Talk:Game Science

Controversy or nonsense gossip?

This “controversy” is basically “someone said that someone said something bad”. It doesn't even mention exactly what that “sexism” would be.

Not to mention the credibility of the source, as well as its expertise (if the original gossip was made in a language the gossiper doesn't understand, let's say the chance of it being a lie is extremely high). Edefoam (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. The people who run this site are far too woke to make that distinction. 159.146.110.247 (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I have found articles about those comments dating back to 2020, IGN wasn't the first to report it, Just the first major western game outlet to post it, compared to the people who talk about how the dev's lines were mistranslated which was sourced from... a random small youtube channell

https://www.scmp.com/abacus/games/article/3098967/gamers-reconsider-anticipated-title-black-myth-wukong-following

https://thechinaproject.com/2020/09/02/chinese-game-developer-faces-boycott-after-ceos-sexually-explicit-remarks/ 99.233.117.80 (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable sources are being used

The Geeks + Gamers website is repeatedly being added to this wiki page despite showing many cases of being an unreliable source. As previously stated, the source has an obvious bias against journalists that hurts its credibility as a reliable source. Wikipedia establishes that when an article is biased it should have "editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."

1. Editorial control: This can't be established because the website doesn't have a masthead showing their staff. We know nothing about their staff and hierarchy. As stated in the Reliable Sources guidelines, opinionated content is okay but the identity of the author helps determine reliability. Especially when they're a recognized expert. How can we establish expertise when there's only a name attributed to the article and nothing more?

2. A reputation for fact-checking: The current source for this article uses only rumors as their evidence to support a claim that also has no evidence. It pushes an unsubstantiated claim that journalists are working with a consultant company to extort Game Science for $7 million. Their source is a Twitter account that forges information against journalists. Instead of using just that source for their argument, they push it further by saying that journalists coordinate attacks with developers all the time to "woke-ify your game". Which they don't provide any facts to support.

The original article being used here as a source uses an Asmongold video as evidence to rival the IGN report about alleged mistranslations. The video uses ChatGPT, a forum post, and two Reddit posts as evidence. The translations have already been reported on by reliable sources that I included in this Wikipedia page but were removed. These were linked by another user in the Talk section.

The article then describes the as situation a "scum sundae" before claiming that an IGN translator wasn't paid. Their source is a tweet that shows pictures of tweets that are no longer available as evidence. Which clearly supports nothing as fact. The writer then further pushes the narrative that journalists are shaking down game developers. Continuing their bias from then on, they describe IGN as having "abhorrent behavior".

This entire article relies on questionable sources and rumors that show a lack of fact-checking. It borders on extremist content defaming journalists. Wikipedia states that it's "not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."

3. Level of independence: They repeatedly go after IGN from a biased point-of-view which destroys their independence on this topic. And again, not having a masthead or any policies to show their ethics tarnishes their independence. Their YouTube channel has a video labeled, "Game Journos HATE Black Myth Wukong" that starts with them saying, "Game journos are horrible people. They are a literal cancer. They want to destroy everything." They then go into a discriminatory rant, "Any time someone says as a woman or as a black man or as a black woman, fuck off, absolutely fuck off. The moment you say that, you are disqualified from having any legitimate opinion whatsoever to be taken seriously." Finishing their video with, "If some pronouns in bio, unattractive fat freak, that wants to go after this game ... if they hate it, if he she it we they, fat fuck hates it, then I am going to support it."

I don't know how they can be independent from covering Black Myth Wukong or journalists with a perspective like that.

Regarding HK01, I had to use Google Translate to understand their article. I removed their source because they also use Asmongold's video to push a claim that IGN's report has mistranslations and is "maliciously translated". Despite other media outlets reporting the same information three years earlier. Aside from this, HK01 also sources a random person on Weibo to push a claim that an IGN editor is a member of a consulting firm. While also suggesting that said consulting firm uses the media and others to attack developers and create negative reports. This is another case of reporting without facts that even the HK01 reporter acknowledges. They state that there's no substantial evidence to support these arguments.

Continuing from there, their article claims IGN and a consultant firm asked Game Science for $7 million in consulting fees. This is still only based on a Weibo post that they state is speculation.

All that aside, I also included two other sources regarding Game Science refusing to address IGN's report. These sources were removed.

Snakester95 (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Ya, it honestly looks like they are going to keep editing it and adding back the misinformation and unreliable sources unless they are blocked out from editing it and the page is locked 2607:FEA8:6563:2400:75CB:FEC4:EE0D:A239 (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted this due to another editor accusing me of edit warring. They've since added both sources I discussed above back into the Wiki page without providing a reason they're reliable. This is also after one editor reverted a vandalism edit back to my edit. Several other cases of vandalism from other users that other editors have also reverted back to my edit. One user vandalizing a section I edited was also IP-blocked. And then another editor added the PC Gamer source I used after that was also removed by the IP-blocked user. I also provided edit summaries for each of my four edits across the last three days. Snakester95 (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Now if we can just get remove what is being sourced from the low quality sources that are still on the page 2607:FEA8:6563:2400:75CB:FEC4:EE0D:A239 (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

First off, HK01 is a mainstream media source based in Hong Kong.

Secondly, they are providing a balanced coverage of the discourse in the West and providing a commentary on it (not using it as evidence to push anything; they themselves are literally Chinese). The ironic thing is that they also highlight how the IGN article has their third-party sources behind pseudonyms. You, on the other hand, are trying to scrub citations that covers the criticisms on the IGN article.

Since you have expressed that you are using Google Translate to try to understand the HK01 article, there's a quote in the reference that contains the main content, i.e., the questioning of the IGN article's legitimacy (though the article goes more in depth). --Cold Season (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

A source that straight out uses social media posts, YouTube videos and even the article itself Has stated are not in any way verified, and you other source(geeks +Gamer) uses the same source and is incredibly biased

Both also ignore that like you…. There is a news article over 3 years older then the IGN one, written by a bilingual speaker of both English and mandarin reporting on the same allegations with the job postings in question and what the man said…. 2607:FEA8:6563:2400:9B9:A478:89BD:AFB2 (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

First point: Yeah, HK01 is providing coverage on Western discourse and then adds their own commentary... That means being balanced and examining everything. HK01 has met that. IGN has not addressed the mistranslation allegations, ironically, which is rather unbalanced. Actually, now that I think of it, that fact seems suitable content for this too.

Second point: Your argument opposes Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. Just because another commentary is older... is not a rationale to try to remove all citations that goes against it. It is policy to provide all significant views published by reliable sources. --Cold Season (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

HK01 and Geeks + Gamers are relying on Asmongold's video that uses ChatGPT against an IGN writer who translated the article themselves. IGN is a reliable source according to Wikipedia. I would trust IGN's reporters which have their own editorial standards over a two minute video relying on ChatGPT. https://corp.ign.com/standards-and-practices

I didn't deny that HK01 is a mainstream media source. They're also a reliable source according to Wikipedia. However, their article doesn't do any reporting. They rely on Asmongold and Weibo posts. Regardless of commentary, they didn't contact Game Science, Sweet Baby Inc, IGN, or any of the companies or people they're reporting on. They instead rely on Weibo rumors that push a defamatory narrative. If you're going to argue HK01 should be a source, they should have an in-text attribution to the reporter specifically. This is how commentary is treated according to the reliable sources page due to it being a statement of opinon. While also stating that commentary is rarely reliable for statements of fact. Regarding what you said about them not pushing claims, they're pushing many claims and show their bias in the sources they use. They're not providing balanced coverage by including Grummz, Asmongold, and only Weibo posts pushing rumors with no proof. Where are their sources from other perspectives or Weibo posts like the other Chinese sources I've used? Their sources are all one-sided.

Regarding your second point, the older articles provide additional context and information, also from a Chinese perspective, that have been removed. As you said, "it is policy to provide all significant views published by reliable sources." So why should only HK01 exist and not those views? Those sources also support the facts of the IGN report which rival the claim of alleged mistranslations. I included a report from South China Morning Post that was removed, despite them being used in the same Wikipedia page to praise Black Myth: Wukong. They're either reliable or they aren't. Which Wikipedia also confirms them as a reliable source. The current situation shows the opposite of providing all significant views and providing a neutral point of view.

Regarding the pseudonyms, it's not unheard of to use anonymous sources in journalism. It's an important way to provide information while reducing harm to the source. Breaking that confidentiality can lead to legal issues as well. https://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp

All that aside, you haven't addressed Geeks + Gamers being used as a reliable source which they clearly aren't. Snakester95 (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are there citations that source an extremist YouTuber as the foundation of their reporting? SmashJT has a list of journalists to harass. Gamersky and HK01 use them as a source. And Gamersky doesn't attach a named writer to their article either. The byline is listed as "cold1sleep" and edited by the same user. Which shows there's no editorial control.

HK01 is a step above Gamersky, but as I've previously said, their reporting on this topic is minimal at best. In more than one article cited on this Wiki page, HK01 claims Sweet Baby Inc and IGN tried to extort Game Science for $7 million. The source of this is a Weibo post with no evidence for the claim. Which is further blurred by HK01 using a Reddit post that only translates a portion of the Weibo post. Users in the same Reddit thread are also questioning the legitimacy of this claim. A right-wing content creator outright called the claim false too. This alone shows a lack of fact checking.

Why hasn't HK01 handled the alleged IGN mistranslations themselves instead of relying on a YouTuber using ChatGPT? Why is HK01's criticism of IGN using an anonymous source significant? If the claim is that an anonymous source can't be verified, you can say that about every anonymous source in existence. This is why journalists have standards, ethics, policies, etc. Which is why Wikipedia lists IGN as a reliable source and expert. Anonymous sources aren't necessarily unknown sources, they're just not publicly disclosed.

Overall, why cite pages that can't perform basic fact checking and instead have reporting based on rumors and extremists? I haven't edited a lot of Wikipedia pages but I can't understand how some of the citation choices can be this poor when they're almost guidelines for what makes an unreliable source. These are questionable sources that are dangerous to cite.

PS: I copied certain citations from the Wiki page so the retrieval dates are still representative of those. Snakester95 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I just want to point out that HK01 is chinese (HK), so if they wouldn't be "relying" on chatgpt translations because they probably can understand chinese natively...

As a native chinese speaker myself, i can confirm that IGN's journalism is extremely off-the-mark. Their translations are literal one for one translations - even if you don't take into account idioms and context, you cannot translate chinese characters used in even as short as two character phrases literally into English. 你好 (Hello) translates to "you good" for example, 游戏 (Video games) translates to "Swim, theatrical play". And 被舔到勃起不能 translates (especially in context) translates into "All the job applicants were just complimenting me, and with no critical feedback we were unable to improve" with the english equivalent idiom being something like "They (applicants) kissed my ass so much my ass went numb". If I had IGN's journalistic standards, I would translate Khee Hoon Chan's tweet about pirating into 海盗 (maritime piracy) instead of 打板 (media piracy), which btw, 打板 translates literally into "upside-down table". They also translated 别(搞)同事 into "don't (screw) your coworkers" in order to give it a sexual context when 搞 would never be used by any native chinese speaker to do that.

