Talk:Dungeons & Dragons controversies

message: I really have no interest in developing this article at this time, I hope someone else does. The reason I have created it is preople keeps insisting on expanding this section in the main Dungeons and Dragons article, and the only way I can see to get the D&D article down below the 32 KB Wikkipedia recommendation is to spin this section off into it's own article and drastically reduce the section in D&D. - Waza 03:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, ill take over from here then, when I have the time. Piuro 21:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split from main article

message: I didn't intend to overhaul the article, but it seems I have. Here's what I did:
* Added a section for Pulling, summarizing her and BADD's activities in short, based on her article
* Grouped all psychological controversy into its own section
* Re-worded intro for clarity and per WP:MoS
* Linked some terms like "media" that really needed context
* other minor edits where I spotted a need
Work that still needs to be done:
* Find (perhaps from what we already have) cites for the intro
* Cover some of the other essays that have been written. I love the Britannica quote from Confessions of a Dungeons & Dragons™ Addict], and would like to incorporate it reasonably here, as it happens to apply equally to Wikipedia.
* Reduce some of the redundancy between the lead blurb in the religious section and the sub-sections without losing any context.
* Research other suits brought against or by TSR/Wizards surrounding D&D. Incorporate info as needed and relevant to the overall topic, here.
That's all I can think of for now. Enjoy! -Harmil 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: kudos for the 21-strong list of linked topics that D&D will, according to BADD, introduce your kids to - the repetition does a great job of highlighting the hyperbole of the statement. - matt lohkamp 10:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: I wish I could edit my edit summaries... sigh. I called this importance "High" based on the policy which says that articles which contribute substantial knowledge to a topic but aren't quite essential for a print encyclopedia should be in that category. My edit summary set Mid. Doh. -Harmil 21:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: There seems to be a fair overlap between this article and History_of_role-playing_games#Controversy. Someone should carefully check that material is in the correct article and sections are cross linked where appropriate. - Waza 05:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if we shouldn't merge this article and History_of_role-playing_games#Controversy into a new article called Controversies in Role-playing Games or similar, with a section on the D&D-specific stuff. Two cross-linked articles can cover neither topic well - or at least not elegantly. BreathingMeat 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats sounds like a good approach to me, if anyone has the time and inclination please do it - Waza 03:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlap with [[History of role-playing games]]

message: *Here's a new one I read about just now that may get blamed on D&D. Hill of Beans 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because people are going to gravitate around it until we have a Pulling-esque firestorm.  Schnee, why did they HAVE to mention D&D?! -Jéské (v^_^v) 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's the conclusion to this case.  Again, the article makes a point to mention Dungeons & Dragons. Evan1975 04:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't focus on it, however.  It just focuses on the sentencing, and notes that it is a D&D CRPG. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Starving children

message: The plot summary provided for the novel contains significant inaccuracies.  While it's been some time since I read it, I don't believe the name provided for the protagonist is correct, and I know he wasn't "responsible for the killings."  It's possible that the person who added this section has Hobgoblin confused with another novel; I will attempt to locate my copy of the book in order to correct the inaccuracies.  --71.186.206.98 (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hobgoblin

message: I will look for sources on this, since this is a bit old, but the Israeli RPG scene, which has an inordinate amount of intelligence officers, looked into the matter, and it seems like it is, for lack of a better term, a bunch of hooey.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundranocaps (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli Army Controversy

message: One comment that jumps out at me is the 'Hitler' example - it implies that Hitler would not be 'an acceptable D&D character', when in fact he most certainly would be. In fact, a meglamaniacal racist totalitarian dictator would make an excellent character to roleplay, as evidenced by the book's inclusion of him as an example in the first place. Obligatory 'not that I'm a hitler fan or anything' statement - but the irony of wikipedia mis-representing another author's mis-representation of the content of a dungeons and dragons manual isn't worth leaving. I realize that the point is clarified a few sentences later, but this sentence in particular: "the book never suggests that Hitler is ... a model of an acceptable D&D character" is misleading at best. - matt lohkamp 10:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: False. Sounds like you are parroting someones accusations rather than the actual printed material. I have that particular edition of the Dungeon Masters Guide and the reference is all of once under the Charisma entry in the book page 15. It lists Hitler as one of three historical examples, along with Caesar and Napoleon. Showing that Charisma is not tied to physical beauty or lack thereof. It is in no way examples for players to follow. Merely examples for the GM on how to view each ability in action. Rasputin is given as example of a historical individual with the equivalent of high Constitution.  Omega2064 (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'an acceptable D&D character' in 'The Schnoebelen articles' 

