This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Start‑class 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Czech Republic Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic 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.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Bayer, Nick (17 June 2015). "E3 2015: Interview with Daniel Vávra on Kingdom Come: Deliverance". APG Nation. http://www.pcgamer.com/kingdom-come-deliverance-lets-you-attack-36-body-part-zones/ http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-09-21-kingdom-come-deliverance-a-50-hour-game-at-least https://www.pcgamesn.com/kingdom-come-deliverance/kingdom-come-deliverance-inaccuracy

I have added POV template to the article. I think at *least* the part "Development" is written from the view of the developers ("we pitched and nobody wanted us", essentially); it also has no references. Not even the unreliable first-hand blogposts by the authors.

I personally think this game will be good; however, this article is not very well written from a neutral point of view.

For starters, there's been nothing said about an Xbox One / PS4 release besides effectively "We might try to do it if the platform holders allow us". To say it is "expected" for a 2016 console release is false. A lot of the stuff under "Gameplay" is extrapolated and in general implies that systems exist which may or may not be implemented yet. Some of it is good, other parts need a reminder that these are planned features, not existing features, as it implies. Am removing the console release dates for now, the article needs to be gone over for general content and grammar and citations added as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strait Raider (talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! An Xbox One version was confirmed on January 30th. I've updated that. I've also realized that the Plot section has been copies whole-hog from the Kickstarter page. I'm taking that down now and replacing it with a summary. Strait Raider (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of today I've revamped all the major sections of this page. It reads as a neutral POV to me now but I'm biased since I made most of the revisions. If somebody with some more experience with these issues would like to read over it and remove the POV tag if it meets the requirements, it would be appreciated. Strait Raider (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutrality tag removed. Article is looking good. I'll be working on the article in the coming weeks as well. Thanks for the effort Strait Raider. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 05:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's unreliable with GOG stating explicitly that release will be delayed because of publisher's decision? It's as reliable as it gets. Removing this for no reason is not a proper editing. — Bahaltener (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Bahaltener and Pure conSouls, you guys are gaining no ground editing back and forth like this. Instead of edit warring, why not hash it out on the talk page first? This would allow for a more verbose medium in which to state your cases, rather than your one-liners in the edit comments. Let's sort this out, instead of editing past each other. — AfroThundr ^(talk) 05:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, or rather, more directly relevant to the edit in question, Bahaltener's edit does seem to run amok of WP:VGRS#Retailers, as Pure conSouls stated in an edit note. Perhaps another source can be used to back up the DRM-free release date? Such as this one or maybe this, perhaps? — AfroThundr ^(talk) 05:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Naj'entus added content about "Racism accusations and controversy". While I do not deny that there might be some truth in it, the style it was written in, and the poor choice of references made it not neutral POV. Perhaps someone else is more familiar than me with the topic, and can help? Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should check his twitter. Here's an example: https://twitter.com/danielvavra/status/570203427537625088?lang=en He's a full blown racist, and he talks alot about who he will or will not include in "his" game. The problem is - AFAIK we can't use twitter on wikipedia as a source (and why is that exactly?), and there's a certain lack of other sources (like news articles) which will probably remain until tommorow when the game releases and the journos will start to re-examine what that racist said and did. Naj'entus (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Naj'entus: You can use Twitter as a source to cite something that the subject actually said on Twitter. However, you cannot draw your own conclusions based on those statements. For example, you can say:

John Doe claimed on Twitter that his opinion is correct.^[1]

but you can't say:

John Doe is an idiot because he believes xyz.^[1]

(Yes, my example is extreme, but it clearly illustrates the point.)

-- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Naj'entus: I'm not super familiar with the game or the controversy surrounding it. I did a cursory search and found a good deal of reliable sources discussing it, which I think can be written up in a neutral way (including sources from the original German publisher [1]). Since you and WikiHannibal both seem interested in improving the article, I would encourage you to try again and work together to craft a section (titled "Controversy", perhaps?) that presents the facts of this notable aspect of the game. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything on his twitter that qualifies as "full blown racism". He finds the idea of black people in medieval Bohemia to be silly, which is a perfectly normal opinion to have, even among actual historians. 192.38.33.18 (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of Africans in medieval Europe is unusually well-studied precisely because it's so counter-intuitive. Your uncited "actual historians" probably do believe the ample evidence that indicates it to be true, or else are too old to care to change their opinion. At any rate, our job is not to adjudicate whether or not something qualifies as "full blown racism", merely report on the facts of the situation. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources for black population living in medieval Bohemia, please? And not some "there was one black man in England circa 100 years later". Nobody denies that black people lived in Europe, especially southern region like Spain or Italy, but we are talking about early 15th century Bohemia. All this "racism" is just storm in a teacup. --Silesianus (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't conjure historical sources out of thin air for any arbitrarily specific claim, although this situation may inspire an historian to do the research about this particular claim in the future. On the other hand, the assertion that "zero black people lived in 15th century Bohemia" is hilariously unsupportable. No historian worth their salt would ever make that claim. Regardless, this "storm in a teacup" is being reported on by mainstream sources so it doesn't matter how trivial you or I feel that the controversy is---by its coverage the controversy is now notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brief search in the online "Bibliography of history of the Czech lands" shows only one article remotely about this topic:

• Suckale-Redlefsen, Gude. Schwarze in der Kunst Böhmen unter den Luxemburgern. In: Kunst als Herrschaftsinstrument. Böhmen und das Heilige Römische Reich unter den Luxemburgern im europäischen Kontext / Berlin - München : Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2009, p. 328-345.

This is (apparently - I don´t have access to it) about cultural depiction, not medieval demography... Any research about this topic will be limited by available sources. I don´t remember any mention in medieval chronicles I read (nearly all up to 15th century), so view of authors of this game may be really close to view of Czech mainstream historians.

As of "controversy" mention: include only, if there are strong RS about it, it would be undue otherwise. Pavlor (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the medieval Bohemians known black people. They depict (partly) black people as black people. Like saint Maurice. The whole "controversy" is about something else. Some people complain about the fact than they cannot choose to play as a black character and that in the game there are no black people. And that it is racist not to include black people there. I have master's degree in history, I'm Czech, I have studied a lot about age of Charles IV and subsequent Hussite revolution (which are crucial and well studied part of Czech history), but never have I read or hear something of a black populace living in a Bohemia. Sure, there is a skull of a person from a grave 571 in Mikulčice from 9th century, which have both europoid and negroid characteristic, but he is interpreted as a part of a mission of Saints Cyril and Methodius. Nothing else I'm aware of. Yes, there were probably black persons as a part of entourages of some emissaries at the court of Charles IV and maybe as a part of trading caravans of an Arabian traders, but hardly as a community living in a villages as Rataje. Not including black people in the game is not a "racism". --Silesianus (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I would also like to express my oppinion on the matter. First of all, let me tell you that I am very sad that these types of "controversies" came even here to the Wiki. I am from Czech Republic. As a matter of fact, I am in CZ even now when I writhe these words. So let me tell you that even now, in the 21st century we have barely any black here at all. I could honestly count the number of blacks I personaly saw on my own fingers. If you want at least a little chance to actually see one, your only way is Universities where some foreign students of colur may be. Othere that that?? Virtually no way. Sure, in Prague, there are people from all around the world but that is because it is a center of tourism. Also I would like to point out that I live in the 3rd largest city in CZ so no village at all. And this is the 21st century. So what are we even talking about when it comes to the 15th century? Why would there be any blacks in the kingdome of Bohemia, or furthermore, why would there be any blacks in Central Europe at all? Sure, there may have been some in countries near Africa - Spain, Italy etc. but in the middle of the Europe? There were no blacks here, because they were still in Africa. So can I say there were no blacks in Bohemia? Of course not, I cannot say anything like that because such a statement cannot be proven. Can I say there were virtually no blacks in Bohemia and for sure none black was recorded in Bohemian/Czech History? I most certainly can.