With that little bit of context, I hope you understand how much misinformation is contained in IGN's article. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:749A:6854:2A16:3F2C (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

sorry there was a typo, 盗版 is the phrase for media piracy. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:749A:6854:2A16:3F2C (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

As I already said, I agree that HK01 shouldn't rely on ChatGPT translations, but they're relying on Asmongold who uses ChatGPT translations instead of confirming the mistranslations themselves. They're damaging their own reporting by using Asmongold as their foundation. Also, as previously pointed out, other Chinese media outlets have translated the same information coming to a similar conclusion as IGN. Snakester95 (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well I went and Baidu'd Rebekah Valentine and this is the first result that pops up.

https://www.163.com/dy/article/J4T81FSF0526K1KN.html

There is a passage in there: "而在文章中, Rebekah对一些内容做了误导性的翻译" in the context of the IGN article. You can translate it yourself using machine translations or chatgpt, or I can break down this translation for you as well:

而 = a kind of "decorator" word, in this case used to connect the title of the article immediately before to what she was doing with it.

在 = at

文章 = article

中 = usually means center or middle, but in this case it means inside/within [the article].

对 = usually means something liken "facing towards", in this case used to describe the verb's (creating misleading translations) subject (article)

一些 = a bunch of

内容 = inside of (referring to the article she wrote, the previous part of the article references it)

做了 = made

误导性 = deceptive, misleading

的 = just a grammar particle that attaches the descriptor of 误导性 to the subject 翻译

翻译 = translation

immediately prior to this sentence is the title of this article, which is the subject described in the more context heavy translations.

Let me know if you want me to do a deeper dive on Baidu or something. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh and, in case it wasn't clear from the above breakdown I did, "而在文章中, Rebekah对一些内容做了误导性的翻译" means she made up a bunch of misleading translations in her article. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I did a bit more digging. Here's another article from Sina Finance, this is pretty well known and should be reputable enough.

https://finance.sina.cn/tech/2024-06-17/detail-inazaipv9924255.d.html

Rebekah被指与该组织相交密切，同时在去年，她也曾针对游戏写过一篇名为《黑神话：悟空开发商的性别歧视历史是如何使西游之路复杂化的》的文章，而在文章中，Rebekah对一些内容做了误导性的翻译。

Again confirming misleading translations. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

References

About the IGN article: The fact is that criticism on the IGN article has significant coverage. Your personal views on them is irrelevant. You, on the other hand, are attempting to scrub it away despite this.

About the SBI incident: Why are you going on about Sweet Baby Inc? It's not even included in this Wiki article, but I am willing to work on that for the Wiki article since you insist (I don't really have a desire to do so though)... Because even the Sweet Baby Inc incident, whether it is a rumor or not, can be included if it has significant coverage, which it has. Even if you pretend that these SBI allegations don't exists.

Finally, HK01 isn't pushing anything in their reporting. They are providing coverage on something that is, in fact, going on. Is this not getting through in your Google Translate reading? Also, GamerSky is free to use author sobriquets; there's no Wiki policy that delegitimatize that; and your assumption derived from that is baseless. --Cold Season (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't care whether the IGN article has criticism or not. It's that these citations are unreliable. Which you've seen after removing my reliable sources and re-adding unreliable ones that other editors have then reverted. Criticism of the IGN article is fine, but many of the citations I addressed revolve around an extremist, unfound rumors, and a Weibo post. That's far from showing a reputation for fact checking. Which is why I brought up the SBI information. It's an example that addresses a lack of fact checking.

Also, I'm sorry if you're not following my point about the claims HK01 is pushing. Anyone can post something on Weibo and then a website could report on that rumor. That doesn't make it true. And spending the time to fact check it is what makes you a journalist. They didn't verify the $7 million extortion claim. They didn't verify the claim that an IGN journalist is part of Sweet Baby Inc. They didn't verify if the mistranslations were true. Instead, they published dangerous claims and later on, doubled down on them via commentary. That's why I stated they're a questionable source.

You also didn't address the GamerSky article. It's attributed to a username with no editorial control.

If the IGN article has significant coverage, then there should be plenty of reliable sources to cite. Googling about it doesn't show me that many, but I'm only googling in English so I don't know how many Chinese articles there are on the topic. I've seen the Geeks + Gamers article, SmashJT who I've already pointed out shouldn't be sourced, and That Park Place which is right in line with G+G. Snakester95 (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Following up instead of editing my post since I didn't address part of your post that you edited in afterward. GamerSky using a username with no editorial control makes it harder to establish they're an expert. Which is important in the case of editorials and opinion commentary. While also supporting an extremist channel, which is part of the questionable sources section. Snakester95 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you can go on baidu.com and search Rebekah Valentine's name. Might as well search khee hoon chan's name as well (I haven't yet).

I found what should be a reliable source for you that without editorialization says that Rebekah Valentine included deceptive/misleading translations in her article. You can do more on your own, or I might do some later. I broke down the exact passage as a chinese speaker in the talk section above this one, but a quick google translate of this passage should confirm that she misled people in her article.

而在文章中，Rebekah对一些内容做了误导性的翻译。

Source: https://finance.sina.cn/tech/2024-06-17/detail-inazaipv9924255.d.html

Sina Finance. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You linked me two websites that copy the GamerSky article. The Sina Finance link is actually from mydrivers which copies the GamerSky article. Which the 163 article also does. So there's no point in arguing the reliability of those two articles when they're copying/aggregating another one. Regarding the alleged mistranslation, both myself and another user have already linked two Chinese media outlets confirming the translations prior to IGN's report.

https://www.scmp.com/abacus/games/article/3098967/gamers-reconsider-anticipated-title-black-myth-wukong-following

https://thechinaproject.com/2020/09/02/chinese-game-developer-faces-boycott-after-ceos-sexually-explicit-remarks/ Snakester95 (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The author of the Sina Finance article is 快科技官方, again considered reliable with a huge following. And it's on Sina Finance, which again, is considered reliable.

What exactly do you mean Sina Finance copied gamersky? They're obviously different articles, and on top of that how did you even come to the conclusion that the latter copied the former? Not that either necessarily copied each other, but considering Sina Finance is the reliable source here and you seem to not like gamersky, wouldn't it be the other way around? 快科技官方 again, is a reliable source, and so is Sina Finance hosting the article, so if gamersky has the same content, wouldn't the fact that Sina/MyDrivers has this information lend credence to what gamersky is saying? Or would you now like to make some racist accusations about a plagiarism conspiracy?

Please stop this, it’s beginning to look like you have a racist agenda to push instead of performing impartial analysis. what you’re doing very insulting to people who actually understand the language.

Also, here's another article:

https://news.18183.com/yxxw/202406/4886507.html

Passage: 作者Rebekah Valentine再次污蔑《黑神话：悟空》多个开发者

污蔑 = making false accusations about someone 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Typo: "how did you even come to the conclusion that the latter copied the former?" should be "how did you even come to the conclusion that the former copied the latter?" (you accused sina finance of copying gamersky) 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I just clicked on your page and found that your profile was warned for engaging in an edit war. Your bizarre responses now make a lot of sense in that context. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

1. The Sina Finance article you provided originates from https://news.mydrivers.com/1/986/986313.htm and it links back to GamerSky. It also uses the same text, author, and editor as GamerSky. Just to clarify in case there's confusion, this GamerSky article: https://www.gamersky.com/news/202406/1775640.shtml

2. Your second source 18183 is better but I can't see a name attached to the article since Google Translate is only saying it is "Pen Name". Which may just be a translation issue. And they don't appear to have any editorial guidelines or policies. If there isn't a name attached to the article and any policies, that hurts their reliability. Regardless, that article doesn't question the translations and opts more toward reporting on IGN's statement regarding their report. Which is good instead of adding unsubstantiated rumors like many articles cited on this page have. If you need an example of the editorial policies I'm talking about: https://www.scmp.com/policies-and-standards

3. If you're going to make accusations instead of discussing the facts, check the Etiquette page. Snakester95 (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm now aware that the gamersky article is the same as the sina finance one, so the same author 快科技官方 penned the same article for both Sina Finance and Gamersky

a) How does that change the fact that Sina Finance published this article, and that both Sina Finance and 快科技官方 are individually reliable?

b) How did you come to the conclusion that the Sina Finance article was copied from gamersky, instead of the other way around, or the more probable scenario: that the same author posted them on both sites? And that Sina Finance is still reliable and allowed this publication?

c) Even on the minute chance you were correct that it was outright "copied", again, how does that change that Sina Finance is a reliable source and published it anyways? So what if it was a "copy"?

2a) No, it states very plainly that Rebekah Valentine slandered Game Science. In fact 污蔑 is a stronger statement in a chinese context than slander is in an english context.

2b) If we want to talk about source reliability, the translator in charge of the IGN translations advocated players pirate Wukong, is from singapore and wouldn't necessarily understand a chinese cultural context, and provided english "translations" that had numerous grammar issues and were massively disjointed from the context of the passages the mistranslated statements came from. The last part should raise red flags even for those without chinese language skills at all.

For the record, I don't have an opinion on whether or not this blurb should be included. I am not a wikipedia editor. But I'm firmly of the opinion that if it is, it's only fair that chinese news media pushing back on obvious mistranslations should also be included.

3) you do not speak mandarin, yet you are nitpicking mandarin language sources and trying to speak as an authority on something that is painfully obvious to every chinese speaker, and which every chinese speaker that understands without an agenda would confirm. I do find it quite offensive that you are so pushy on this topic when you lack a huge proportion of requisite skills to adjudicate. The fact then that I am seeing those quite apparent journalistic double standards hinted at an air of ethnic bias to me, but I'll refrain from accusations from now on. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Just want to ask: If an article is authored by an otherwise unreliable source such as dailymail, and then ArsTechnica and WSJ "repost" the article, wouldn't the source then be considered reliable? Why would we need WSJ and Arstechnica to individually write their own articles?

Gamersky is actually also considered a reliable source of news within the chinese gaming community, which is much more than can be said for dailymail. So I don't understand why you're so unwilling to accept this information. A chinese news source is not going to give a detailed breakdown on translation errors because as I already pointed out, this is fairly obvious to people who speak mandarin, and they're a chinese language source so they're obviously not relying on their audience to understand the english portion of the breakdown anyways.

Even if you have some bizarre issue with gamersky, both Sina Finance and MyDrivers seem to have republished their article, and the actual human author is probably the same for all three articles (although again, this is just an educated guess, and frankly irrelevant). The mere fact that both sources have republished this article should lead to its credence. 2600:1700:1850:B9E0:A088:8E99:70E8:F068 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are the Black Myth: Wukong content creator guidelines off-topic?