message: The latest piece of hysteria is that Biology professor and accused shooter Amy Bishop was a D&D devotee.—RJH (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Playing D&D does make me want to kill people in real life, so I get where she is coming from. ;) BOZ (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amy Bishop 

message: The writer of this section clearly disagrees with Schnoebelen's views, and argues against them in the article. Schnoebelen's arguments may indeed be false, or misrepresentations, but this isn't the place to argue them or defeat them, just present them as they are. As already noted, the writer also incorrectly asserts that Hitler would be a bad character, which is unverifiable. This section needs a re-write. I'm taking a stab at it, but I don't know the facts of the matter. I'll just leave what's there now, stripped of the one-sided original research argument against it. Someone else can clean it up further.--Atkinson (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cool! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Still in the process of editing. Removed this reference because it wasn't necessary where it was in the article, but I thought it shouldn't be lost altogether, in case it's ever useful, so I'm leaving it here: --Atkinson (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I'm done. This was just drive-by editing, so don't feel any need to collaborate with me or anything. I'm not even watching this page. --Atkinson (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Schnoebelen articles section is not NPOV 

message: This section should be pulled from the page. The statements made by those who attacked D&D are in no way, shape or form existant in any medium outside the person's head. I don't think that pointing out the feverd imaginings of the opponents of D&D can be anything BUT neutral. Even acknowleding that there could be an issue goes against every fact now known. I see no good reason to put things in this article that are as far from real as possible; best was the claim that TSR came for magical realism. Thats so astoundingly disconnected, and its not even a proper sentence.
I believe the issue of neutrality has been resolved, over a decade ago: A roleplaying game using elements from human legends was blamed, by upset and scared parents, of being in some way magic or evil, when none of the opponents likely ever saw even the Dungeon Master's Guide, let alone sat down and watched or participated in a game. It was the same sensationalism about the fake satanic-child molesting groups and lawsuits that turned out to be utter bunk.
As such, I am removing the "disputed neutrality" banner. Religious Zealots and distraught parents who dont have the first clue about what it is they are attacking, does not warrant mention, and is not a reliable source. It is without any ambiguity the product solely of their imaginations and the scared suburban echo chamber, with no real source, and no acknowledgements of being wrong despite not a shred of evidence in their favor ever emerging. Their failure to acknowledge legal rulings and factual disputes, instead just continuing on as if it didnt happen, renders their arguments utterly meaningless and in no way representative of anything, aside from exposing the religious zealotry of those who attack a game because another religious zealot chained lies to them. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of disputed neutrality 

message: I believe TSR did, in fact, bring back these terms in the last years of AD&D 2nd Edition's run (late 1990's), and not in 3rd Editions, as the article states. --Nikoz78 (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, they were mentioned in an almost tongue-in-cheek kind of way, such as calling a baatezu "devilish" and that sort of thing.  3E made the connection official. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks about right.  Did a search through PDFs of a compilation of all non-setting books, and the word "devil" is used in an artistic manner instead of a (for lack of a better word) "scientific" one. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Demons" and "Devils" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dungeons & Dragons controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thewashingtondailynews.com/2007/05/26/pritchard-to-be-paroled/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130616145105/http://www.dmfiat.com/interviews/interview-with-uri-kurlianchik to http://www.dmfiat.com/interviews/interview-with-uri-kurlianchik
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I remember around 1985 or 1986 Pat Robertson went on a tirade on The 700 Club in which he was babbling about D&D being satanic and other such bullshit.  My father subsequently ordered me to throw-away all my D&D stuff.  I of course did not, continued playing behind his back for the rest of my teenage years, and didn't end-up a Satanist or murderer.  If you google 'Pat Robertson" "Dungeons and Dragons"' you'll find plenty of material on this. Eric Cable  !  Talk  13:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You could probably find a lot of stuff like that! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pat Robertson 

