Talk:Kingdom Come: Deliverance/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Encyclopedic standard

Let me make clear that I do understand that it is relevant to include the controversy in the article. At the same time, we should keep in mind that there are standards for the quality of encyclopedic content (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).

The suggestion in the given source for a statement in the sales section about reasons of the game's popularity is a speculation. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog for opinion pieces or scandal mongering. Unless a source has a factual basis such as data, numbers, analysis, there is no place for such claim about sales. Just citing quotes of several buyers without any sort of investigative journalism or wide factual backing does not constitute an encyclopedic-level verifiable basis for such a controversial statement.

I would also start discussion about the relevance of including the statements around game enemies being "unfairly portrayed as cruel invaders". In which game are the player's opponents not portrayed as bad? Enemies being portrayed as bad is a standard feature of every entertainment media such as film, games, books etc. That is the basic definition of a villain. Putting the villains of a video game into the context of what the article describes as "rise of populist nationalism" is left completely unexplained in the article and supposes the reader to "fill in the blanks", which is un-encyclopedic. At the same time, connecting villains in a video game with current real-world events clearly falls into Wikipedia:Recentism.

The same goes for the statement from a writer, who "bemoaned the game's devotion to "lords, kings, and great events"" ..as opposed to what? Skyrim? Are other video games' storylines decided by peasants? That claim, again, has no factual basis, lacking any journalistic analysis by the source. Furthermore, "there's no room for women in the story of Kingdom Come"? How much space for women is in the entire Call of Duty series? Making this an issue here and not everywhere else is a clear bias. The omnipresence of sexism and racism in entertainment is obvious, but sticking unrelated pieces together to paint a certain picture based on current real-life socio-political events that are going on in some countries in 2018 is not how an encyclopedic article is written.

Let me be clear by repeating, the controversy in itself is relevant and should be published here, but lets not dilute the facts with recentism and speculations, which would discredit the notable, fact-based side of the controversy.--Concus Cretus (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you alleging that the work Mr. Grayson did as part of his job as a reporter for a reliable website like Kotaku does not constitute "investigative journalism"? Under what basis do you have to believe that he did not actually investigate what he reported in his article? For what it's worth, 10% of the game's Steam forum is complaining about SJWs, which seems to corroborate Mr. Grayson's claim. The rest of your critique seems to be long-form arguing with sources. Let's be clear. You are not in dialogue with the authors of reliable sources. You are an editor of Wikipedia. You don't get to refute what a source says with impassioned arguments on a talk page. None of us do. If you have a counterpoint, you present it with sources. You don't spew a bunch of original research on the talk page and call it "proof". That's not how Wikipedia works and it's not how it ever worked. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I am questioning the encyclopedic notability of these statements. Kotaku is a "video game website and blog", and by no means is everything they publish ecyclopedically relevant. The burden of evidence lies with the editors who add content; so I don't need sources to question the relevance of a source, I just allege it of bias. A source can be evaluated based on how it acquires its information. The source's claim about sales has no fact-based evidence. And to combine what 10% of a forum complains with sales figures is improper editorial synthesis.--Concus Cretus (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Kotaku´s statement was discussed above and there is a consensus to keep it in the article. As of portrayal of Cumans and women, I can provide article by Czech historian somewhat in agreement with this criticizm (probably not RS, but at least opinion of someone who is a medievalist with interest in Wenceslaus IV; well I don´t see any major publications/papers from her in the online bibliography, but she at least organized scholarly meetings about this topic): [1]. On the other hand your changes concerning Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz/RWTH Aachen University was an improvement. Pavlor (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

About Cumans and women in the game, I can see how that can be substantiated by sources, even though such issues are present in many games without notice, so pointing it out specifically here is biased; but anyway it can be notable. The statement about sales figures, however, remains a speculation made by the source. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation (WP:CRYSTALBALL). The author of a source just makes a statement based on a personal "guess".--Concus Cretus (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Pavlor. Consensus was not built here in a day and it frustrates me when someone swoops in and unilaterally performs section blanking to push a POV. The accusation of SYNTH is patently ridiculous here---it's literally confirming what the reliable source already says! There's no interpretation being done here. I added the (who?) tag to the M! Games source a while ago because it's an offline foreign language source so it is important that readers know exactly who is making the claim from Gutenberg University. If you have access to the original source, please provide the name of the professor that the magazine attributes the claim to. It would lend credibility to it more than anything.

