Talk:War of Rights

Controversy segment
I moved the controversy segment to the bottom of the page. It doesnt seem like proper article formation to place it before the section on gameplay. I also removed the Vice article since it doesnt actually discuss any controversy, not that it isnt well sourced. The Vice piece was not covering some wider issue with the game, but was the authors own personal opinion on the game, and even then there is no actual issue with the game. It is brought up that a while back, Apple removed a few civil war themed games from their app store because they featured the confederate flag, but then put them back, which has nothing to do with this game.

The article then ends with Ian Birnbaum saying that "As opposed to Apple's decision earlier this year, I don't think we should consider parts of history inappropriate subject matter for video games just because the subject matter might make us uncomfortable. There's nothing wrong with the idea of a multiplayer first-person shooter in principle. We just need to know who the bad guys were."

One article covering the writers own opinion which ends with them saying that they dont think the game should be censored or that the topic is too taboo for a game is not at all a controversy. Friedbyrd (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi —first, per WP:BRD the onus is on you to discuss this and not continue to edit war the information back out of the article. Second, the Vice feature is a reliable source that's directly about the game and absolutely has to be used to build this article. The feature is also a core part of the game's notability on Wikipedia. Finally, you seem to have missed that I reworded the paragraph so that it no longer implies that there was a wider controversy? I've also just re-titled the section header as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that the source is unreliable, or that it can’t be used for information about the game, it’s that this article raises no actual “controversy” at all. Not a wider one, nor the author of the article writing it. Either way one persons personal feelings is hardly enough to justify its inclusion in a segment about controversy. What specific part of the Vice article to you believe is in anyway addressing some controversy? Friedbyrd (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the gameplay segment should come before any other review or reception or other opinion related parts. This is based on other articles on games and movies and media in general being formatted in that way.Friedbyrd (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read the paragraph? The author discusses the game using Confederate symbols at a time when the US was moving to pull many of those down. I've also retitled the section to "reception." No objection to moving gameplay up. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)