message: new section added to the article based on current events. Doesnt fit under "religious" per say, but it seems the page or TOC are a bit off and need fixing since all the controversies are not religious related. this section may need to be moved to a better article for it, but it is causing a large controversy online, and more infomration and better sources need to be collected from whatever passes for "reliable" sources now, of which i do not have a clue on anymore. shadzar-talk 08:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you shadzar, could you add more details to that little section? It does not really explain much as-is. 2601:249:8B80:4050:15E1:68CB:6A3E:39EE (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish i could, but the only source right now until details of these changes to be made are made public, the only source is the one listed, and every news article references that source, or another source that is also owned by the makers of D&D D&D Beyond. All i currently know is it revolves aroudn the stigma recently appearing as it has in the pst that "orcs are racist" from Tolkien's time and works. shadzar-talk 13:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  shadzar - I hope you can fill this new section out more because as is it is essentially a "nothing statement" that should be deleted. Not only does it have nothing to do with "religeon", as you note, it isn't a controversy - its WOTC reaction to current racial discussions and is simply the company updating their literature to match the PC culture of today. Looking at the article, it reads like something that belongs 10 yrs ago when many companies made PC edits such as these to literature or the company as a whole. Honestly I wonder if WOTC would even be considering this if the Drow were pale skinned rather than black-skinned - would we care that a people were "inherently evil" then? In reality, a race that lives underground should have been pale faced, but I digress. I'm not sure why the Orcs are even included in this - we are discriminating against pig-faced brutes? Ckruschke (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Here is one possibility:  2601:240:10B:F962:717C:911F:6355:6B4C (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Already been reverted by another author and I agree with his reasoning.  Kind of immaterial at this point. Ckruschke (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Sadly this does not fix the problem with the [page that the TOC is broken as many of the things under the main headin have nothing to do with religion,a nd thus why i waited to edit it in any form since it makes no sense as it is already with the sub-headings of that section being unrelated. The majority of controversies arent even religious related, but due to the TOC being broken for some time now, this articl is a mess. shadzar-talk 11:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is anything more you can add to make it worth including, that would be a good idea. I know that there is some material on this at Wizards of the Coast#2020–present and maybe one other article that I can't remember. 2601:249:8B80:4050:938:9FBE:8161:F3A4 (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

text:  shadzar - If you are concerned about the page layout, I would suggest adding a section title such as "Other Objections" and cutting/pasting in the the couple controversies that don't fit the "Religious" title into that new heading - there aren't that many. The "racism" subject is a non-issue. Ckruschke (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  shadzar Ckruschke I think a section titled "Other objections" would be a good start. I disagree that racism in D&D is a non-issue. I've been updating the WoTC article & here are some of the sources I've used: . On racism in D&D, we could copy & paste the relevant paragraphs from the Wizards of the Coast section with a light copy edit. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

text:  In terms of older sources, most of what is coming up in Google Scholar is dissertations. However, these 3 journal articles look promising if someone can access them & report back (I only have access to JSTOR & these articles aren't in that database). There's also this book (Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Raiding the Temple of Wisdom) which says on page 98:  Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that as this topic has been getting more and more attention from other media sources, it definitely ought to be covered here. BOZ (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

text:  Probably right. Ckruschke (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I got started on this (first with campaign settings, & info from the WoTC page). Next up is info on orcs & drow. If anyone could review it or add additional sources, that would be great. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

text:  Taking a break. I plan on adding a bit more to the 5th edition section (details on how game design has changed from Curse of Strahd, Tomb of Annihilation, Volos to Eberron and Wildemount) - unless someone else wants to tackle it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

text:  Sadly it has been too many years for me to remember how to code in wiki-syntax, ergo why I let others do the majority of the work so I don't break pages when trying to add things to them. Glad someone was able to come along and fix many of the problems with this page while adding the new content/section. shadzar-talk 10:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: Going off of the discussion above, I'm creating a list of campaign books & Dragon/Dungeon articles where Chult is mentioned before the publication of The Jungles of Chult in 1993. Ideally, I'd liked to find the first detailed description so we can include an origin date for the setting. Please add to the following list if you find something. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, thanks for finding all that! 2601:249:8B80:4050:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It just seemed odd to me that the first mention of Chult would be in an article about tree types in Faerun and then I went down a rabbit hole trying to find the first actual description... Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, amazing! 2601:249:8B80:4050:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Chult 