As for the main topic of this section, the existing wording was built upon weeks and months of back and forth compromise. It's clear that you've (Concus) never actually read the section you linked at WP:BURDEN because it's completely irrelevant to what you claim it says. What it actually says is that the burden of proof for inserting a claim lies with the person who inserts it (i.e. me) and I can prove it by providing a verifiable source, which I have. In doing so, I shift the burden to you to prove that your allegation---that the source is biased---as a justification for removing sourced content. It absolutely does not absolve you of responsibility for providing proof to support your allegation. That would be ridiculous. If all it took to remove a source from Wikipedia is some random editor accusing it of bias without proof, I could go around claiming that Metacritic or Britannica or Nelson Mandela of bias and have anything I want removed. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:Burden is totally relevant here. Reliable sources have clear indication where and how they acquire the material that they publish. The information about the sales given by the source is not something that can be fact-checked, because it is an opinion/speculation by its author. And since it is a very controversial statement, it can be challenged for inclusion on Wikipedia, in fact the relevance author's opinion needs to be justified. Again, citing several posts on a forum does not substantiate such a sweeping speculation about game sales.

A quick check of the sales statement wording: the phrase "alt-right" only appears in the source as "These days, alt-right groups (and worse) thrive on Steam because it’s not moderated in any consistent way" so the statement in the article "Kotaku attributed a portion of the game's sales and popularity to its appeal among conservative and alt-right groups" is original research. Even the author does not connect the "alt-right" with "sales" or "popularity" of the game: an example of synthesis of published material --Concus Cretus (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Only a willfully ignorant reading of the source would conclude that the author does not explicitly assert in that paragraph that he is talking about alt-right groups on Steam forums rallying around this game. There is no interpretation going on here beyond using the dictionary definition of words. If that counts as SYNTH to you, we should just burn this whole website down in your eyes. Once again, you are claiming that the author is giving his "opinion" here when it's clear that this is actually an investigative report. (Opinion pieces on Kotaku are tagged "Opinion" and this article does not have this tag.) You have once again failed to produce evidence that the report's conclusion is incorrect. The phrase that appears in the article "Kotaku attributed a portion of the game's sales" is actually the weakest possible summary of the source---it is true if even one single person confirms that he bought the game on account of the game's politics and Mr. Grayson's report includes a half dozen right there. The fact of the matter is that consensus has settled around including this source, even if it hurts your feelings. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, this got personal rather quickly.

...your argument about WP:Burden is running in a circle. You have a misunderstanding about how reliable sources gather information and how that is transferred to Wikipedia. The distinction between published simple facts and interpretative opinions is not something that is up to a discussion here, it is standard procedure in journalism. To give an analogy, a Reuters reporter goes to a site where a US drone bombing occured to count the causalities and researches how many were civilians and how many were militants etc. Based on such analysis of several drone strikes, the reporter can make an interpretation and write "US drone strike kill many civilians". This is like Kotaku writer goes to the blog and finds given number people complaining about what they call "SJWs" and buying the game because of them, so he can interpret it as "conservatives are buying KCD". But then making a leap to the statement that the game owes its popularity to conservative politics is like the Reuters reporter stating that US is making drone strikes in order to kill civilians. Such controversial statement would have to be supported by numerous mainstream sources like CNN, BBC or The New York Times to make it reliable enough to publish it here on Wikipedia. But the KCD statement is just one writer on one niche website.

Even if such interpretation of facts would be acceptable, things that are not directly stated by the source can't be reinterpreted by Wikipedia editors, so

1. The statement "Kotaku attributed a portion of the game's sales and popularity to its appeal among conservative and alt-right groups" is a vague misinterpretation of the source. The source says "alt-right groups (and worse) thrive on Steam" and that "Kingdom Come Owes Its Popularity To 'Realism' And Conservative Politics" - those are two separate statements and should not be synthesized. The term "alt-right" is not interchangeable with the term "Conservative Politics".