It makes me really sad that society today spent so much effort of CREATING problems where none are. We should bring people together and not constantly driving them away from each other by creation of racism claims that are simply false. Sorry for my rambling here, I really had to say something. Anyway I wish all of you very nice day.ScorpiO (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, our personal feelings on whether or not this is worth considering a "controversy" is immaterial. It is also immaterial whether or not a non-trivial number of black people lived in 15th century Bohemia. You could be a time-traveler from 15th century Bohemia and personally attest that there are zero black people, but that wouldn't change the fact that reliable sources have reported that a controversy *exists* about this game. This controversy, regardless of our feelings, is notable and is owed mention in the article for it to be a comprehensive look at the subject. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have joined and continued this discussion because bold declarations like "He's a full blown racist, and he talks alot about who he will or will not include in "his" game", "Your uncited "actual historians" probably do believe the ample evidence that indicates it to be true, or else are too old to care to change their opinion." and "On the other hand, the assertion that "zero black people lived in 15th century Bohemia" is hilariously unsupportable" were made. Since this statements was made by two participants who want to include this "controversy" in the text, I am naturally afraid of neutrality of this section. Personal feelings that you have mentioned are my main worry. --Silesianus (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Naj'entus who you quoted above, but you yourself said "Yes, the medieval Bohemians known black people" so I think it's uncontroversial to say that at least 1 black person lived in 15th century Bohemia, for some definition of "lived". It's not relevant to the discussion, but I don't think we disagree on this point. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's not what it ment. I don't know how you get to that conclusion. Medieval world have no close borders, people traveled. Firstly have mentioned possibility of some black travelers " as a part of entourages of some emissaries at the court of Charles IV and maybe as a part of trading caravans of an Arabian traders" (I have no sources for that though). Secondly it's the non-black persons from other parts of Europe living in the Bohemia. For example king Charles IV spend his youth at the court of the French king, then lived in Italy before moving back to Bohemia. Thirdly it's the Bohemians traveling abroad, some of them take part in crusades, other make pilgrimages and so on. What we know is that we have no proof that there were some black people living in Bohemia in the early 15th century. But then again, I think we are sidetracked again in this discussion. My point is not that it is "controversial to say that at least 1 black person lived in 15th century Bohemia", but it is nonsense to mark someone as racist, because he didn't include black people in his video game set in early 15th century. And I have made a circle and am back at "storm in a teacup" and I find edits like this one highly biased and inproper for this article and Wikipedia. --Silesianus (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a medieval scholar so I can't comment on that and it's also not relevant. I'm not the one calling anyone racist here, merely that the controversy exists and is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. I wouldn't put it the way Naj'entus did in that edit, but that doesn't change its noteworthiness. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Axem Titanium, maybe I missed something, but I have not seen the "reliable sources have reported that a controversy *exists* about this game" you mentioned in an earlier post. Can you add links here to the sources which are, according to you, reliable, and which prove that "the controversy exists and is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article"? Thanks, --WikiHannibal (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to. Here are a bunch on the controversy itself: [2] [3] [4] [5]. And even a lot of reviews remarked on it as well: [6] [7] [8] [9]. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don´t think these are authoritative sources about Czech history. Should we promote fringe theory (from the mainstream historians point of view), because several game reviewers aren´t strong in history of Bohemia? This is a very core of this "controversy": people with limited understanding of history argue with author of this game (who himself is so "pleasant" personality...). Pavlor (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isn't a debate about the facts of Czech history. No one knows the facts because no one alive today was alive in the 15th century. This is about reliable sources reporting on the existence of a controversy. The controversy exists and no amount of debate will make it stop existing. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly shouldn´t give undue weight to fringe theories. Pavlor (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly makes this fringe? Or a theory? It's covered by a surfeit of reliable sources and the designer is not exactly shy about his personal opinions. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their view of demographics of Bohemia is fringe. Available secondary sources mention only Czechs, Germans, Jews (in cities only until the Hussite wars, later also in the countryside) and first Roma people arriving since the early 15th century (eg. Fialová, Ludmila - Horská, Pavla - Kučera, Milan - Maur, Eduard - Musil, Jiří - Stloukal, Milan. Dějiny obyvatelstva českých zemí. Praha : MF, 1996, p. 55-73.). If you want to write about this "controversy", you should present also view of mainstream historians. Pavlor (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the "fact of" or existence of this controversy goes, I'd agree with Axem Titanium that it should be mentioned, for completion's sake, but as Pavlor said, we should balance it with materials from the more mainstream historians. As more material on this becomes available, we can always update it. — AfroThundr ^(talk) 20:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't our primary intention be to porperly sum up the reviews of the game? There is a lot of text in the reviews that is actually about the game itself. The lack of magic, the heavy hardware demands, the bugs, the kickstarter campaign, the art style, the fighting mechanics, the fact that you're not a hero saving the world for a change... We'd need one pretty enormous reception section for a mere mention of this controversy to be due in my opinion. Especially since it's less about the game itself and more about a fringe theory by some reviewers who expect coloured people or equality between men and women in the wrong time and place. In my opinion, that can be factored in when deciding what the essence of the critical reception of the game is. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should, I personally see this as outrage culture WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, as most of the claims only have single sources backing them up, yet the wording makes it seem like it's a widespread opinion held by numerous people. The section has nothing on the game's technical performance (which I've seen criticized). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just now decided to check the section for MOS violations (it had a few), and am wondering how have obviously biased claims such as "Which was another sign of poor education on commenter's parts because" remained in the article? I also don't understand what the "since Islamic Cumans and Catholic Hungarians are reportedly portrayed as cruel invaders, while the Catholic Czechs are supposedly shown only in a positive light" claim is trying to make, as it makes no sense to go with "reportedly" if the game has already released and can be viewed by anybody. It's also only supported by a single source, so I have to ask if this really belongs at all. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says reportedly becasue it was one guys opinion and is not necesarily true, I have reworded that section to better explain his feelings.Murchison-Eye (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I assumed as well, I just didn't know why it was so badly written if the section has been under constant watch for over a week. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User Pavlor added some book from the 90-s with some fringe views that claims people of colour didn't exist in Bohemia. I believe the book should be marked as such in the article - as a *single* source, and a biased source at that Pavlor disagrees and claims there are other sources. Can you show them, Pavlor? Preferably sources all of us can check (becauase we dont live in Czech republic and that book is not available online) Naj'entus (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that book doesn´t claim "people of colour didn't exist in Bohemia", there is simply no mention of them. Note book in question is written by most renowned experts in the field, not some half educated game reviewers. So far, I was not able to find source (be it primary or secondary) supporting notable presence of people of colour in the late medieval Bohemia. Sure, there could be some travellers or merchants, but there is nothing left about them in the written records. Pavlor (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove they are "renowned experts", or at least have credentials? Why should we take your word on it? Could you also provide secondary sources for the claim? Calling a single, debatable source "authoritative" should not be done. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are few links about said authors. Unfortunately as it is Czech, it is in Czech. You will at least be able to understand the academic titles and years and places of work. If you´d be interested, I could translate it for you ;) (https://www.cbdb.cz/kniha-8677-dejiny-obyvatelstva-ceskych-zemi-dejiny-obyvatelstva-ceskych-zemi https://www.cbdb.cz/autor-40556-ludmila-fialova https://www.cbdb.cz/autor-2751-pavla-horska https://www.cbdb.cz/autor-2753-eduard-maur https://www.cbdb.cz/autor-2754-jiri-musil ) the site is Czech, Bibliographical Database ;) Oh and I would like to give this book as well ISBN 80-85983-67-2 - Dějiny zemí Koruny české v datech by F Čapka. you can find the book here in pdf - http://fk.mysteria.cz/zajimavosti/dejiny_zemi_c_koruny.pdf . It is quite praised book and describes our history in quite a detail (it has more then 800 pages) and just for fun I tried to find some mentions about blacks - černoch or Maurs - Maurové. There is 0 references to Maurs and only 1 to černoch (blacks) during colonnial trade in the 18th century. This really proves what Pavlor said - there are basically no records/mentions about blacks in our recorded history. So I would suggest one thing. Before being called racist for sticking to an actuall history, why not to find any credible sources that as a matter of fact show that there were blacks in the 15th century Bohemia? I think it would be more logical approach, don´t you think? Anyway, I wish all a wonderfull day ;) , ScorpiO (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all of these sources are legitimate and accurate, I still wonder if this is just creating controversy out of nothing. We should be using more contemporary opinions and less obscure scholarly studies that only get added to help prove their assumption. That's on top of literally nothing about the gameplay and technical performance being mentioned, which you know, are the things that actually matter to the majority of people. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although I will say that the fact that we are using these sources kinda proves the entire point. Adding them to reference claims about absence of black people in Bohemia is like crawling thru University of Alabama's archives for 1920-s to find scholarly works proving that Jim Craw laws were not racist. Seek and ye shall find. And it's not surprising that all of these sources are written by white authors from mid XX century. Naj'entus (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident93 - you wanted to back the claims, that those authors are indeed experts so I provided that. It is -as a matter of fact - not we who create this "controversy". You (Gaming media I mean) accused the game for being racist and we simply are saying that it is nonsence as there were literally no Blacks then, as there are still virtually none in CZ even today. I also rather focus on the game itself then this nonsencical and completly wrong accusations.