message: "were coded as" this isn't English. there is no cypher in original D&D books, so no "code", and it isnt a programming language. Someone needs to fix that first part like was done to the Chult section so it reads in English on the English side of Wikipedia. it has many quotes, but the article itself rads like this is undeniable fact, instead of a particular persons opinion or quote. There seems to be a LOT of places on Wikipedia where English is no longer used, or proper writing styles, and things presented as facts when they are something that came form a singular source as one person's opinion.
Is that saying "D&D was designed as medieval Europe"? If so, then yes, it says so right on the original D&D white box set. That would probably be a better choice of wording than whatever hamfisted quote is presented from that citation. Wikipedia is not "critical race theory" propaganda/pamphlets, but an encyclopedia of facts, and should be written as such. Either it needs to be rewritten to inform that it is the opinion of "..." whoever made the quote, and that is why it is mentioned in the cultural representation section, or it needs to be written from a WP:NPOV NEUTRAL point of view as opposed to the hostile way it is written currently. shadzar-talk 11:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we're using quotations poorly. We should be summarizing sources instead, which is an issue with much of the article. As for your NPOV concerns, there are dozens of sources in that section from a variety of backgrounds: academic and peer-reviewed, mainstream news media, fan/specialist media, pop culture, etc. They're all saying the same thing, just covering different aspects of it, and I can't find any that were published as opinion pieces. As far as I can tell, it's the mainstream viewpoint, which suggests we should cover this in Wikipedia's voice without minimizing our sources as opinions. It's exactly what NPOV says to do. Also, "coded" is perfectly acceptable English. See Merriam-Webster, definition 3c or Macmillan, definition 2 or Collins, definition 2 for some examples. Woodroar (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I can point also to academics, governments, etc that point this "critial race theory" is propoganda being spread BY mainstream media. so how is that going to work out when the two sides of academia and governments are opposed? Wikipedia just picks the one it thinks correct, rather than being neutral? This is all ongoing urrent events and cannot be considered a "victor" on either side, while the argument over it continues, so Wikipedia should strive to be neutral and not declaring any victors or be used as arbitor of which opinion is correct. It should present verifiable facts. The facts is it is a "controversy" thus why it is presented, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should be saying who is right or wrong as that discussion is LONG from over in current events. shadzar-talk 03:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

text:  I've just reduced a few quotes but this also isn't my strongest suit. Thoughts on adding a request for review from the Guild of Copy Editors? They would most definitely keep to NPOV & probably would be best at tackling the quote rephrasing. The average wait time is about 20 days. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  if they can write it better than i can then anyone should do fine. I am so out of practice on WP it isnt even funny, so someone the wait time i dont think is a problem so long as it gets. done due to the nature of this article it needs to read correctly, and i am too fr out of practice for even formal writing. shadzar-talk 06:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Submitted the request, so keep an eye out for an update from this project towards the end of January/beginning of February. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural representationsnot written in English? 