2. The source's basis for this claim are two statements on Steam blog. Again, that does not seem sufficient to support this wide statement that "Kingdom Come Owes Its Popularity To 'Realism' And Conservative Politics".--Concus Cretus (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime I will reword the sentence in a way that it at least doesn't misinterpret the source.--Concus Cretus (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Kotaku is not a "niche website"; it is a mainstream news organization in this field with a reputation for in-depth quality investigative journalism. It is "The New York Times of video games" or the closest thing to it. The burden falls on you to find a source that contradicts the extremely verifiable existence of SJW brag posts on the Steam forum. Unless you think the reporter is daft (which it seems you do), the ONLY reasonable reading of that paragraph connects the Steam forums, where these posts appear in abundance, and the alt-right groups which frequent those same forums. It is impossible to separate those two. It's right there in the text. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I know I will probably regret wading into this one, but I think the person who wrote "Kotaku attributed the game's popularity to "'Realism' And Conservative Politics", citing numerous posts on the game's Steam forum stating that their purchase was due to "social justice warriors' complaints" about it." did not actually read the article being quoted. Nowhere does author Nathan Grayson actually claim that the success of the game is due to the alt-right or any other conservative ideology. In fact, this is what he says:

Kingdom Come’s popularity is reflective of the state of the RPG genre, the PC gaming landscape, and the priorities of its fans. It’s a medieval game that flaunts its lack of fantasy elements while remaining very much a traditional white male power fantasy. It’s a game that’s supposed to prize immersion above all else, but in reality it reveals that some players are willing to overlook pretty glaring glitches and inconsistencies as long as they feel like they have choice and control. It is, on many levels, the game PC players have been saying they want for years, and it’ll sit comfortably on the shelf next to the many similar games that came before it and, in all likelihood, after it.

So his thesis is that most of the popularity of the game comes from its supposed dedication to realism, which he finds to be overstated but is something that a lot of PC gamers have been clamoring for, as well as its adherence to tropes that have traditionally appealed to hetero white males. Of course, Mr. Grayson does also point out the very real sense of connection members of the alt-right feel for the game, a connection that mostly developed, I imagine, in response to the diversity complaints, as when you have a less-then-mainstream ideology, you tend to latch onto anything that will draw attention to what you believe. He correctly points out that alt-right posters on Steam have rallied around the game, but nowhere in the article does he claim that this is a primary reason for the game's sales success. He does not do this for the very simple reason that he is a good journalist, and he could not possibly have the necessary facts and figures to compare the total sales of the game to the number of sales to individuals that identify as alt-right or at the very list share that ideology. The article title glibly attributes the success to "conservative politics," but article titles are not composed by article authors: they are crafted by editors specifically to catch the eye and entice users to click on the article and read it. It is the claims of the article itself that must be examined, and while Mr. Grayson correctly highlights alt-right support for the title, he does not take the next crucial step of explicitly linking support to sales. The sentence as written is dangerously misleading and biased and fails to properly reflect the source. Indrian (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This is precisely why I believe that the previous version "Kotaku attributed a portion of the game's sales and popularity" as the correct level of circumspection on the result. Concus removed "a portion of" at some point to make a stronger statement, which I believe is unwarranted based on the source. At no point does the article nor this article state that "most of" the popularity came from any specific source. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I hear you. I would argue though that Grayson is careful to not attribute any of the financial success to the alt-right championing of the game. The article title alludes to it, but as stated before even reputable news organizations use click-bait titles anymore, so I would not consider the title to really be saying much of anything unless the body supports it. I made a pass at changing the language that I think is more reflective of what the article actually says. Indrian (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Since the article spends at least 1/3 of its prose on reporting the various conservative forces rallying around the game, I believe it is warranted to include that in our summary of its conclusion. Certainly it's not the only game with "bland white Eurocentrism" but this game is unique and notable for the fervor with which alt-right groups have taken it as a cause and Grayson's article makes ample note of that, in addition to his final thoughts about the game's rote trope-following. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Its absolutely appropriate to include in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the sales section, as Grayson really does not make a firm connection between vocal support of alt-right interests and sales success. Indrian (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Very well! Axem Titanium (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pavlor: I restored the (who?) tag because I'm still looking for the name(s) of the professors from that university who provided the quotes to M Games. Do you have access to the original offline publications? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: I don´t have access to it. I don´t think it is necessary to provide exact name(s), but it is of no major concern for me - clarification note you provided is OK. Pavlor (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a page aobut a video game. so why has a large section of it being hijacked to push gamergate and polygon nonsense? it has nothing to do with the game. it might have somthing to do with varna, but keep that on varna's or gamergates or polygons page. this page is 2 steps removed. Fustos (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A large portion of reputable coverage of this video game is in connection to Gamergate. Please be civil and cease vandalizing the page. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

reputable nonsense. it's clear by the tone and content of the research it is a backhanded attack on white men who would dare like a 15 th century historically accurate rpg game. worse, pushing polygons views as anything other than progressive ideology. gamergate has nothing to do with the game. keep it to varna's page if you want, but this game has been developed by over 150 people. and i wont let you hijack the page and hard work of the individuals involved just to push your progressive garbage. Fustos (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not third party sources that are accepted as reliable within the Video Games WikiProject reporting on the existence of a controversy surrounding this game constitutes an "attack" is not for us to decide. It is verifiable that the controversy exists, regardless of your personal opinion on the matter. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

