasuke controversy is DUE

[edit]

Last week we've had IP editors from different addresses remove the Yasuke controversy stuff, despite it being well sourced (particularly as its been covered in non-gaming high quality RSes) and from prior discussions here. That said, which how it is included right now (eg [1]), excluding possible copyedits, it might be good just to have talk page archive that this section is considered DUE by consensus. Masem (t) 11:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's basically the only reason this game is still talked about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:fbc:eedb:3685::2 (talk • contribs)
It's due as it was, already mentioned in the previous sections. I don't think an "Online criticism about cultural elements" section is a good idea and gives too much weight to anonymous internet racists and amplifies fringe. Koriodan (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The weight given to those users is because high-quality RSes reported on the harassment that Ubisoft was getting. That we can't ignore. We are not giving any weight to those claims and instead providing additional sources to show why those claims are wrong.
Further, this information has been in the article for nearly a year now since the game was first announced. Per ONUS, please stop removing it until we have a consensus it shouldn't be in the article. Masem (t) 14:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add, here is an example of the content in the article as of June of last year [2]. It may not have been its own section throughout the article history but we have not ignored that aspect at all. One can raise a valid concern if a separate section is needed (but others have been asking that for a while on this talk page), but we're not going to minimize what is reliable sources to point out the problems with those online critics. Masem (t) 14:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My bad: given the size difference (like, 2700 bytes) this has been looking like a removal. I see now we're not losing any information or sources, just a massive amount of whitespace from someone that reformatted all the references.
Whether the info should be in its own section or embedded is far less of a concern. I'm not going to touch the return to being embedded in a larger section, though I don't see a major issue if it is actually in its own standalone section with a neutral heading. Masem (t) 01:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think coverage of the events (ie. why was there backlash & what was the impact of that backlash) is important given SIGCOV so it is DUE to include it. I do think it should be moved up to the development section since it was triggered by a trailer & Ubisoft held their ground (in terms of not removing or diminishing Yasuke's role in the game). WP:CRIT highlights integrating the material as the best approach followed by section headings which avoid the word "controversy"; maybe "Reaction after trailer" would be better than the current heading (regardless of what section it is in)? Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with its inclusion in the Development section as that is most apt. Relm (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be the most due thing about the topic, at least going off of the coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are due but it probably shouldn't be a section. I think Hogwarts Legacy#Development handles its controversy section fairly well and we can use a similar format here. The controversy seems to occur in the lead-up to launch, and I don't see any discussion about his role in the game's story after the game was released. OceanHok (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]