Naj'entus your comment is really something "all the authors are white"....Tell me, don´t you think it is maybe by the fact that we Czechs ARE white??? Why would color of your skin matter when writing a book about history of your own country? You accused mr. Vavra of being racist yet in the tweeter link you said, there was nothing racist at all (or I am blind), yet here you are dennouncing academics just because they are white?? How can you accuse anyone of being racist and then say something like that? If those authors were black, would you be OK with them as a source? Then there is a little problem - We do not have Blacks in CZ, it may be sad but it is a fact.

So in conclusion, could we please stop with this nonsence and focus on important things that actually bring us together? I wish all of you a very happy and wonderfull day.ScorpiO (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note there are black people in the Czech Republic, albeit few in numbers. Eg. in mid size city I live probably far less than 50 persons (from population of 25000) - outcome of post WW2 relations with Cuba and other countries. There is of course significant minority of Roma people, but these aren´t subject of this "controversy". Pavlor (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

using books is a completely legitimate source on wikipedia. Just because you have't/can't read it doesn't mean it cannot be used. Murchison-Eye (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Maur (author of the chapter about medieval demographics in the book above) wrote short study about development of Czech historical demography (2008), which is available online in English ([10]). Hope this helps as an introduction (most important authors, works and bibliographies are mentioned). Pavlor (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A note: The sourcing being used here needs to be in relation to the game itself. We're not holding a debate on whether or not the claims of racism/xenophobia are true. We're documenting what was said about the game by reliable sources. A book written 2 decades prior to the game's release is not providing relevant insight to the game itself. Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When developer says his game is based on mainstream scholarly sources, then these sources are part of this "controversy" and we shouldn´t hide them. Presenting only arguments of one side would be certainly undue. Pavlor (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. We're not holding a personal debate on history and race. Save that for messageboards or social media or something. On Wikipedia, we're documenting what was said about this particular game. Decade-old commentary is not about this game. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is not Wikipedia's job to "out" the developers as racist or wrong. That would be in violation of WP:OR guidelines, see this quote in particular: "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research". Substitute "reference texts" for "game journalism websites" and you have your explanation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, developer defends himself that his game world is based on the work mainstream historians. Note there is no scholarly work supporting opposite point of view. Pavlor (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add the developer's actual response, that is fine, if it's documented somewhere. But to go digging into history books and argue on his behalf, no, that's not acceptable. That's not the role editors take on Wikipedia. We are documenting, not taking part of, this debate. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So - in your point of view - game reviews are stronger source than the entire body of scholarly work? Priceless... This "controversy" is based upon lack of knowledge of history on the reviewers part, view of mainstream historians about disputed topic certainly belong to that section. Pavlor (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, if that's your summation of the situation, then you're still not understanding the problem here, or one's role in writing an encyclopedia in general. The issue is that you're inappropriately interjecting yourself into the debate to add your own evidence into the mix. This is not yours, or any of us here, argument to make in the article itself. We, as editors, are not making the arguments, we're documenting it. The problem is not the source, but the context of the source. The source itself is fine, its your application of the source that is the issue - it takes original research to apply it to this video game because it was written decades before this video game. Scholarly commentary would be greatly welcomed here, but we don't currently have any on this game (or no ones presented yet.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here I don´t agree, I don´t think providing older scholarly source about the very topic of this "controversy" is OR. My own interpretation not based directly on source(s), that would be OR. Note I have my doubts we can consider some of the reviews as RS, because they didn´t bother to do even basic fact checking. It wouldn´t be that hard to contact some University with experts on the medieval Central/Eastern Europe (like that YT channel did), but yes... it was far easier to invent their story and load it with accusations based on their own prejudices. This is pure Daily Mail style reporting, not something I would expect from RS. However, section in question is somewhat balanced now, albeit sources used are of lower quality. If there is no consensus to add scholarly sources, I will not push it further. Pavlor (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It really feels like you're having a hard time separating your personal stance in the argument from the documentation of the argument from reliable sources, but regardless, other editors have found a number of other sources that directly discuss the game, and a number of editors beyond myself have been good about removing your OR/personal arguments, so this has basically resolved itself. You're probably going to have issues elsewhere though, if you continue to interject your own opinions into controversy sections like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is obvious we disagree what is OR and what not... If this "controversy" centers on understanding of historical topic, one would expect at least a mere mention of content of scholarly works in regard to disputed statements. Instead, readers can marvel at bold words of jurnalists supporting both sides of the "controversy". There are good books about medieval Bohemia, some have even chapter about demographics. This "controversy" exists only because nobody bothers to read them. Pavlor (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, saying things like This "controversy" exists only because nobody bothers to read them just demonstrates your inability to remove yourself from the controversy itself. That's a fine sentiment as a participant in a debate. Its completely invalid as someone who is supposed to be chronicling the debate as its happening. Again, we are documenting, not advocating. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to interrupt your discussion but I think that some sort of academic/scholar/expert source (even if published before the game itself) should be included in the Controversy section. In my opinion, claims of the game's critics fit the WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people." To conclude, I suggest that such claims should be put in context of scientific consensus.--Mossback (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the scholarly sources discuss the game, yes. If they don't, no. There's really no need for this. The sources present sufficiently provide commentary on each side of the debate currently. This section doesn't need expansion, it's probably already an WP:UNDUE issue - this controversy really wasn't all that massive of any issue. This isn't some sort of Hot Coffee mod type massive scandal. The article needs to focus more on the game itself, as Dissident93 was advocating above. I keep trying to expand the reception section, but people keep expanding the controversy section at an even faster rate. If anything, the controversy section could use trimming, as the sources are rather repetitive in what they're saying. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming is really good idea (eg. two best sources for each side). You have my full support for this and I trust your judgement to do it right. Pavlor (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the section, Accusations of racism, features non-neutral points of view, inaccurate statements and arguments debating the quality of sources. In my previous revision these points were modified, only one sentence and its source was removed. This was all reverted due to lack of discussion, so let me break down my thoughts:

... Whereas Polygon (website) in their review admitted bias by claiming the developers alleged support for the Gamergate movement as one of the reasons for their poor evaluation of the game, stating: "... 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.".[33] However, an authoritative scholarly source about demographics of the late medieval Bohemia doesn't mention people of color.[34]

This section states that Polygon "admitted bias" by mentioning the controversy of Gamergate and the developer. Reading the source Polygon merely mentions the controversy surrounding the developer for their comments and in no way indicates it shaped their review. Here it is verbatim:

The game is also not without its controversies. Warhorse is a team of more than 150 people, but 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. So outspoken is the studio’s leadership on cultural issues that they have found it necessary to work with a German outlet to publish anti-fascist, anti-sexist and anti-racist statements prior to their game’s launch.

Polygon also does not offer a score only one author's perspective, its not mentioned elsewhere in the article. This is misleading and irrelevant to leave in its current state. My proposed edit is to simply remove "admitted bias".

Moving on down:

However, an authoritative scholarly source from 1996 about the demographics of late medieval Bohemia does not mention people of color.[34]

This comes out of nowhere and seems to be addressing an earlier part of the section. Instead this should be made its own point and simply state that "Some scholarly sources regarding demographics of the late medieval Bohemia does not mention people of color." and potentially moved for better flow. Calling a source authoritative is not needed, it shouldn't be a source if it's not reliable. The wording is coloring the language to make the criticisms seem less legitimate. It is especially hard to confirm not being in English.

Finall moving on to:

Nonetheless, Kingdom Come: Deliverance also faced an accusation of xenophobia, since Islamic Cumans and Catholic Hungarians are reportedly[clarification needed] portrayed as cruel invaders, while the Catholic Czechs are supposedly[clarification needed] shown only in a positive light.[35]

Nonetheless what? Is this a reference to the above scholarly article? I see this section has been touched several times, but Islam/Muslim nature of Cumans isn't really mentioned. I don't think going into more detail of the article's criticisms are necessary, I recommend simply noting that it stands accused of xenophobia and the source itself can represent the arguments as to why.

I feel like the neutral point-of-view is just a bit off throughout this section, generally reads as defensive of the game/developers.

Thoughts? On3moresoul (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wile some of your point on wording are valid and will hopefully be cleared up soon, calling someone racist because a game set in 15th century Central Europe doesnt feature any people from Africa is a fringe theory at best and should only be mentioned in passing, if at all. Thus the developers view is the mainstream view. Murchison-Eye (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not think that your understanding of the sources is correct and the result gives more credibility to the "controversy" than it should have.

This comes out of nowhere and seems to be addressing an earlier part of the section. Instead this should be made its own point and simply state that "Some scholarly sources regarding demographics of the late medieval Bohemia does not mention people of color." and potentially moved for better flow. Calling a source authoritative is not needed, it shouldn't be a source if it's not reliable. The wording is coloring the language to make the criticisms seem less legitimate. It is especially hard to confirm not being in English.