An edit regarding the Black Myth: Wukong content creator guidelines censoring topics creators could discuss was reverted both on the Game Science and Black Myth: Wukong wiki. The guidelines were sent by Hero Games, but Hero Games is a co-publisher and co-producer on Black Myth: Wukong. If it's off-topic here, does it fit on the game page? Snakester95 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

the translation of references

According to the rules explained by others, the editor is required to leave a comment on the discussion page, so I am leaving a comment here.My previous edits on the IGN controversy were altered because they were deemed not faithful enough to the source and included some colorful words which were considered not present in the original. I re-translates the sources and explain my change here. The original source is "有網民在Reddit 爆料指《黑神話:悟空》拒絕向政治正確組織Sweet Baby支付 700 萬美金的「指導費用」" which means “Users on Reddit revealed that the game "Black Myth: Wukong" refused to pay a $7 million "consultation fee" to the politically correct organization Sweet Baby." My translation is ""Users on Reddit revealed that Game Science refused to engage with and pay a consultation fee to the Woke and DEI organization Sweet Baby Inc."
I did not change the meaning of original source. For example, I translated "有網民在Reddit 爆料" as "Users on Reddit revealed," and I simply removed the specific figure of $7 million. Additionally, I changed "politically correct organization" to "Woke and DEI organization." Therefore, I did not add any colorful words that were not present in the source. If you believe that changing "politically correct organization" to "Woke and DEI organization" constitutes adding colorful words, you can retain the original phrase "politically correct." However, it is clear that "politically correct" is a more colorful term and its meaning is ambiguous, as it does not indicate what it refers to. The Sweet Baby company itself has officially stated that it was established to promote the DEI movement in the gaming industry, so this is not content I fabricated; it is a fact acknowledged by Sweet Baby. Furthermore, to ensure that the phrase "Woke and DEI" aligns better with Wikipedia rules, I included other references to substantiate it, such as statements from Eurogamer. Sweet Baby has also stated that it was established to promote DEI. My phrasing is faithful to the source.
Regarding to the statement"which led to the company being targeted by some western games journalists associated with Sweet Baby, including those from IGN.", the title in this part itself is "Netizens claim that IGN is an agent of the politically correct organization Sweet Baby.（網民指IGN是政治正確組織 Sweet Baby 打手）" and "Rebekah Valentine (IGN journalist) is an agent of Sweet baby (Rebekah Valentine 為 Sweet Baby 打手，受命攻擊《黑神話:悟空》性別歧視)" Hence, This statement in the source specifically names IGN. The sources itself mentioned "因此SBI馬上安排相熟媒體編輯狙擊「遊戲科學」性別歧視" which I translated as "some western games journalists associated with Sweet Baby". Tranlated "SBI安排相熟媒體" as "associated with Sweet Baby". I did not find any differences between my translation and the original source. I translated it entirely according to the original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuelinLee1959 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There’s several things you are doing that misrepresents what HK01 is reporting…

• Firstly, you are erasing that the Sweet Baby Inc (SBI) incident is according to an online rumor.
• Secondly, it is striking that you worded it as “[they] revealed”. In contrast, HK01 is specific that these are claims and accusations.
• Thirdly, you are adding the description of SBI as "Woke and DEI", which is not relevant to this article’s content (WP:TOPIC), and use sources not even talking about this article’s topic Game Science (WP:SYNTH) to force it in here. That belongs to the SBI wiki article itself, not here.
• Fourthly, HK01 does not support that SBI has association with IGN or whoever, but that there are online accusations thereof.

You are trying to present the HK01's article about rumors by other people as if they are reporting on facts. You are conveniently leaving that part out of your translations for your explanation here… So yes, you are in fact misrepresenting what HK01 is reporting.

In the words of HK01 themselves, contradicting you: "當然，以上推測雖然符合情理和邏輯，但始終來源只是網民的帖文，並無任何實質證據支持；因此不能一口咬定是 SBI 有向遊戲科學提出收取指導費，也不能斷言是 SBI 因為收不到錢而發動輿論攻勢，自然也不能斷定 IGN 和 SBI 有任何關係。" (HK01), so I suggest you stop presenting rumors as facts. --Cold Season (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

------------Firstly, you are erasing that the Sweet Baby Inc (SBI) incident is according to an online rumor.

------------Secondly, it is striking that you worded it as “[they] revealed”. In contrast, HK01 is specific that these are claims and accusations.

Reply: The source itself said "有網民在Reddit 爆料指《黑神話:悟空》拒絕向政治正確組織" which I translated as "User on Reddit revealed (not they,ok? Do not misrepresent my edits,)" The word I used is "User on Reddit" which is exactly the same as the original source content; I haven't even changed a single word. Moreover, Did I ever say this was HK01's viewpoint? No, never. I've always referred to 'Users on Reddit' because the original HK01 article clearly stated this came from Reddit. Let me repeat, I didn't change a single word; I only removed the $7 million figure. If you have an issue with the word 'revealed,' I can change it to 'claimed' (although 'revealed' is a completely accurate translation of the original text).

------------Thirdly, you are adding the description of SBI as "Woke and DEI", which is not relevant to this article’s content (WP:TOPIC), and use sources not even talking about this article’s topic Game Science (WP:SYNTH) to force it in here. That belongs to the SBI wiki article itself, not here.

Reply: How many times do I have to say it? The original text clearly states '政治正确组织 Sweet Baby （which means politically correct organization Sweet Baby Inc.）' I initially wanted to translate it directly according to the original, but '政治正确(politically correct)' is an even more colorful and vague term. That's why I cited other articles that provide explanations about Sweet Baby, specifically describing it as a woke and DEI organization. My references include explanations about Sweet Baby being part of the woke and DEI movements. In fact, when you argued against me, you also used additional sources, not just the original source we were discussing.

If you truly can't accept the description of 'woke' and 'DEI,' as I mentioned before, I can stick strictly to the original text and write 'politically correct organization' as I said in the begining of this discussion if that's what you prefer. Once again, the original text clearly says 'politically correct organization Sweet Baby.'

I stated at the very beginning of this discussion that I simply changed the original term 'politically correct' to 'woke and DEI' and provided references to support this. If 'woke and DEI' is truly unacceptable, then I can translate it exactly as the original text says: 'politically correct.'

-------------Fourthly, HK01 does not support that SBI has association with IGN or whoever, but that there are online accusations thereof.

Reply: What are you talking about? This was an accusation cited by HK01 from Reddit, and I made it clear from the start that it was 'Users on Reddit.' When did I ever say it was HK01's viewpoint? I only used HK01 as a reference because they cited it. Since I clearly stated 'Users on Reddit,' I should follow the original text, which clearly states 'SBI馬上安排相熟媒體編輯狙擊 which means Sweet Baby through media associated with them.' Have I changed any meaning here? No, that's exactly how the original text reads. My statement clearly says it's 'Users on Reddit,' never claiming it was HK01's opinion. Is there an issue with that?

Finally, since I have already made it clear that these are the views of Reddit users, the original text of this article states '網民指IGN是政治正確組織 Sweet Baby 打手' which means users claim that IGN acts as a tool (or pawn) for the politically correct organization Sweet Baby., so is there any issue with my phrasing 'including those from IGN'?

In fact, when you presented IGN's reporting on Game Science's sexist incidents, the article you referenced clearly stated, “IGN spoke to several women familiar with gaming culture, as well as the games and technology industry, in China, many of whom requested to be anonymous for fear of backlash from fans...” This means that the accusations in the article came from several unnamed women, not from IGN itself. However, your statements did not clarify that these accusations came from unnamed individuals rather than IGN. Meanwhile, in my citation, I clearly stated "Users on Reddit." YuelinLee1959 (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

(1/2) You are curiously trying to erase that HK01 characterize the SBI incident as a rumor (HK01 source, June 2024). Furthermore, HK01 did not state that Reddit users "revealed" the SBI incident (HK01 source, August 2024), rather it's subtle phasing in which you try to pass off rumors as if they are facts supported by the source.

To add to this, it did not originate from Reddit users to begin with; the rumors were already circulating on the Chinese internet (HK01 source, June 2024).

(3) Yes, I am aware that that you described Sweet Baby Inc with wording not reflective of the source. Regardless, the nature of the company Sweet Baby Inc as woke, DEI, or politically correct is WP:OFFTOPIC. It belongs in its own Wikipedia article, not here.

(4) What am I talking about? You used the wording "Users on Reddit revealed", so lets not pretend that you did not try to misrepresent accusations, claims, and rumors as facts.

(5) I am not here to talk about the IGN report and, secondly, I was not the Wikipedia user that added the IGN report. I have no interest in your faulty WHATABOUTISM.

(6) Why are you trying to avoid this? HK01 stated:

• "當然，以上推測雖然符合情理和邏輯，但始終來源只是網民的帖文，並無任何實質證據支持；因此不能一口咬定是 SBI 有向遊戲科學提出收取指導費，也不能斷言是 SBI 因為收不到錢而發動輿論攻勢，自然也不能斷定 IGN 和 SBI 有任何關係。" (HK01 source, June 2024)

To be clear: HK01 says that there's (a) no evidence to support the rumor (b) that SBI asked Game Science for a consultation fee or (c) that SBI and IGN are associated in this.

In conclusion, either make it clear that the SBI incident is according to online rumors (the old wording is succinct for this) or the content of point (6) will be added if you retain your lengthy wording, since you filled it with unsubstantiated claims that HK01 explicitly does not support. I have detailed your misrepresentations. --Cold Season (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

-------------(1/2) You are curiously trying to erase that HK01 characterize the SBI incident as a rumor (HK01 source, June 2024). Furthermore, HK01 did not state that Reddit users "revealed" the SBI incident (HK01 source, August 2024), rather it's subtle phasing in which you try to pass off rumors as if they are facts supported by the source.

Reply: You said, "HK01 did not state that Reddit users 'revealed' the SBI incident," so tell me, how would you translate the original reference material that says "及後，有網民在Reddit 爆料指《黑神話:悟空》"? What does this sentence mean? It clearly and explicitly states "Users on Reddit revealed." Or would you prefer "Users on Reddit claimed"? This is how I currently translated it.

Do not avoid the issue. Just answer two questions:

Did the original text explicitly state "有網民在Reddit 爆料指《黑神話:悟空》"?

Is "有網民在Reddit 爆料指《黑神話:悟空》" translated as "Users on Reddit revealed"?

Should "爆料" be translated as either "revealed" or "claimed," and isn't my translation correct?

Do not avoid my questions; give me direct answers to these questions. [1]

----To add to this, it did not originate from Reddit users to begin with; the rumors were already circulating on the Chinese internet

I am simply translating what I see in the original source. As for your claim that there are earlier sources, you can include your citations to explain where this statement comes from. Whether it originates from Reddit, the Chinese internet, Palestine, or even outer space, I don’t care; just directly state its source and include it as a citation.

Why are we arguing over such unimportant matters? If you believe it doesn’t come from Reddit, provide the citations and write out the source. I won’t interfere at all because I have no objections to including any sources.