actually it is. you can't hind behind oh... i'm just being non POV while pushing a very biased political article congrats! you identity politic pushing ideologues finaly did it. we can't even have a historical RPG withouth it being some imagined pillar of racism and white power fantasy. how dare i be central european and like a game that is truest to the era we ever had, i must be some kkk fetishist in your eyes. right? and no. polygon has not been universally accepted. it is accpeted by the progressive media. like fox news is accepted by the conservative media. you don't see the criticism because you shut it out Fustos (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Axem Titanium please refrain from pushing your political agenda in a game article that has nothing to do with gamergate. Fustos (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Smear against Daniel Vavra

At the moment, Axem Titanium is currently sourcing and quoting articles that do nothing but smear Daniel Vavra as a racist for not daring to include any minorities in a time and place where there was little to none. I don't mind bringing this controversy to light, and summarizing that multiple sources are calling his video game racist for a lack of diversification. However, Axem is carefully choosing the quotes that fit his agenda. On the "view history" segment, I called out Axem on the sources he picked;

"Axem, you are literally linking and quoting articles that do nothing but accusations that are deeply rooted in resentment. The author of that Heavy article calls him sympathetic to racism, xenophobia, sexism, and islamophobia, but does not show any solid proof whatsoever. He even directly links to a guy who says "I know that Dan Vávra is not a racist nor nazi with 100% certainty. He is stubborn and an asshole from time to time, that I do not deny." which contradicts his accusations. Also, that Kotaku article does not say that he is sympathetic towards white nationalism, and the author links to a twitter quote that doesn't even acknowledge that Eastern Europe was once 99% white. It would be like calling Dunkirk "white nationalist" because it happened in a place and time that was 99% white."

In response, Axem writes; "opinion writers do not need to show proof for their opinions---it's sourced to themselves; please take it to the talk page next time you feel possessed to write an essay in the edit summary."

So, basically, it doesn't matter whether there is proof or not, as long as it's someone hired by a "verifiable" source, they have the power to say anything they want and have it quoted on Wikipedia. Also, Kotaku and Polygon are resentful towards Vavra's support for Gamergate, which is perfectly fine. But to find any excuses, whatsoever, to smear him as a "racist, sexist, xenophobe, etc." is a very serious concern, and Axem is enabling them. Let's not forget that this is a person who tried to maintain the "controversies" segment as originally "racism and other controversies", which speaks for itself. It's disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetski3000 (talk • contribs)

So if I understand you correctly, you want those reliable sources removed because they're saying something you don't like? Axem Titanium (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No, because they're nothing but baseless accusations that are rooted in resentment, and these people are given power because they are part of a "reliable" source. You admitted that they are just "opinion" pieces, yet you didn't even point that out when you wrote those sentences, and you've carefully picked those quotes and sources because you are trying hard to smear Vavra as a racist. I can fully understand their resentment towards Gamergate (and possibly yours), but labeling him as a racist or a white nationalist without any legitimate proof is evil. Jetski3000 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please, explain in detail why such accusations of "white nationalism", racism and Islamophobia are justified OTHER than the fact that he supported a controversial movement. Jetski3000 (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand why you keep repeating the phrase "rooted in resentment". Are you psychic? Do you have supernatural insight into the motives of all of these internet writers and journalists from multiple disparate outlets? Or are you suggesting that they colluded together to write these articles because they have a personal hatred for Mr. Vavra and hope that their articles take him down? From my perspective, Mr. Vavra's own Twitter account is more than enough support for what he's being accused of, but all of that is beside the point. Wikipedia is in the business of reporting on the controversy as it exists and has been documented by reliable sources. The truth or untruth of the accusations is not relevant to the question of whether they should be included in the article. They should be included because they are notable and no amount of arguing on Wikipedia is going to make them non-notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"Mr. Vavra's own Twitter account is more than enough support for what he's being accused of, but all of that is beside the point." More details, please. I still don't see the "white nationalist appeal" from Vavra and that accusation from Kotaku is not sufficiently proven, and for that, I will compromise by only removing that sentence, but I will keep the quotation from heavy because the accusations of xenophobia and sexism are arguable. It's the accusations of islamophobia and racism that is not backed. Jetski3000 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you have missed the point. It is not our job as editors to do original research to "prove" whether something is true or not. We allow the sources to make their point and let the reader decide. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Undue. Center on the game. Leave one anti-Vavra source, if you like. Note BLP applies here, so be careful. Pavlor (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If there are so many sources, it's a good sign that it is WP:DUE. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If this would have been article about Vavra, maybe... Still BLP apllies here anyway. Pavlor (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, Vavra is a living person. What particular aspect of our policies on biographies of living people are you concerned about applying here? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As of BLP, I would expect higher quality of sources than mere game reviews... Pavlor (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The only game review cited in that section is the Eurogamer review and it's not quoted in prose. The remaining are in-depth articles on the topic. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, "good quality" sources for BLP. "Controversy" section is in a grave need of trimming anyway, these comments could be the first to go. Just an idea. Pavlor (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What about the sources makes them not "good quality", other than that they say something you don't like? I haven't been adding new sources for a while, merely including the info from the sources that were already cited but unincorporated into the prose. Mossback is the one who ballooned that 3rd paragraph with every single Czech source about it. If anything needs to be trimmed, it's the 3rd paragraph which basically repeats the political correctness defense three times from three different outlets, whereas the first paragraph tackles four different aspects of the Western media response in four sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I see willingness to remove only sources that say something you/they don´t like is probably common ground for both sides of this dispute. Pavlor (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't removed any reliable sources from the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of who is pushing what agenda here, the section on the "racism" controversy is way too long. It should be 1/3 the size of the main reception section on the reviews. At most. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There is great room for trimming, eg. this version looks much better (removed anti-Vavra comments and Czech sources except one):