Pardon me, but the current wording seems to me to be too manipulative. The whole context of the issue is that some controversies were raised concerning the (non)occurence of minorities in the game, however, none of these sources seems to be based on any serious research. On the other hand, these claims were later dismissed by several scholarly sources including the 1996 book. Stating that "Some scholarly sources regarding demographics of the late medieval Bohemia does not mention people of color." is simply put a misunderstanding. The sources discuss the medieval Bohemia demographic - it is not only that they do not mention people of color (in other words, they might be, but the source is silent on the issue), the point is that they document the ethnic composition of medieval population. Your interpretation manipulatively insinuates that the "controversy" is somehow grounded in scholarly sources. Urbat (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on writing an actual reception section, based on the game's reviews. I noticed that the Xbox One aggregate score is 4-5 points lower than the PS4 version, and close to 10 less than the PC version. Most of the reviews I've skimmed so far didn't mention difference between platforms. Anyone know off-hand, or have a review off-hand, as to why its being reviewed lower? 10 points is a notable difference. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, bugs everywhere! Xbox version is in a bad technical state in comparison to PS (a little bit better) or Win versions.Pavlor (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense, bugs certainly have been a predominant talking point in looking over a few reviews. Just hadn't noticed anything platform-specific. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that Reid McCarter's article includes a claim of ethnonationalism because of numerous restatements of the definition of ethnonationalism, including "the Czech Republic is for ethnically Czech citizens only", "It established a sense of Czech national identity based at least in part on a reemphasized distinction between German and Czech Bohemians.", and "This is especially unsettling in the context of the recent re-election of anti-immigrant, anti-European Union President Milos Zeman, the country’s reluctance to accept Muslim refugees, and the rise of populist nationalism." User:Murchison-Eye claims that this is "unsourced" and "OR". "Populist nationalism" is a decent approximation, but the source in question is literally describing ethnonationalism and I don't think I'm doing any interpretation to reach that conclusion. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw series of edits too, and wondered what exactly the counter-argument would be here... Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that since McCarter's article already brings "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence" (i.e. his comments about both Czech history and contemporary politics), the "ethno-nationalist" deduction would be quite excessive. On the other hand, given the scope of absurd claims about this game, it does not seem to me as important as other matters discussed in previous threads.--Mossback (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you're dropping it then? Or that you're going to provide an explanation? Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've provided an explanation (sort of) but to be clear - ethnonationalism is not specifically mentioned/defined in the source so the "xenophobic vision/portrayal" would be sufficient.--Mossback (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The author of the article acused them of "xenophobia", which we mention. I dont see why you want to try an force in another, very similar accusation that the author didnt actually make? You are not making the article better or more truthful. Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're reporting on McCarter's opinions, not his claims of facts, so "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence" doesn't really apply here. McCarter can't be wrong about his own opinions. The one angle you have here is that he didn't call it ethnonationalism *by name*, but if he describes every aspect of it in his prose, I believe that it's warranted to use the term at the very least because it's more succinct to do so. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding another accusation, similar to "xenophobic" is the opposite of succinct. Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobia and ethnonationalism are two different things. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes slighty :) but only one of them was mentioned in the article. Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the alternate, good faith interpretation of Axem's quoted part though. It's fine to doubt, but you've got to have a reasonable reason why too. To be clear, it's an honest question, not necessarily doubt, where my question comes from here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be certainly OR. If the term is in the article, use it. If not, don´t push it further. Although I agree with your interpretation of McCarter's article, such conclusion would be too much OR even for my quite low standards. Pavlor (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a third person, who can say what it isn't, but isn't explaining what it is. Can anyone explain? Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read what I wrote, "ethnonationalism" is also my interpretation of mentioned phrases. Note that this my conclusion based on my reading of the source, not something the source directly writes. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. WP:SYN What we need is a summary of these phrases presented in NPOV way. Pavlor (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Im very familiar with SYNTH and OR. And that's why I'm questioning it; if there's no other reasonable interpretation, it's not OR. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Axem Titanium reverted removal of reference of the two mainstream Czech newspapers as "right-wing". Please kindly reconsider, since I believe this may be misleading particularly in connection with the topic of socalled "controversy" and alegations of racism . Refering to a newspaper as right-wing in such context would allude that the news is some Breitbart-like fringe outlet. While there are controversies surrounding these media outlets (as a consequence of their acquisition by current Czech PM and populist politician Andrej Babiš ), it has to be noted that the "right-wing" orientation of these newspapers has to be read in context of the Czech media surrounding. Both newspapers historically supported moderately liberal/conservative goverment against the socialists (see this thesis from Media studies department of Masaryk University). Should one compary Lidové Noviny and MF to any US, they are definitely more right-wing than Washington Post or Guardian, less right wing than Wall Street Journal - which is pretty mainstream. Therefore, reference to right-wing orientation is misleading in the context and completely unnecessary. Urbat (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I rember correctly, these "right-wing" references were added by now indef blocked User:Naj'entus, whose other edits in this article were "weird" (to say it charitably). From the Czech POV, MF Dnes, LN and Hospodarske Noviny are right-wing (or better center-right) of the mainstream Czech newspapers, while Pravo is left-wing (center-left). There are non-mainstream newspapers with more extreme POV (eg. communist Halo Noviny) and pure tabloids like Blesk, but these aren´t RS. As only people knowing Czech media landscape can understand correctly this "right-wing" label, I agree we should remove it. Pavlor (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Since I am new, I elected to bring this to talk page rather than un-revert the deletion. Urbat (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Urbat, thanks for coming to the talk page. I will be the first to admit that I'm not at all familiar with the political orientation of Czech newspapers; I was merely going off the sources cited in their respective articles which describe them as right wing. Personally, I would also describe the Wall Street Journal as right wing. As for the issue at hand, I'm not sure that these papers' historical actions while under the Eastern bloc are relevant to their current political lean, so I'll ignore that for now. The most important thing here is to contextualize each source for an English-speaking reader who is not necessarily familiar with each one. Based on this academic paper published by the Czech Academy of Sciences, it seems like MF DNES and Hospodářské noviny occupy the right wing of Czech mainstream media and Lidové noviny is center-right. I would be comfortable dropping right wing from Lidové noviny and changing the other two to "right-leaning", if that's acceptable to you. I would also ask you two if Právo (or even Haló noviny) wrote anything on the topic, as that would help represent the spectrum of the Czech media response to this whole business. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pravo reviewed the game, but wrote nothing about this "controversy" (at least I don´t remember snything like that in the published edition), some newspaper articles are shared between paper edition and novinky.cz portal. Review on novinky.cz: [11] (of note is criticism of minor deficiencies in the Czech localization). I don´t read Halo noviny and their webpage doesn´t mention the game (note this newspaper is aimed at quite old demographics). For the sake of completeness, here is review in online edition of the tabloid Blesk: [12] (quick and dirty translation of the title: Most awaited Czech videogame of the year Kingdom Come: Deliverance is so bugged that dead rise from the graves). Pavlor (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this; I just searched their website and had no hope of finding it. I'll add try to add them to the Reception section as well since WPVG likes to include local reviews for balance. With respect to the main point of this discussion, what do you think of my proposal? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full agreement. Interesting to note, by reading Czech online media about the game, I found information about new course that will open on the Masaryk University (Brno) next semester centering on the game and comparing scholarly history and its portrayal in popular culture: [13] (webpage of the Czech public TV broadcaster). Another interesting article (first part of promised series) from Ondřej Schmidt (of the same university) about historical accuracy of the game with references to primary sources (not RS in Wikipedia sense, but good read anyway: [14]). Pavlor (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.^[1][2][3][4]