----------------------------Yes, I am aware that that you described Sweet Baby Inc with wording not reflective of the source. Regardless, the nature of the company Sweet Baby Inc as woke, DEI, or politically correct is WP:OFFTOPIC. It belongs in its own Wikipedia article, not here.

Answer my question directly, don't avoid it.

First, does the source text clearly contain these two sentences: '網民指IGN是政治正確組織 Sweet Baby 打手' and '爆料指《黑神話:悟空》拒絕向政治正確組織 Sweet Baby'?

Second, does the phrase '政治正確組織 Sweet Baby' translate to 'politically correct organization Sweet Baby'?

Please answer directly and don't avoid it."[2]

--------- What am I talking about? You used the wording "Users on Reddit revealed", so lets not pretend that you did not try to misrepresent accusations, claims, and rumors as facts.

Actually, this is the same question in the first/second part

First, does the original text say '有網民在Reddit 爆料指《黑神話:悟空》'? Please answer 'yes' or 'no.'

Second, does this sentence mean 'Users on Reddit revealed'? Please answer 'yes' or 'no.'"

--------------------(5) I am not here to talk about the IGN report and, secondly, I was not the Wikipedia user that added the IGN report. I have no interest in your faulty WHATABOUTISM.

Then why did you delete the part about IGN? Can you tell me if the original text clearly says '網民指IGN是政治正確組織 Sweet Baby 打手'? If yes, why did you delete the part about IGN?"

----------------(6) Why are you trying to avoid this? HK01 stated:

"當然，以上推測雖然符合情理和邏輯，但始終來源只是網民的帖文，並無任何實質證據支持；因此不能一口咬定是 SBI 有向遊戲科學提出收取指導費，也不能斷言是 SBI 因為收不到錢而發動輿論攻勢，自然也不能斷定 IGN 和 SBI 有任何關係。" (HK01 source, June 2024)

To be clear: HK01 says that there's (a) no evidence to support the rumor (b) that SBI asked Game Science for a consultation fee or (c) that SBI and IGN are associated in this.

Reply: I’m not like you, always dodging questions and avoiding direct answers. I face your questions head-on and respond to every single one directly.

Let me tell you, I’m not opposed to calling it a rumor or anything else. If you want to add HK01’s stance that there’s no evidence for this matter, I won’t delete any of it. You say HK01's attitude must be included, and I have no objections. You can add it, and I won’t interfere, but I demand that if you add it, you must present the full context of this so-called rumor.

The accusations of sexism against Game Science are also a rumor, but the article still clearly describes the full context of those accusations. Therefore, I’m asking for the same treatment. You can add HK01’s statement that there’s no evidence, but you must fully write out the original description of what is being called 'unsubstantiated.' The original text explicitly stated that 'IGN is Sweet Baby's enforcer,' so you cannot delete that. The original text clearly identified Sweet Baby as a 'politically correct organization,' so you cannot delete that either.

After fully presenting this incident, if you want to label it as a rumor or say there’s no evidence, I won’t interfere. My only request is that, just as the article fully presents the accusations against Game Science for sexism, this incident must be fully described the same way. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The entire section about IGN's accusations against Game Science doesn't have any consensus either; it's just copied over from the Black Myth: Wukong entry. Since IGN's accusations against Game Science are being described, then other media's accusations that IGN is deliberately targeting Game Science should also be fairly represented. Furthermore, the part about IGN being accused of targeting Game Science was revised by you during a "cold season," and I've mostly kept your changes, trying to make it as fair and neutral as possible. If it needs to be deleted, I fully support removing the entire section, including IGN's accusations. I don't think any of it is relevant to this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuelinLee1959 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Would actually agree that wiping the entire section should be considered as its only really sourced to a single IGN hit piece. It seems undue to give this much attention to an opinion piece by a single outlet. --FMSky (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@YuelinLee1959: I saw that you reinserted my edits, which was intended to shorten the content. But I only reverted it to FMSky's last revision to untangle a resulting mess with the references... not because I didn't want to retain my own edits. In any case, I would support the removal of it all per the above comment. --Cold Season (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You removed the other citations supporting IGN's reporting and now you're saying there aren't any other articles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Science&diff=prev&oldid=1248396513 Snakester95 (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

How exactly are they supporting IGN? They say the exact opposite (that the comments were "explicit" but not "sexist") --FMSky (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The South China Morning Post (SCMP) recently referred to their 2020 report on sexism in China, stating that "sexism allegations" have surrounded Game Science from the beginning

SCMP's 2020 article refers to many things also in the IGN report stating that said things led to a debate over the mistreatment of women. With one quoted student feeling uncomfortable with Feng Ji's statements, comparing them to a "dirty joke culture in Chinese workplaces". Which the Wikipedia page on sexism states can be a form of sexual objectification.

Not to mention the weight-based sexism clearly present in Game Science recruitment posters. Or the 2013 sexist statements from Yang Qi about how women only dream about bags while men dream about guns, stating this is due to "biological conditions".

One SCMP article you removed quotes a public relations professional based in Beijing stating, Game Science's hiring post is "lewd, dirty and vulgar" and indicative of a sexist company culture.

The China Project article you removed states that old job posts from Game Science "revealed that sexually objectifying women has long been part of the company culture." Later addressing the same sexual jokes that SCMP reported on in their 2020 article. Also reporting on Game Science saying that women shouldn't be welcome in games as players, critics, or developers.

Brushing off the IGN report as an opinion hit piece isn't substantiated. Many media outlets have sourced it and referred to it as a report. Plenty are echoing the facts in their reporting. PC Gamer is already sourced on this Wikipedia page also labeling Game Science's past remarks as sexist.

The Associated Press briefly discusses the sexism allegations against Game Science due to their Weibo posts.

TheGamer sources IGN and specifically states, "Game Science has once again been accused of fostering a sexist work environment, with developers found to have made crude, highly sexualised and demeaning comments about women."

Inverse reported on the streaming guidelines sent by Hero Games, writing about Game Science's "reputation for sexism" and "sexist history".

GameIndustry.biz objectively writes about IGN's report mentioning Game Science using gender stereotypes, the alleged "sexist images and headlines" and "fatphobic" recruitment ads from Game Science.

If anything, having the Game Science Wikipedia page state the sexism is alleged, is false. Snakester95 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I noticed that Snakester95 requested the inclusion of content supporting IGN, and I have never opposed adding content that supports IGN. However, I have consistently advocated for fairness—either by simultaneously including statements criticizing IGN's targeting against Game Science or by fairly removing that section altogether.

Even in Snakester95’s comments, there was never any mention of removing other media’s criticism of IGN’s accusations against Game Science. Therefore, my position has never been in opposition to Snakester95's.

However, FMSky, you selectively deleted the parts where other media criticized IGN's targeting against Game Science, while fully retaining IGN's accusations against Game Science. This creates a highly biased narrative. As I’ve always said, either we present both IGN's allegations against Game Science and the counterarguments from other media fairly, or we remove this irrelevant section on IGN's controversy entirely. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favor of removing this entire pesky section. It's not even a controversy outside of a couple of users on Twitter --FMSky (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to remove the entire section, it is ok for me. However, currently it just remove part of the media criticized IGN's targeting against Game Science

I try to remove all to reach consensus with you. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal of that section. It previously had references creating a fair situation as you wanted. Instead, you removed a significant chunk to hide the facts. Snakester95 (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

IGN's accusations are merely IGN’s accusations; IGN is not a court, and its accusations do not equate to a conviction. Other media outlets have also pointed out that IGN’s claims were based on incorrect Chinese translations and stated that Game Science is not sexist. In other words, IGN’s accusations were not supported by all media. Furthermore, IGN’s claims have their own flaws, such as accusing the game (Black Myth: Wukong) of lacking female characters, even though there are indeed several female characters in the game. In fact, all the characters image in the Black Myth: Wukong Wikipedia entry are female.

However, this discussion is somewhat drifting off-topic. My point is that, while IGN accused Game Science, several other media outlets pointed out that IGN's accusations were based on translation errors and claimed that Game Science is not sexist. Therefore, like the other media's accusations against IGN regarding its treatment of Game Science, IGN’s accusations are just one side’s claims, not a final conclusion. Since it is not a final conclusion, as I mentioned earlier, we should either present both IGN’s accusations against Game Science and the media’s accusations against IGN equally, or remove everything. We cannot present only one side's claims—Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing IGN’s accusations alone.

FMSky disagreed with presenting both sides, but he agreed to remove everything. Cold Season also previously mentioned that he agreed to remove everything. My stance has always been to either delete everything or present both sides fairly. To align with FMSky and Cold Season, I removed everything. I am not opposed to fairly presenting both sides, but that approach could not achieve consensus. Removing everything, however, did. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It already included both sides and then you removed it. And they're not just accusations, you can read the facts in a large chunk of their reporting and other media outlets as well. Regardless, the wiki page described them as alleged anyway. There were multiple sources confirming IGN's translations that were removed, while many sources alleging their translations as false were kept. Nowhere did the previous version you removed describe it as a "conviction".

I've linked plenty of websites in this thread supporting IGN's report with a few of them happening before IGN's report. You shouldn't use media outlets reliant on rumors via social media for evidence against facts to remove the facts. You're diluting the facts with misinformation to remove them.

If anything, the page should be reverted back to FMSky's previous edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Science&oldid=1251249011 Snakester95 (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

---------------------It already included both sides and then you removed it.

No I didn't remove it. FMSky remove it. Just see this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Science&diff=prev&oldid=1252891756

I have said that I can accept including both perspectives (IGN's accusations against Game Science and other media's accusations against IGN regarding their treatment of Game Science). Alternatively, I can also accept deleting all the content. I am fine with either approach. However, FMSky removed the parts where other media accused IGN of targeting Game Science. Keep only one side view.

The link you provided only contains IGN’s accusations against Game Science, but not the parts where other media accused IGN of targeting Game Science. What you call “both sides” only includes IGN’s accusations and other media defending Game Science, but it lacks the part where other media accused IGN of deliberately targeting Game Science.

What I mean by a version with both perspectives should look like this version:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Science&diff=prev&oldid=1252891756 In this version, I haven’t removed any of your edits—not even a single word. At the same time, I’ve added content regarding other media's accusations against IGN for targeting Game Science. So, I believe it fairly presents both perspectives. All of your edits remain intact, and the accusations from other media about IGN targeting Game Science are also included.YuelinLee1959 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The version below that I referenced in my previous reply had both perspectives as I previously pointed out. It had the IGN report with two websites criticizing it, HK01 and GameLook.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Science&oldid=1251249011

Regarding the rumors about Sweet Baby Inc. and IGN, that's a separate topic altogether. There's no reason to remove the section included in the above version. And as Cold Season already went back and forth with you, HK01 isn't accusing IGN of targeting Game Science. HK01 cited Redditors and as Cold Season pointed out, there are Weibo posts as well. Which was already referenced in the section you removed.