Several publications and websites accused the developers of racism for not portraying people of color in the game—the developers claim that people of color did not inhabit early 15th-century Bohemia—as well as reproached the views held by the game's director Daniel Vávra, a vocal supporter of the Gamergate movement.

European media responded to some aspects of this criticism. To evaluate the claim that non-white people did not live in 15th-century Bohemia, the German magazine M! Games asked the Historical Institute of RWTH Aachen University, which referred to the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. According to them, there were at most Turkic peoples, like Cumans (who appear in the game as enemies), but otherwise the presence of non-whites is "questionable". German YouTube show Game Two asked Dr. Winfried Eberhard, a professor of East Central European History at the University of Leipzig who said that the probability that there were colored people in medieval Bohemia was "relatively small".

Czech media sources defended the game against the allegation. A commentator at the newspaper Lidové noviny called these accusations "out of place" and claimed that most Europeans would respond that there very few, if any, black people in the early 15th-century central Bohemia.

Reid McCarter, a writer for Unwinnable, indicted the game for its xenophobia. He felt that the Cumans and Hungarians were unfairly portrayed as cruel invaders, while the Czechs were shown only in a positive light. He believed that "[the game's] vision of 15th Century Bohemia suggests a continuity of history that says the Czech Republic is for ethnically Czech citizens only", which was "especially unsettling in the context of ... the rise of populist nationalism". Kat Bailey of USgamer bemoaned the game's devotion to "lords, kings, and great events" in the name of historical accuracy, postulating that "there's no room for women in the story of Kingdom Come".

I Support using this version of the section in the main article. Murchison-Eye (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Simple and straightforward. I like it.Jetski3000 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me too. I've pushed this version to the entry, let's improve from here but keep it breef.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't see any reason behind removing Kotaku other than 'don't like it', which isn't a valid reason for removal of sourced content. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Not all sourced content must stay in the article. The very first phrase summarizes main points of criticism concerning people of colour and Vavra. Then we have view of some German historians, summary of Czech media reaction and in the end other aspects like perceived xenophobia and game´s portrayal of women. We don´t need quoting several sources that say basically the same. Pavlor (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The Kotaku article clearly says something different and additive to the discussion, namely research into the motives of purchasers of the game. The Heavy.com article also adds a new angle by discussing Vavra's "apology" which really amounted to "my grandpa fought the Nazis so when I say racist things, I can't possibly be a racist". Axem Titanium (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