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".^[5] 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".^[6]

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.^[7]

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".^[8] 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".^[9]

1. ^ Purchese, Robert (20 February 2018). "Kingdom Come: Deliverance review - history is a double-edged sword". Eurogamer. Archived from the original on 22 February 2018. Retrieved 4 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
2. ^ Grayson, Nathan. "Kingdom Come Owes Its Popularity To 'Realism' And Conservative Politics". Steamed. Archived from the original on 3 March 2018. Retrieved 4 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
3. ^ "Games Inbox: Do the racism concerns put you off Kingdom Come?". Metro. 12 February 2018. Archived from the original on 12 February 2018. Retrieved 4 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
4. ^ Meekin, Paul (19 February 2018). "Art vs. Artist: Kingdom Come Controversy, Explored". Heavy.com. Archived from the original on 22 February 2018. Retrieved 4 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
5. ^ M! Games, Issue 294, March 2018, Page 51
6. ^ Game Two #59: Kingdom Come: Deliverance, Fe, Kontroverse: Games-Journalismus in der Kritik on YouTube, retrieved on 4 March 2018
7. ^ "Proč nejsou ve středověké hře z Čech žádní černoši? ptají se v zámoří" [Why there are no black people in the medieval game from Bohemia? they ask overseas]. Lidovky.cz. Lidové noviny. MAFRA. 3 March 2014. Archived from the original on 25 July 2017. Retrieved 5 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
8. ^ McCarter, Reid (2 March 2018). "Deliverance: Myth-making and Historical Accuracy". Unwinnable. Archived from the original on 3 March 2018. Retrieved 4 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
9. ^ "Kingdom Come: Deliverance Makes Me Wonder What Other Stories There Are to Tell in 15th Century Bohemia". USgamer.net. Retrieved 8 March 2018.

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]