Even though I disagree with its' inclusion, there was still a sentence about Sweet Baby Inc. included in the section you removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Science&oldid=1252893144

Ever since you started editing this page, you've been arguing against the IGN report and trying to fight it with content based on rumors. Resulting in frequent reverts from other editors. There have already been multiple sides present in the page. You're just trying to paint IGN in a negative light. It's visible in your edit comments and on the Talk page. Snakester95 (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

When you only mention HK01, you are selectively ignoring the fact that Sina and NetEase accused IGN of manipulating their Game of the Year voting, deliberately lowering the votes for Game Science’s Black Myth: Wukong. This was included in a previous version but has since been removed. This is neither an internet rumor nor hearsay—both NetEase and Sina explicitly stated that they are accusing IGN of behind-the-scenes manipulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Science&diff=prev&oldid=1252864623

This version typically include this "During this process, IGN faced allegations of vote manipulation, with claims that they artificially inflated the number of losses for Game Science's Black Myth: Wukong by altering the data, causing its win rate to drop from 90% to 70% within an hour, which resulted in the game temporarily falling from first place to third.IGN explained afterward that the fluctuation was due to how community votes work for newly added games to the list. And that this wasn't a part of their annual Game of the Year community awards."

Let me reiterate, as I have done many times before: I have never deleted a single word of your edits. I have always supported including both perspectives. In this case, I will not delete a single word of your contributions. At the same time, I am also open to removing the entire content. I can accept either approach: we either include both sides (in which case, no matter what you add, I will not delete a single word), or we remove both sides. I believe this is a fair solution. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sina didn't say anything, they're an aggregator. Your reference is from Guancha which Wikipedia describes as ultranationalist. Regardless, you're saying that they're not based on rumors or hearsay when they are. It refers to netizens, Weibo comments, comments on the IGN article, and a tweet. It uses random comments to try and say IGN manipulated a vote when IGN has already disclosed that wasn't the case. It'd be different if they followed up on those comments to get the facts, but they don't. It's a non-story that FMSky removed with an edit comment saying, "Who cares"

NetEase also didn't say anything. That source appears to be from a tiny blogger named JieJie (according to Google Translate). I can't speak on their credibility since I have no idea who they are and it's not easy for me to search Chinese media to find out. Regardless, it's a biased article also revolving around social media like Reddit. Biased articles are allowed in certain cases but it seems far from a reliable source. Especially on a website without a free press: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/netease-163-com-bias/

Not to mention, the IGN community Game of the Year vote has nothing to do with their report on Game Science's sexism allegations. Therefore, it shouldn't factor into the section on IGN's report being removed. Snakester95 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Netease didn't say anthingthg.

So what is this one? https://www.163.com/dy/article/JD0JRU7H05467WNA.html

This is content published by NetEase on their official website. As for your claim that this matter is unrelated to IGN’s accusations of gender discrimination against Game Science, the core issue here is that other media outlets are accusing IGN of deliberately targeting Game Science’s game. The title of this article is Game Science, not Game Science Gender Discrimination. If you consider IGN’s accusations of gender discrimination against Game Science to be relevant to Game Science, then, by the same logic, other media outlets' accusations that IGN deliberately targeted Game Science are also relevant. Alternatively, this content can be added to the IGN article as it pertains to IGN.

It doesn't matter whether this was an IGN Game of the Year vote. Since it was a player poll initiated by IGN, regardless of the specific content being voted on, it should maintain fairness. If the outcome can be manipulated simply because it wasn’t a Game of the Year vote, then how can any of IGN’s actions be considered credible? From the beginning, I didn’t understand what this has to do with it being a Game of the Year vote. Are you suggesting that as long as it’s not a Game of the Year vote, IGN is allowed to manipulate the poll results behind the scenes and arbitrarily change the outcome of player votes? Is that what you mean? Don’t you think this undermines credibility?YuelinLee1959 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

As I already said, your link is to someone named JieJie on 163/NetEase. There are tons of small writers and media outlets on 163. This is far from NetEase as a company making a statement. JieJie has 476 followers, I don't think they're an official representative for NetEase.

Also as I already said, your references regarding IGN targeting Game Science have zero evidence. That's why it's bizarre to include them in the Wiki page. I explained that they're based on social media posts and you said I was wrong, then I explained again, and now you're ignoring that. I explained that those aren't major media outlets accusing IGN. They're unreliable sources relying on rumors via random people on social media. Why would anyone use a website (Guancha) that Wikipedia calls ultranationalist on a topic criticizing a major Chinese game? RfC on Guancha being generally unreliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#RfC:_guancha.cn

Regarding the poll, did you read IGN's article on what happened? They didn't manipulate the votes and again, there isn't any evidence that they did. It was all due to a misunderstanding of how their voting system works. A game with one vote can be in the number 1 spot. If anything, the poll has nothing to do with fairness, since it can be easily manipulated by the voters. Which IGN's explanation of the situation states can happen.

You're making accusations that are based on nothing and want them in the Wiki page. These accusations have no basis and you're using them to remove actual reporting with evidence. You should understand the references you're placing in Wiki pages before adding them.

You could replace IGN's report with one of many detailing the sexism allegations against Game Science. It wouldn't make a difference that the evidence is there and is widely reported by both western and Chinese media. And has been for years. Snakester95 (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the voting issue, simply relying on IGN’s statement denying any manipulation to conclude that there was no manipulation is quite ridiculous. If we follow this logic, any media outlet or company accused of wrongdoing can just deny the accusations, and that would be considered sufficient proof of their innocence. By the same logic, since Game Science has never admitted to any gender discrimination, following the reasoning that IGN’s denial means no manipulation took place, it would also mean that Game Science has never engaged in sexism.

In fact, many media outlets and streamers have explained the issue of IGN’s alleged manipulation of the votes. IGN's statement failed to address two key points.

First, the voting system was structured as a head-to-head matchup, meaning that if Black Myth: Wukong lost a matchup by a single vote, another game would have to win that same matchup. In other words, if Black Myth: Wukong was docked one point, another game would gain one point. If external bot manipulation was truly responsible, it would be impossible for only Black Myth: Wukong's votes to increase (specifically, losing votes). The only logical scenario for bot manipulation would be a significant increase in votes for both Black Myth: Wukong and other games—Wukong gaining more losing votes, and the others gaining winning votes.

However, what actually happened was that during that one-hour window, only Black Myth: Wukong's losing votes increased, with no other game receiving additional winning votes. In other words, it was as if thousands of matchups occurred with only losers and no winners, which is simply impossible. This is the key reason why many streamers have concluded that bot manipulation could not be the explanation.

Secondly, this doesn’t address another issue. If there was no manipulation of the votes and it was merely bot activity, then it’s hard to explain how Black Myth: Wukong received tens of thousands of votes in just one hour, causing its win rate to drop from 95% to 68%. However, after IGN removed what they claimed were bot votes, the win rate only rose back to 75%.

As for your claim that accusations of gender discrimination against Game Science have been widely reported in both China and the West, I am not certain about the situation in the West. However, in China, these accusations were not widely spread. Reports about Game Science’s alleged gender discrimination in China over the past year have primarily originated from IGN’s coverage, and most of these reports criticized IGN.

Aside from that, the only other mentions were from around 10 years ago, roughly in 2015, when some media outlets re-posted accusations that had originally appeared on Weibo and Douban. But this raises a strange inconsistency: You dismissed the NetEase report because the author had too few followers, yet you seem to accept content from Weibo or Douban as valid sources. However, Weibo posts come from personal social media accounts, and Douban is a platform focused on movie and book reviews, similar to IMDb, so neither can be considered formal reporting.

Apart from the 2015 posts on Weibo and Douban, all subsequent mentions of Game Science's alleged gender discrimination in Chinese media came directly from IGN’s reprinted reports. This means that there hasn’t been independent coverage of the allegations by Chinese media; all reports trace back to IGN.

As for the claim about extensive evidence from both Western and Chinese media, to be honest, I’m not familiar with the Western side, but Chinese media has no real evidence of Game Science’s sexism. What they do have is evidence of IGN’s mistranslation and misrepresentation of Chinese. IGN’s so-called evidence has been widely criticized by Chinese media for being based on incorrect translations. As a result, these “evidences” from IGN are not accepted by Chinese media, let alone considered legitimate evidence by them.

Furthermore, the tone of most of these reprints was critical of IGN, as seen in several websites, starting with Sina. https://k.sina.com.cn/article_5729156460_1557bfd6c02001p5tx.html

Then tencent

https://new.qq.com/rain/a/20240822A0010V00

Then netease

https://www.163.com/dy/article/JA8JJDKB05188DJH.html

All of these are from IGN.

Moreover, there are plenty of news reports about IGN manipulating votes.

https://www.donews.com/news/detail/4/4548272.html

https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20240924A0A1NM00?suid=&media_id=

Moreover, let me say it again: that author is an editor and journalist at NetEase, so the article inherently represents NetEase’s official stance. This is similar to the sexism accusations against Game Science made by Rebekah Valentine, who is an editor at IGN, meaning her article reflects IGN’s position. If we follow your logic, then what Rebekah Valentine wrote would only represent her personal opinion, not IGN's stance.

Additionally, IGN publicly clarified the voting incident—if no media outlet had made accusations, why would they feel the need to issue a clarification? If they really believed it was just an internet rumor, they could have ignored it, just as Game Science did with Rebekah Valentine, deeming it unworthy of a response. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

My view is that if you want to restore IGN’s accusations against Game Science, then you should equally include other media's accusations against IGN for deliberately targeting Game Science. The best version would be to present both sides. The best version should be this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Science&diff=prev&oldid=1252864623

Or equally delete them which cold season and FMSky all agree with.

Otherwise, where exactly should these accusations be written? Or do you prefer moving the content about other media accusing IGN of deliberately targeting Game Science to IGN’s own Wikipedia page? YuelinLee1959 (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

IGN's reporting is based on research and interviews, not rumors. Whereas the sources you're using are based on a banned Reddit post and random Weibo posts. My other reply was regarding discussion of removing IGN's report and the removal of previous references.

Regarding fairness, that section currently has one link (originally more) supporting the allegations against Game Science with four criticizing IGN. Even if the two sources regarding the SBI claim were removed, there are still two sources criticizing IGN's report. Snakester95 (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

References

3O on sexism allegations

I was uninvolved in the initial content dispute but I had a look at the sources from the last big deletion and they seemed fine by the standards of video game writing. I've restored that and then put a section header on the associated material. It seems like the edit war is in abeyance for now so hopefully everybody can move productively from here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I am going to reply to YuelinLee1959's deleted question [3] here as I don't believe AN/I is the correct venue:

1. The IGN article is not an opinion piece but is rather a piece of investigative journalism - it dug up information about Game Science, as a company, which is WP:DUE and relevant. For video games I am certain IGN constitutes a WP:RS when operating in a journalistic capacity.
2. Other sources, not included in my restoration, may constitute WP:RS or may not. However, unless those sources are challenging the IGN article with regard to statements of fact then the question of WP:DUE arises. SCMP is likely due. Some random person writing a blog hosted on Sina less so.
3. Reddit is never a reliable source. A person reporting on something happening on Reddit in an otherwise reliable publication might be. However in these cases extra care should be taken to adhere to neutral wording and attribution.
4. Twitter posts are not a reliable source.
5. A neutral article does not necessarily give equal weight to the arguments of "both sides" - an article from a reliable journalistic outlet will be due greater weight than social media users on a forum suggesting vote manipulation for an online award even when a marginally reliable source mentions such accusations exist unless said source provides factual information corroborating or demonstrating the falsity of those claims. Procedural questions "how did this numerical anomaly happen?" do not constitute factual information. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   I have copied the original text of my reply in the AN/I thread here without any modifications.