All this section needs to do is summarize that a few people were upset about some things in the game, none of that other faff is really needed in a footnote section on a videogame article. Pavlor's version covers the important parts nice and succinctly, Nice work Pavlor. Murchison-Eye (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel like the old lie that Gamergate was about "ethics in game journalism" is being parroted at me here. Insisting that something is fringe or "faff" doesn't make it so. Sources are sources are sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Why do you feel that? No one has really mentioned it other than you. Its not really relevant here except that some of the reviewers were bias towards Vavra because of it. Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Because the unsupported assertion that "these people are biased" is being used as a cudgel to remove opposing viewpoints. It's a classic ad hominem to undermine their credibility. WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean it's not true. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to formulate a proposal for altering the paragraph, without increasing it in size. The previous wall of text wasn't encyclopedic. It's already roughly as large as the whole cricical reception section.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think many readers will confuse a mention of gamergate with the ant in this context. So i think a definition isn't required here. If we do give one, we'll get into the discussion of what gamergate is. In this context the most relevant definition is Vàvra's, which was about video game journalism. That's what he was an advocate of. He has never propagated harassment. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 18:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Vavra's definition of Gamergate is a self published source. The accepted definition of Gamergate as established by secondary reliable sources exists at Gamergate controversy, but a reader should not be forced to go to another page to find out about it. That's poor writing. The specific quote from Polygon was chosen because it happens to be about both Gamergate and KC:D but feel free to pick any of the other sources at the main Gamergate page for a real definition. I should not have to explain why falsely claiming that "it's about ethics in game journalism" does not belong in an encyclopedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Except when Vàvra was an advocate of better journalism ethics and not of harassment. If you find a source of Vàvra aligning with the harassment part of gamergate, feel free to add it. In absence of such a source, associating Vàvra with harassment is falsely pinning something on him and his game, which goes against BLP. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a direct quotation from an article specifically about Vavra and Gamergate. It doesn't get any more cut and dried than that. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added another, more reliable source. But does the article you quote really pin harassment on Vàvra? And does it properly substantiate that claim, other than being a reliable source? Because that is clearly what your edit is suggesting. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to disengage from this edit-warring. I've put the article in the state you desire. Do with the article whatever you want. Smear Vàvra. Go ahead. This has nothing to do with productively making WP a reliable, encyclopedic source of information. Vàvra has nothing to do with hate groups, harassment or whatever. Linking that directly to him, is pushing an agenda; not improving an encyclopedia.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing about the sentence pins Vavra to harassment. It pins Vavra to Gamergate, a fact that he is vocally not ashamed of, and succinctly explains what Gamergate is according to hundreds of reliable sources. Anything more than that exists between your ears and not on the page. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You want the article to read Daniel Vávra, a vocal supporter of Gamergate, which Polygon calls "a loosely knit hate group that has devoted time to harassing women, people of color, and journalists in the past." This strongly suggests that Vávra often hates on people and likes to harass women and people of colour. Which doesn't at all follow from the sources. It's pretty clear you're running a personal vendetta against him and you're going against core Wikipedia philosophies such as BLP in doing so. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 05:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, are you really trying to throw stones in this glass house? Vavra may not have personally done these things (we have no proof either way), but he is a vocal supporter of those who do, and every time he retweets someone critical of him, he incites his followers into harassing those people. It's easy for him to sit in his tower and say "well I didn't *order* them to harass anyone so I can't be held responsible for their actions". Polygon felt the need to condemn Vavra for his support of Gamergate, which he deflects as an "ethics problem" when it is actually a hate group. It is not Wikipedia's job to perpetuate the lie. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Here I fully agree with PizzaMan. Disputed phrase has nothing to do with the article subject and BLP sensitive content doesn´t belong to such article anyway. Keep summary of press reaction and Vavra´s association with Gamergate, but Polygon´s quote is undue for this article. Pavlor (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You can't make a huge removal 'per talk' when you haven't posted in it for days and haven't addressed opposing arguments. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No one has posted for days because we were all presumably happy with the article after appearing to reach a consensus and making the edits as per the discussion. There was nothing more to say.Murchison-Eye (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I returned removed references back in the article (it looks a little bit ref bombed now). Opening paragraph should be referenced (for both media and developers point of view). Feel free to select eg. best two sources for this purpuse, but please don´t leave this part without reference(s). Pavlor (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Everyone was fine with PizzaMan's self-proclaimed "disengage from this edit-warring", at which point, I stopped responding since the matter seemed to be resolved. Then he broke his own resolution and removed reliably sourced material AGAIN citing the talk page which only had one additional comment in that time---hardly a consensus. I agree with Peter; merely asserting that you're doing something "per talk" doesn't mean you have the weight of the discussion backing your actions. Murchison, your reading of the timeline of events is simply incorrect. Check the timestamps. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No one disagreed with Pavlor's 31-3 post for days; i thus considered everyone to "be happy with" his take on things that had closed the discussion. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia isn't my job. You pretended to bow out so I stopped following this page. I didn't even see his response until I got the notification that you reverted me AGAIN. Even so, neither your nor Pavlor's comments substantively rebut my argument for inclusion of sourced reliable content. All I see is attempting to hide the definition of Gamergate from readers. Your BLP concern trolling is irrelevant here---it's not libel if it's true. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Please, don´t pretend there is consensus for your version. Not all sourced content must be in the article (UNDUE) and bluntly dismissing BLP concerns certainly is not the right way to write an encyclopedia. Pavlor (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@PizzaMan: The last person to talk is not the person who's 'established consensus'. If you continue to make the same point over and over again, even if other editors have addressed it, you do not in any way assert a right to edit to your preferred version. Consider sticking by your earlier decision to stop edit warring. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If two editors are edit-warring, and you're calling out only one of them, you're really just confirming that you're entrenched with the editor you're not calling out. Did you even notice that there is a clear majority on this talk page for not smearing Vavra the way Axem and you want to?PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 22:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Results aren't determined by mob rule. Accuracy in sourcing matters. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

My point exactly. There is no source that substantiates that Vavra was involved in "harassing women, people of color, and journalists". PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 14:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

PizzaMan, you are charging into WP:IDHT territory. It's been explained multiple times by multiple people why that's not relevant because that's not even the claim in the article. It is essential to the reader's understanding that the definition of Gamergate be explained. Any effort to squirrel that away elsewhere is a blatant attempt to create a WP:POVFORK. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Here I (again) agree with PizzaMan. Such eplanation is really not needed. I fear only reason why this is in the article is the very title of this section. Pavlor (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Empty agreement without providing a reason is functionally equivalent to saying nothing in Wikipedia discussions. Either attempt to refute that it's a POV fork or refrain from wasting your time with a comment that will be ignored. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ignored by whom? As I see it both sides provide only their statements and are deaf to arguments of others. My arguments are the same for weeks: BLP and UNDUE. These are at least policy based, unlike the kind I see from the other side. Only because source says something, we don´t need to write this all in the article. Polygon´s explanation of Gamergate and its direct connection to Vavra cerainly doesn´t look like NPOV. It is obvious I don´t share your view that Gamergate is so important for the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV is a requirement of articles on Wikipedia, not of sources cited in Wikipedia. BLP only applies to false statements; so where is the lie? What is the alternative explanation for your obsessive need to hide the overwhelmingly accepted definition of Gamergate, if not to hide it in a POV fork? Gamergate is germane to this article because a non-trivial (some might say DUE) number of reliable sources say it is. If the definition of Gamergate is one thing on this page and another thing on another page, that is a POV fork. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

From WP:BLP (Writing style/Balance): Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association Now look at disputed Gamergate text... Note this article is about a game, not Vavra or Gamergate - mere mention of Vavra´s stance to Gamergate should be more than sufficient. Pavlor (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

We should aim to inform. If your read of a neutral description of the Gamergate harassment campaign makes you think 'yikes', that doesn't mean we should not describe what something is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

So... Vavra has devoted time to harassing women, people of color, and journalists in the past? If yes, there should be direct reference. If not, placing such explanation in a way it is now is a classic example of guilt by association. Pavlor (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Bob supports A. A = B. Therefore Bob supports B. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Not if there are multiple definitions of B and Bob's isn't B. You may have won the discussion about what gamergate is, but there certainly was a lot of discussion about it, meaning it's at least controversial. Vavra was only a supporter of gamergate to the extent that it was about ethics in gaming journalism. As far as i understand, that's what gamergate was initially about before it was hijacked for political purposes. IF gamergate had nothing to do with ethics in gaming journalism, then Vavra was clearly misinformed (which is proven by a lack of sources that tie Vavra to anything but the journalism ethics part of gamergate) and it would be moot to even mention gamergate at all. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 18:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, doing original research to put forth that a living person is misinformed about something they've stated an opinion on is not okay, and a big WP:BLP violation. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, I see OR is acceptable, if it suits your POV... As of Axem´s reply, to put it charitably, his logic is flawed. If we don´t have direct reference about Vavra "devoting time to harass women, people of color, and journalists in the past", then such explanation has no place in the article. Pavlor (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok Axem, there's a bit of a problem with this statement:

Bob supports A. A = B. Therefore Bob supports B. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This runs up against WP:SYNTH, even if it may seem like an obvious or logical conclusion to draw from the source material. Also, even though the article itself is not about the creator, this section is talking about him and would still be subject to the WP:BLP policy. That said, I find myself agreeing with Pizza, Peter, and Pavlor on this issue. Even if it isn't directly stated, the phrasing or tone of the text can still imply something more than what the author may have intended. — AfroThundr ^(talk) 14:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would agree with you Afro. I am keenly aware of the possibility of SYNTH here. However, the full quote from the source is "the game’s creative director has gone out of his way to rationalize his support of GamerGate, a loosely knit hate group that has devoted time to harassing women, people of color and journalists in the past". The author absolutely intended to highlight and interrogate the chasm between Vavra's words and actions. I believe the evidence supports the comparison and the alternative---concealing the dictionary-accepted definition of the thing---would be even worse by creating a POV fork of content. Wikipedia is not in the business of hiding verifiable information just because it triggers the libs. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Given the authoritative sources backing up Vavra's claims about 15th century Bohemia, if one were to apply WP:YESPOV with the same zeal as seen another particular Wikipedia article I'm thinking of, we should say something along the lines of "Nathan Grayson falsely accused Vavra of racism." and leave it at that. Rhoark (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, doing original research to put forth that a living person is misinformed about something they've stated an opinion on is not okay, and a big WP:BLP violation. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC) In regards to that, i can easily put your mind at rest, Peter. Just Google it, you'll find plenty of sources where Vavra explains how gamergate was (to him) essentially about journalism ethics. He may have been wrong in that history taught us that part of the gamergate movement was about more than that, but the other bits, such as hate, harassment, misoginy, etc simply do not apply to Vavra. The WP article on Vavra properly summarizes that (with references). Makes me wonder if we should mention gamergate at all in relation to this game. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rhoark wikistalking alert yay. @Pizzaman please stop bringing up thoroughly dismantled arguments. The preponderance of reviews and sources on the game bring up Gamergate so just stop being so obvious about trying to hide it. You're making it extremely hard for me to WP:AGF and I'm really trying, I am. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's verifiable that Vavra has said he believes X about Gamergate. Would wording along the lines of 'Vavra has stated support for the Gamergate harassment campaign, which was Y, because he believes/thinks/stated X.' be appropriate? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps linking to this section on his page that explains the nature of his support of Gamergate would be appropriate? — AfroThundr ^(talk) 12:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair compromise. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy, now the smearing is also transplanted to the Page on Vavra. Peter, let's seek consensus here and not make such controversial edits in the mean time. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 15:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I didn't intend that to mean we should start adding extra details on the other article. We still haven't reached a proper consensus on everything happening over here. — AfroThundr ^(talk) 18:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Peter, you're edit warring to insert your edits in the article on Daniel_Vávra to also link him to harassment on that page. These edits aree highly controversial. Please refrain from such controversial edits, especially since BLP is involved here. We're not linking Vavra to harassment when there is no consensus to do so (and no snippet of evidence he was involved in harassment). PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 08:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal views, we absolutely cannot edit Wikipedia articles to assert that Gamergate is a 'movement'. The consensus at Gamergate controversy has long been that it is a harassment campaign & controversy, based on reliable source's coverage of it. Stop editing articles to write that Gamergate is a 'movement'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Would it really be so bad to just call it 'Gamergate' and be done with it? Also, if you had a link to where that was decided, that'd be helpful. There's like 50+ archives on that talk page... — AfroThundr ^(talk) 19:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@AfroThundr3007730: Not even in the archives yet my dude. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a good solution Peter. Removing the "movement" description of gamergate, but not emphasizing the harassment. The rest of the paragraph in article on Vavra now describes it well as far as i'm concerned. As a subtle addition, I just changed "is" to "was", although i'm not to sure how to deal with the fact that, at least as of Vavra's statment in january his take on gamergate deviates strongly from the one represented on WP.

As for your suggestion along the lines of "Vavra has stated support for the Gamergate harassment campaign, which was Y, because he believes/thinks/stated X", I think that's a good direction. My objection is that we would still mention harassment in relation to a living person who was not involved in harassment. How about adapting your suggestion to "Vavra has stated support for X, which he associated with Gamergate". This leaves out the harassment, but makes it clear X is Vavra's personal interpretation of gamergate.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 22:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

How about "Vávra has been a vocal critic of censorship and what he believes is a progressive bias in video games journalism. He associates these views with gamergate. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 07:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Since most participants of this discussion have since been active in this talk page, I'm assuming consensus on at least this bit. Now on to the discussion below.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed — AfroThundr ^(talk) 13:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)