   Going back to what you said about restoring the page, can I interpret that as you having joined the discussion and thinking that the content should not be removed? If so, may I ask if we could revert to this version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Science&diff=prev&oldid=1252864623. In that version, none of the content was removed, and it also included articles from certain media outlets criticizing IGN for targeting Game Science. Additionally, we could incorporate IGN's own response to these accusations.

   If you believe this version only includes sources in Chinese, I can also add this link from Medium: https://medium.com/@marno.lucas28.com/is-ign-manipulating-goty-votes-to-eliminate-black-myth-wukong-998730a5fae0 and IGN’s own response: https://www.ign.com/articles/explaining-and-fixing-igns-face-off-controversy.

   Or can we revert to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Science&diff=prev&oldid=1251244032

   This version includes IGN's own statement and response to the matter, with IGN's article as a citation: https://www.ign.com/articles/explaining-and-fixing-igns-face-off-controversy. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   No. The medium article is not a reliable source - it is some random guy's blog. The IGN article regarding the fallout of their face-off functionality might be usable. However I'm not certain if it's WP:DUE in the article about the parent studio. It certainly bears no connection to IGN's sexism reportage. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   So, for you, can Chinese media like Sina and NetEase be considered reliable sources? Another question is, IGN itself has responded to this issue and published an article addressing it. Can IGN's own article be considered a reliable source? Here's the link to the article: https://www.ign.com/articles/explaining-and-fixing-igns-face-off-controversy. The article includes both the accusations and IGN’s explanations. Can we present both the accusations and IGN’s explanations in a balanced way, using IGN's own article and Chinese media like Sina as sources? YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   Chinese media is not intrinsically unreliable. However Sina, in specific, is because it uses user-generated content. NetEase is a video game company. As such they may be used for WP:ABOUTSELF statements but are otherwise of limited use. Please look at WP:UGC, WP:SPS and WP:PROMO for an understanding of how these examples interface with WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   But this article includes IGN's own response that explains the entire situation. Using IGN itself as a citation should be considered a reliable source. The citations include IGN's own article as well as NetEase. NetEase is both a gaming company and a media. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   NetEase is not an independent media source. It's in-house publishing for a games manufacturer. That's WP:PROMO territory. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   And, assuming "this article" means the Medium article, reliability is not transferrable via quote. You can quote or link to reliable sources all day long on your blog but it remains a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   And I did, in fact, answer your question about the IGN article already. The IGN article about its face-off function is likely a reliable source. The question here is whether it's appropriate for inclusion in this article - as it has nothing really to do with Game Science, the publisher, but rather only with Black Myth Wukong - the game. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   If you think this is unrelated to Game Science, would it be appropriate to edit the IGN Wikipedia page based on this controversy?If you think this is unrelated to Game Science, would it be appropriate to edit the IGN Wikipedia page based on this controversy? YuelinLee1959 (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   IGN has a Controversies section already. I would suggest that if you really want to include this as a sub-header at the IGN article then you would be well-advised to engage at article talk first and get agreement on appropriate bounds of WP:DUE. Frankly I doubt anybody is going to care about someone manipulating an IGN engagement tool in a month, let alone in ten years.Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   If no one really cares, then same theoretically, in the same month, no one should care about a gender discrimination accusation formed based on a mistranslation. But look at how long this gender discrimination debate has been going on? It has been debated for months. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   Ok, so, first of all, I'd suggest that a pervasive history of sexist practices at a popular gaming studio is likely going to have more lasting power as a controversy than a website widget with an exploit that was used to troll some fans. Secondly what I'm saying to you is to keep in mind that IGN is far bigger a topic than Game Science because it has more history, more written about it, and has been around far longer. It will likewise have local-consensus standards about what is due inclusion. I'm not presently participating on the IGN page and have no particular interest in what is or is not included there. The people who regularly edit it will. All that is, however, irrelevant. Article talk pages are not a forum and we should keep discussion restricted to what should or should not be included here at this page. I'm saying the IGN article about its face-off function is not directly related enough to Game Science, the publisher, in general or the allegations of sexism in specific that this thread is to discuss to warrant inclusion here in this article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   I re-read the section and made some additional cuts this morning - effectively removing the HK01 article. I do not believe that the HK01 article is appropriate as the claims that it is being used to support come from Youtube and Twitter and are just reported verbatim by the outlet. In respect for the fact this may be a controversial decision I opened the following discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and will abide by whatever discussion comes out of that thread. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

   @Coldseason the outlandish claims in the removed HK01 source you restored are a verbatim repetition of conspiracy theories on Twitter. I have started a discussion of the reliability of that article at WP:RS/N and would love to hear your feedback about why you believe this source reliable there. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

   Adding to this, I've explained the same points thoroughly and they were also addressed in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I don't know why @Cold_Season keeps re-adding the HK01 source. I discussed the article's reliability in Talk:Game_Science#Unreliable_sources_are_being_used, where they frequently flung accusations at me. Then, they stopped replying and I didn't want to make any more edits due to them issuing me an edit warring warning. The current version of Game Science[4] is still written the way @ActivelyDisinterested criticized at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Snakester95 (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   @Cold_Season Your recent WP:OWN-like edit does not accurately reflect that it was saying it couldn't validate the anonymous criticism of the article. Furthermore you have not addressed how a single outlet reporting on unverifiable Twitter conspiracy theories is due mention. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   @YuelinLee1959 inclusion of that conspiracy theory in the article runs afoul of WP:PROFRINGE and I would ask you to kindly self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   Based on our previous discussion, you mentioned that you only reverted to the October 23 version, as you previously stated, and I didn’t question it further. However, subsequent changes were not within the scope of that prior discussion.YuelinLee1959 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   No it's not. HK01 is communicating anonymous conspiracizing on Twitter and not demonstrating any real-world link. The proposal that IGN and Sweet Baby Inc. are engaged in a racketeering enterprise based on woke consulting or whatever is WP:FRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   Why are you trying to make it as if you are pinging me, by constantly misspelling my username and then correcting it afterwards (which does not provide a ping)?

   You have already spread out the discussion to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#HK01_for_gaming_news, where your effort to ban the reliable mainstream source HK01 has failed. Yet, you are repeating the same talking points here. --Cold Season (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   "You have failed" is a funny way of saying almost no other editors have commented. There is no clear outcome of that thread. And I noted that I wanted to cease conversation there pending other editor's feedback beyond the two of us. As for misspellings of your name, you have my apology. That was a sincere error. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   Supporting @Simonm223 comment, the conspiracy that Sweet Baby Inc. is working with IGN to extort Game Science all started from a Weibo blogger with no evidence. Why again is this enough to push this wild claim? Snakester95 (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

   A note I support the current revision of the article put forward by @Aaron Liu - it uses the HK01 article in a satisfactory manner without lending credence to WP:PROFRINGE conspiracy theories. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Interview-based edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Science&action=history&limit=8&offset=20241210190612001 @Cold Season

I have invited NPOVN and ORN to help resolve the issue. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Attribution

The attribution to SCMP, a newspaper of record well-known to be reliable, unDuely casts doubt onto the claim. That Hero bought and sold their stake is factual information without any reason for dispute; there's no speculation by SCMP regarding the relationship. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

And yet, we have a comment directly from Hero Games, which leaves the status of the relation open. It is not to be stated in Wikipedia's voice. --Cold Season (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Why shouldn’t that they bought and sold their stake be stated in Wikivoice? Why should we doubt that? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like you to respond to this. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Attribution is always good. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Only if there’s a reason to cast doubt and not use Wikivoice. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. We attribute far less and use wikivoice far more than we should across the project. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have policies or guidelines to support your position? Wikipedia:Wikivoice—part of NPOV—says:

* Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Aaron Liu (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments at NPOVN

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § Edits to “Game Science”.[edit]

Discussion regarding Game Science has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. As the first subsection deals with a POV edit and the disputed edits create a POV more favorable to Game Science, I would appreciate your comment at Talk:Game Science#Interview-based edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't actually a neutrality problem. You've been arguing against things like attribution of quotes and secondary sources. Heck you tried to argue with me that attribution automatically casts doubt on the attributed statement. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

As I’ve said, the first subsection is about a neutrality issue. I am contesting that change because it violates NPOV, which explicitly mentions and forbids casting doubt through attribution. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Attribution is not automatically casting doubt - it's good practice dealing with quotes or opinions to attribute them. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Not according to NPOV for RSes that state factual information, as I’ve quoted the policy to show in the discussion on the article’s talk page. I encourage you (and anyone else) to reply there for the added context of the quote. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a newspaper. It doesn't hurt the article to says "according to SCMP" and your resistance to that is perplexing. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Look, I and a policy supported by community consensus agree that adding in-text attribution when we already have inline citations unnecessarily casts doubt. If you disagree with the policy, try and get consensus to change it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think your policy interpretation is weak. And, generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Specifically your policy citation is to WP:SKYBLUE and this is not a "the sky is blue" situation here but is, rather, a newspaper reporting on an acquisition where the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how "the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment" makes the fact that an acquisition happened doubtable and require in-text attribution. (Also, I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to cite an essay on inline citation, which is about the , not "according to...". My reply here assumes you were contesting whether the claim Hero Games acquired a 19% stake in Game Science through its wholly-owned subsidiary Tianjin Hero Financial Holding Technology in 2017, but sold the stake in 2022 falls under Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources.)

generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't.

You may as well tell that to everyone who cites a policy to remove text it explicitly forbids. Anyways, I'll be moving this to the article talk page soon. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu You do not have permission to refactor my comments please restore this discussion to its prior state. Simonm223 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ugh, if you say so. I'll transclude it there then. It's much better to centralize discussion in one place. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It is clear that South Morning Post reported on the relation between Hero Games and Game Science. It is also clear that Hero Games stated that they couldn't comment on the relation when asked directly about it. Using wikivoice is inappropiate, and an attribution is needed. Secondly, don't act like you have a consensus by proxy for your unilateral stance though a (misrepresentation of a) policy. --Cold Season (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I am replying on the article's talk page to centralize discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You brought the discussion to the noticeboard. This is borderline disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It is very common to notify and invite noticeboards to comment elsewhere. I invited participants of these noticeboards to comment on Talk:Game Science. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why the fact that the CEO couldn't comment on a claim invalidates the claim, which they stated themselves in their financial reports that are required to be true statements, now with the endorsement of a newspaper of record.

I cited the policy to only show that there is consensus that attribution automatically casts doubt, and nothing else. Sorry that I didn't make that clear. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Because we can't state things in wiki-voice based off any one single source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Are you saying we can't say Game Science released the mobile games 100 Heroes and Art of War: Red Tides before they started the development of Black Myth: Wukong in 2018. either? The part of WP:Wikivoice I quoted says Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. You might be able to dispute whether that Hero Games bought and then sold their stake is an uncontroversial statement, but you can't dispute that in-text attribution on top of inline citation is casting doubt. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

This is tedious and tendentuous. We don't know what sources, if any, SCMP used and the company did not confirm the acquisition when asked about it. Wikipedia cannot speculate why but we can at least attribute the dubious claim. I've said my piece. Include the attribution. Full stop. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The article, in fact, said that its sources were the company's own annual financial reports obtained through Tianyancha. The information reported is consistent with circulating screenshots of the report and Chinese news reports. Any of us can obtain the report ourselves from Tianyancha if we have a Chinese phone number. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Controversy and the game

Unlike the other companies you mentioned, we have specific quotes from specific sources that connect the controversy to the game's launch. I specifically added a quote from PC Gamer in the citation for this. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You did not. What you are trying is to broaden the scope of a controversy. A + B = C. There is a controversy resulting from the allegations about Game Science + Game Science released a game = You conflating the two separate notions talked about together. The basis of the controversy is the company, not the game. All you quoted is an opinion by the author that the game's launch is less celebratory. --Cold Season (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m not, the sources—reliable sources that are not opinion pieces or quotes—are, therefore we include it. Here’s the quote I added into the citation:

what would otherwise be a celebratory launch has been dogged by controversy that studio GameScience seems unwilling to address, including in a recent interview with PC Gamer.

Here’s quotes from other sources:

This beautiful-looking action game is based on Journey to the West, the great Chinese novel – but its own journey to release has hit a bump in the road
— The Guardian

the major controversy over this game has been about a history of sexist remarks from developer GameScience's leaders
— other PCGamer article cited

Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If you actually read the articles, all those sources directly attribute the controversy to the company, and do not attribute it to the game, which you try to do. The controversies of Ubisoft does not translate to their games, the controversies of Blizzard Entertainment does not translate to their games, et cetera. You simply try to misrepresent sources, which all attribute the controversial element to the company. --Cold Season (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I read the articles, and the quotes literally say it disturbed the game's launch. Like I said, Ubisoft and Blizzard do not have articles that say a company controversy disrupted a game's launch, and if there are, we should add them.
Also, we've been debating "and added controversy to the game's launch", not that the allegations are somehow not within the company. Those are two things not to be conflated. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, you read them. Then, how about you stop misrepresenting the sources by trying to falsely broaden the controversy.

Yet despite all of this background, there’s nothing really objectionable in the game itself.
— Vox

--Cold Season (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody claimed that the allegations were within the game. I've been claiming since the beginning that these sources clearly support that the allegation caused controversy around the game's launch, which is the context within all of these reports: that the allegations became prominent during the game's promotion, which the controversy hurt. Even the title of the article you just quoted is The storm of controversy around Black Myth: Wukong, explained. That is context that absolutely should not be omitted. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You are constantly repeating yourself and arguing for your OR. Again, A + B = C. There is a controversy resulting from the allegations about Game Science + Game Science released a game = You conflating the two separate notions talked about together to make this about their games. You know what's around the game? The company, the actual subject of the controversy. --Cold Season (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s directly stated in the sources, so it’s not OR. You still have not explained how I am misrepresenting the sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I see a pattern. I keep explaining, and you keep not acknowledging it. The same way when User:FMSky brought it up [5] (I actually didn't notice that you have pushed for your misrepresentation before). Furthermore, don't think I've not noticed you removing cited content too, including how the IGN poll got rigged, Sweet Baby Inc's relation to this, and the co-author Khee Hoon Chan of the IGN allegation piece calling for piracy of their games; I'll have a look at that. --Cold Season (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Look, I pinged Sky in my revert, and if he had any problems with it, he would have brought them up. (Sky, please tell me if I am putting words in your mouth.) If you think the quotes I raised still don’t support the link to disrupting the game’s launch, explain how!
About the “removing cited content”: I would heavily doubt that you somehow don’t know about my edits given Simon’s ping to the existing discussion about this unrelated issue above, and I have many more doubts to raise if you want to bring that up again. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you continuing to do the "act oblivious" spiel? Like you do with the sources. I literally said that I noticed you removing sourced content and will definitely be revisiting it. I said that I did not notice someone (before me) also reverting your edit for this particular content in discussion and you undoing it. --Cold Season (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see how this addresses anything in my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Scroll up. I'm not going to humor your cycle of me continuously explaining the same thing and you asking for it again. This is a repeat of what happened in the section below, where you kept not acknowledging it (until you couldn't as someone came in to repeat it); I'm not going to humor this nonsense.--Cold Season (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Novellasyes Perhaps your valuable insight can let me see what I missed again? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu. Here is what I think you are missing. It is true that at the time of the launch of the game, the company was experiencing a controversy because of some allegations about sexism. It is also the case that someone associated with the company took note of the not-surprising fact that employees of the company, at the time of the launch, instead of feeling unalloyed glee and celebration due to the game's successful launch, were also feeling some bad vibes, as surely one would, because of the entirely separate and independent event of the sexism allegations. It harshed their mellow, so to speak. Very understandable. So two events happened around the same time: The company had to deal with sexism allegations. Right around, the same time, it was experiencing the successful launch of the game. "The game" and whether or not it was successful and had a successful launch is not the same thing as the group of people who work at the company. The way you have been wanting to write the sentence ties "the successful launch of the game", which is its own independent and celebration-worthy event, to a separate event that happened at around the same time. What the people in this thread who are disagreeing with you are disagreeing with you about is they do not want any language that implies that the game itself, or its launch, was dirtied up by the allegations. It wasn't. The mood of people who worked in the corporate office was dirtied up. The game wasn't.Novellasyes (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Novellasyes I agree that I would be in the wrong if I'm arguing this from a source saying there were allegations and a source saying the game's launch happened at the same time. (In fact, it wasn't even around the same time; it released a year later.)Thing is, I'm not concluding this by myself. The sources directly say that it caused controversy over the game. This source says the major controversy over this game has been about a history of sexist remarks from developer GameScience's leaders. I'm adding a piece of information directly stated by a reliable source. How would you prefer I add this sentence from that source into this article? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu. How many RSes offered that type of comment? If it's only the one, I'd be hesitant to rely on that as a DUE fact about the game. I have never played a video game or read any of these publications so take my thoughts for what they are worth (possibly nothing). But there are three things. (1) There is the actual game. Imagine handing the game in a box with no identifying marks as to which studio created it to a variety of reviewers and players; they are asked to review it without any knowledge of where the game came from. This would be like blind peer review in scholarly publications -- the reviewers are supposed to review papers without knowing who wrote the papers. The idea here would be for game reviewers and players to report out their perceptions of what it is like to play the game, with any possible biases removed from their perceptions of the game that might arise from knowing which studio put it out. (2) There are the events surrounding the launch of the game. According to that very interesting PCGamer's review you linked to, the company when it released the game for review put a lot of hilarious (to me) conditions on what streamers who were going to review the game could or couldn't say about the game. That's pretty entertaining and it definitely happened and it's not surprising that a professional reviewer writing for PC Gamer would point out that this happened in all its goofy gloriousness. Imagining this happening in a different industry, it would be as if a movie producer sent out review copies of a movie and included with the review copies a list of items that the reviewers were not allowed to write about, when reviewing the movie. Let's say that the lead actor had recently been accused of multiple episodes of sexually inappropriate behavior, and the movie studio said to reviewers, "You can review this movie but you're not allowed to mention 'nudity, feminist propaganda, fetishization, and other content that instigates negative discourse'. LOL is what all the reviewers would think if they got past being outraged at the very idea of such a presumptuous request. (3) There's the company that released the game and also set the instructions for what the reviewers were and were not supposed to talk about when reviewing the game, and the fact that the company had been accused to sexism emanating from its senior leadership team. When this PC Games reviewer uses the phrase "controversy over the game", I think what the reviewer is talking about is (2): The goofiness of the way the company behaved when it sent the game out for review. He doesn't appear to be referring to the game itself, or (1). Novellasyes (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Novellasyes There’s a lot of quotes from many different sources I have provided above in green.
I think you’re describing that I have a wording issue that sounds like the controversy is some sort of property of the game itself, so would you be amenable to me restoring my edit but with “around” instead of “to”, i.e. and added controversy around Black Myth: Wukong's launch? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu. Since this article is primarily about the company (and not so much the game and its properties), I think it would be legitimate to say something along the following lines, "When Game Science released [the game] to [the streamer community -- if that's the right way to describe those folks], it issued instructions saying that streamers must not include "nudity, feminist propaganda, fetishization, and other content that instigates negative discourse." The reviewer for PC Gamer described this expectation as 'bonkers'. Other reviewers also took note of the unusual demand.[adding several other citations].Novellasyes (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Novellasyes I don't intend to include the part about streamer guidelines. It feels too far-removed from the company, and there's far more things to cover about the game. I only want to include the context that the controversy about the company impacted the game's launch. Do you have objections to and added controversy around Black Myth: Wukong's launch? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I oppose that. It is still you trying to broaden the scope of the controversy. What's around? Even your vague wording of "around" tiptoes on the fact that the subject of controversy is directly the company. --Cold Season (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to add that the subject of the controversy is the game. I'm trying to add that the controversy has impacted the game's launch, as sources have said again and again. I don't see how this wording would imply that the game caused the controversy in any way.
Please, look at the quotes I have provided near the very start of this section—that say the company's controversy has spilled over and affected the game's launch—and tell me why they don't say that it has not become the game's controversy in the public eye. I know the controversy is about the company, not the game, as you have said repeatedly, which is not what I'm arguing. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement

The quote from Dino Ying conveys as little information as Game Science's decline statement ("Game Science is focused on the demo at this time and will only answer questions related to gameplay.") does, but with more puffery. Even after your last edit, using it instead of a summary unnecessary glorifies Game Science's position. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it reports on Game Science's attitude toward it. Again, you are conflating two things: First, Game Science declining to respond is one thing. Second, Game Science trying not get distracted with it is another. --Cold Season (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

We prefer secondary sources over primary where possible. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

While I disagree, I guess I'm fine with this now that the quote has been replaced with a neutral summary. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you not fine with it. Because like above, you are still trying to misrepresent sources [6]. Let me explain this simpler for you about how you are doing synthesis (WP:SYNTH) since you do not understand:

A= Game Science declined to address questions about the allegations.

B= Hero Games' Dino Ying commented that Game Science tries not to get distracted with it

C (your rewording/conclusion)= Game Science declined to address questions about the allegations, which Hero Games's CEO explained as a move to avoid distraction.

You just connected A + B to imply that A happens because of B. This is your unfounded conclusion. --Cold Season (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no new conclusion in C, therefore it’s not Synth. Even if it were Synth, being the same or separate would not change that one bit. See Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not a matter of grammar. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you say that this is about "grammar" (it is not) says enough about the fact that you refuse to acknowledge how you are changing the meaning of content (as I've dissected above with the ABCs laid out), to imply a conclusion that is not supported by the sources. Are we doing this? I keep explaining, and you keep not acknowledging it? Like above. --Cold Season (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by my not acknowledging. I have asked you to explain what new conclusion not previously in the individual statements has been generated (and how the generation was only erected after the merging of grammatical sentence structure), and that requires me to have read and understood your ABCs. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Read it again. I'm not going to humor your cycle of me continuously explaining the same thing (which I've even bolded out to make it even more clearer) and you not acknowledging it. --Cold Season (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I’ve seen your C, and am asking you to state what new thing/logical synthesis not covered individually in A or B is present. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You can disagree if you like, I suppose, but please read WP:SECONDARY. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it a vase or two faces?. I read this material through several times. On some readings, what Aaron Liu is saying seems obviously right and then I'd read it again and what Cold Season is saying seems obviously right. On final reflection, I'm going with Cold Season. Here's why. The CEO did say that Game Science tries not to get distracted with it (where "it" is the controversy and conversation about sexism). It's a fact that the CEO said that. It's also a fact that the company (Game Science) has declined to address questions about the allegations. Why did the CEO say that Game Science tries not to get distracted with it? He didn't say why that is. He just said "we try not to get distracted with it". The CEO also did not connect his preference about not wanting to get distracted with the earlier fact that the company has declined to comment on the imbroglio. You might think, "Well, obviously, if the company is refusing to comment, and the CEO is saying something that means "our team works hard to not be distracted by all of this", that these two statements must be related. But that's not the case. The team could work hard to not be distracted by all of it -- and it could have still said something to the press about it, if the company thought that talking to the press was the best strategy for reducing (instead of amplifying) the conversation; they might have thought that was the best way to avoid being distracted. My two cents. However, FWIW, there's a very fine line between these two interpretations. Novellasyes (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the connection that Cold Season sees, I get it now. He did actually explain himself in a short sentence, and you’re right as to what I thought that made me skip over it. While the current status quo on this issue (preferred by Cold Season) has iffy flow, I don’t see a better way to structure it, so I guess I’m fine with it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I just found a way to avoid the awkward “it”, with the additional benefit of not assuming that “distractions” refers to just these allegations. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC on controversy and game's launch

Has Game Science's sexism controversy added controversy around Black Myth: Wukong's launch, and should this information be appended to the first sentence of the paragraph that starts with "In 2023, IGN released a report"? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. As I have argued above, numerous sources make this inference:

  what would otherwise be a celebratory launch has been dogged by controversy that studio GameScience seems unwilling to address, including in a recent interview with PC Gamer.
  — PC Gamer, "We asked Black Myth: Wukong's developer about the controversy over its founders' past sexist remarks, but GameScience's only reply was 'No comment'"

  This beautiful-looking action game is based on Journey to the West, the great Chinese novel – but its own journey to release has hit a bump in the road
  — The Guardian, "Black Myth: Wukong – the summer’s most exciting, and most controversial, video game"

  In the midst of the pre-release praise that Black Myth: Wukong enjoyed from its previews, IGN published a disturbing expose about the game's Chinese studio, Game Science.
  — Distractify, "Controversy Hangs Over 'Black Myth: Wukong' and Its Studio Amidst Critical and Commercial Success"

  While the new product was being opened up for review by western media, the company’s refusal to comment on the executive’s moral values sparked the first signs of controversy

  The noise is mostly plaudits for the quality of the game’s action, design and playability, which has been amplified by Chinese state media. But that has been dampened somewhat by clumsy censorship and attempts to sweep aside allegations of sexism at the company that developed “Wukong.”
  — Variety, "Chinese Game ‘Black Myth: Wukong’ Is an Instant Global Hit, Attracting Great Reviews, Praise at Home and Controversy Abroad"

  Here's more sources that link the controversy to the game (albeit not the launch):

  controversy over the game reminded her of the toxic environment she experienced as a woman in the game industry.
  — AP News, "A blockbuster Chinese video game sparks debate on sexism in the nation’s gaming industry

  Even the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post took issue with the workplace sexism that may have undermined the game.
  — Vox, "The storm of controversy around Black Myth: Wukong, explained"

  the major controversy over this game has been about a history of sexist remarks from developer GameScience's leaders
  — PC Gamer, "Black Myth: Wukong has some bonkers streamer guidelines about not using the game to spread 'feminist propaganda' or discuss anything about China"

  Both the game and its developer are in a fair bit of hot water for how they’ve treated women in the past.

  Black Myth: Wukong releases on August 20, 2024, but we’d hope these horrible acts of misogyny from the company would make gamers reconsider giving them money
  — The Mary Sue, "‘Black Myth: Wukong’ Is One of 2024’s Most Anticipated Games—and One of the Most Controversial"

  There's also a slightly questionable connection in another Mary Sue article, which summarizes the sexism controversy and says This controversy continued well into Wukong’s launch on August 20, 2024. to start a paragraph about the separate streaming controversy (rightfully covered only in the game's article).
  I think that if we can closely paraphrase the sentence I quoted from the first source, we should be able to add "and added controversy around Black Myth: Wukong's launch" into the article. Alternate wording suggestions that still include this critical historical context are welcome. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that the controversy itself is unrelated to the game's content. As I have reaffirmed in my replies above, I am not saying that the game's content caused the controversy. I believe these sources clearly link the controversy to impacting the launch. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yet, you are still trying to broaden the scope of a controversy, trying to make it about the game. --Cold Season (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's what you have indeed repeated in the section above, while I have repeatedly asked you why my quotes don't do that. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You're constantly not acknowledging my comments again (Sealioning). I've already explained how every one of your quoted articles relates the controversy back to the company. How does a game illustrate an alleged sexist environment? It doesn't, since the controversy is about the company. --Cold Season (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As I have repeated above, you’ve only clearly explained how (the sources say) the controversy is about the company’s behavior, not how the sources did not say the controversy about the company impacted the game. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I am done now, because you are constantly trying to sealion and only made this RFC (see [7]) because I stopped humoring the same conduct of yours in the previous discussion (located above the RFC). In addition, similarly to what user Simonm223 said [8] about your conduct above, this is borderline disruptive. I have laid out my arguments for others to read (in this RFC and the section above the RFC), how the controversy including its impact relates back to the company. --Cold Season (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If you still cannot tell the difference between "caused by"/"about" and "impact on", then I guess you and I are indeed done here. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• As I've said above, Ubisoft doesn't have these sources that link controversy to games. However, Blizzard has (admittedly a lot more), and thus the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard#Players and streamers section covers the controversy's impact on games in depth. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You are trying to misrepresent boycotts against a company. That's where the impact lies. --Cold Season (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. The section clearly refers to the impact on Blizzard's games. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the problem. You keep trying to widen the scope of controversies that's about companies, trying to make it about the games itself while it is not. --Cold Season (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If you can’t see how the section clearly refers to the impact on their games, if you can’t see how the quotes I gave clearly refer to the impact on the game’s launch, then I have no doubt you’ll never change your mind. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• No. I first want to preface that the controversy is about the alleged sexism by company figures. This is not disputed.

Firstly, the controversy is about the company. All sources on this topic explicitly discuss the alleged sexism by company figures as the controversy. Every source goes back to the controversy pointing to the company, every time, even in the quotes above. This is not a controversy about the game or its content, as none of the sources actually describe how the game is controversial. In fact, sources say that the issue is not the game itself. This is nothing more than an effort by user Aaron Liu to broaden the scope of the controversy.

Yet despite all of this background, there’s nothing really objectionable in the game itself.
— Vox

Secondly, this is also an attempt to mix two separate events occurring roughly in the same period: One event is the release of a game and the other event is the allegations made toward company figures (that is, the controversy). These are distinct but parallel things. Even the title of this RFC hints at that.

Thirdly, if the scope of controversies about a company can be widened to falsely include their products, then the same can easily be applied other companies with controversies such as Ubisoft, Blizzard Entertainment, and others, where we can list off their games in their controversy section. It is not, because that is ridiculous. That's a precedent too, which if applied here, deserves a discussion on whether it should be applied project-wide: Whether every games company controversy should translate to their games. A ridiculous notion.

Fourthly, what does "around" mean in user Aaron Liu's content that he wants to add? That wording is intentionally ambiguous. The games happen to be in the vicinity of the actual subject of controversy. It refers directly to the company, the actual subject of the controversy. The company is embroiled into a controversy; that's what it means. Yet, user Aaron Liu is trying to create this distant, weak, and indirect relation, just because the company is facing a controversy but also happens to make games. --Cold Season (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• No. The article shouldn't say or imply that the corporate shenanigans impacted the views that people have about the game itself. People (reviewers especially) could have decided that elements of the game itself mirrored the company's sexism, somehow or other. Reviewers did not conclude or say that. It is the case that the company was (apparently credibly) accused of sexism, and it also seems to inconvertibly be the case that the company gave out very inane and laughable instructions to reviewers of the game trying to forbid them from talking about certain things when reviewing the game. However, neither of those things impacted how people think about, write about, or experience the actual game and game play. Novellasyes (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate on why these sources don't say that the game is viewed as marred by the company's controversy? You also see IGN linking the lack of female elements in "About Our Report from Last Year" anyways. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The game wasn't even released when that IGN "About Our Report from Last Year" was published nor does it provide a "link" between the game's content and the controversy, so it's again you misrepresenting sources (to push your goal to broaden the subject of the controvery, i.e., the company). --Cold Season (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have brought up the game's content part since that's not what we're discussing. However, most of the sources I provided are all about the controversy impacting the game's public reputation during its pre-release phase of promotion, which is widely considered as part of the launch campaign. I thought we were operating under the consensus. If what you were saying is that the game's launch does not include its pre-release promotion, can we at least say something like During Black Myth: Wukong's pre-release promotion,... instead?
And my final point is that I have seriously yet to see a refutation about why what would otherwise be a celebratory launch has been dogged by controversy does not support ", and added controversy to the game's launch". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you are now trying to link a pre-release demo, a literal unfinished product, to the controversy (which is also not supported in the source) is even more desperate... It just highlights you misrepresenting sources.

(You are still SEALIONING) This has been explained several times (here and in this RFC). --Cold Season (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say that the sources link it? You say "which is also not supported in the source". What is your reading of In the midst of the pre-release praise that Black Myth: Wukong enjoyed from its previews, IGN published a disturbing expose about the game's Chinese studio, Game Science. and what would otherwise be a celebratory launch has been dogged by controversy then, and how can I add the information from those quotes into the article? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Nope. A company can have a sexist work environment and produce non-sexist products. Per sources, such is the case here. -The Gnome (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)