message: Before copyedit:  After copyedit: []
Hello all. I found your page via the Guild of Copy Editors Requests page. I'll be your copyeditor. This will be my first formal copy edit with the guild. I have a couple thousand edits on Wikipedia, and I copy edit other articles casually all the time. One of my specialties is re-writing leads.
I sat down to copyedit the prose of this article, and I ended up focusing a lot of my attention on headings and the article's structure. I felt like that should come first, just because that was jumping out at me once I got immersed. If you want, I'll do a second pass later and focus more on prose.
I made several edits to the article. Feel free to edit/revert.
Here are some other things I noticed as I was reviewing the article. Not sure if you care about this stuff or not, this is more like a peer review/good article review, but figured I'd mention it.
*  Consider expanding the lead. A good lead is usually 4 paragraphs. This is a big article, so there should be plenty to talk about.
*  In the moral panic section, each sub-seciton's first paragraph should clearly state what that section's controversy is and how it's connected to D&D.
* Over-quoting is not ideal. It can lead to unclear articles, and to copyvio issues. It is usually better to paraphrase. Else you end up with stuff like this.
* The following sections are bigger than I expected, and may have WP:UNDUE weight issues. You may want to trim their size by about half. This will fix the weight issues, and hopefully increase clarity.
:*  Mazes and Monsters
:*  Wizards of the Coast relaxes restrictions
:* Schnoebelen articles - fringe author
:* Blume brothers
* In the "Cultural representations and racism" section, most of the sub-sections are "topics", and the odd one out is "5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons", which is more like a time period. Consider merging "5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons" into the other topic sections.
:* Also consider trimming and copyediting the "5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons" section. It is quite dense, detailed, quote heavy, and may have WP:UNDUE weight.
* I agree with 's suggestion above about mentioning Pat Robertson.
*  Article could use more images. Currently has 1.
Sorry, this ended up being a pretty heavy edit. I hope you find the changes helpful. I'll pause now and wait for feedback. Let's make sure you guys like my heavy editing, and give some editors familiar with the topic a chance to help with trimming, before proceeding further. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help on this Novem Linguae! The "moral panic" section I think is the oldest part of this article & predates me. I tried to add sources to the section & add the context that by the late 90s/early 2000s moral panic was essentially over but had left an impact (such as the bowdlerized names for fiends). I don't have a lot of time right now to trim it but I'll tag some other editors who might have thoughts. I added the "5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons" section as a separate subsection because a lot of the sources used in the other subsections of "Cultural representations and racism" are about 5th edition compared to older editions. All of the changes to the game are occurring in 5th edition. We could probably trim criticism of individual 5th edition sourcebooks & fold that info into the articles on the individual books as needed. I also couldn't find contemporary criticism on the portrayal of ethnicities or fictional races for the older editions.  Pinging editors who have participated on the talk page in the past few months who might have some insight on all of this. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What? I know someone was coming in to clean up a mess, but i have no idea what i am needed for now? shadzar-talk 01:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I'm not the one to add to content any racial context section as my knowledge/interest in D&D stopped with 2nd edition back when people didn't think about Drow or Orcs being racist archetypes. Ckruschke (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Hey . I worked on this article quite a bit last week. Do you like the changes? Do you feel that I've addressed the original reasons that you requested a copy edit? Anything specific you'd like me to work on before we wrap this up? Thanks for your feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks again for your help on this article! I adjusted one title (technically, drow & orcs are classified as humanoids in the game) but otherwise I think the clarification you did is great. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . Awesome, thanks for the feedback. I think I'll close this request for copy edit then. Feel free to ping me if you run across anything else. See you around. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   There is some discussion below about adding a section on sexism in the game - since you did a bunch of structural edits to the article, where would you recommend adding this section & with what heading? I would assume somewhere in the "Cultural representations and racism" section. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , good question. I'd give it its own level 1 heading called "Sexism", and I'd place it before "Objections by groups". To me, it doesn't really seem to fit in the racism section, and I think it'd be a stretch to rename the section to "Cultural representations, racism, and sexism", since the entire rest of the section is about racism. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guild of Copy Editors 

message: Women now make up about 40% of the D&D playerbase (an increase from 10% in 1980 & 20–25% in 2012). At some point, I started to keep a list of sources on the demographics of D&D & the portrayal of women in my sandbox so I'll list some below & pull some quotes:
* Waskul, Dennis, and Matt Lust. “Role-Playing and Playing Roles: The Person, Player, and Persona in Fantasy Role-Playing.” Symbolic Interaction, vol. 27, no. 3, 2004, pp. 333–356. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/si.2004.27.3.333. Accessed 27 Apr. 2020. 
*Ploeg, Scott D. Vander, and Kenneth Phillips. “Playing With Power: The Science of Magic in Interactive Fantasy.” Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, vol. 9, no. 2 (34), 1998, pp. 142–156. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43308337. Accessed 27 Apr. 2020. 
*Antero Garcia (2017) Privilege, Power, and Dungeons & Dragons: How Systems Shape Racial and Gender Identities in Tabletop Role-Playing Games, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24:3, 232-246, DOI: 10.1080/10749039.2017.1293691 https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1293691 
* "Dungeons & Dragons has come a long way since 1977, when your horny geek friends could consult the 'Harlot Table,' [...] But gradually, and sometimes awkwardly, Dungeons & Dragons has become exponentially more female-friendly. [...] Coming from a franchise whose art director wrote a piece (apparently since removed) justifying hyper-sexualized female bodies in fantasy art, this is noteworthy. And these illustrations are just the face of deeper changes made to entice more women to play. More strikingly, the new Player's Handbook explicitly talks about the gender binary and gender fluidity. [...] [Crawford's] point is underscored by the fact that the newest version of the game credits women as contributors to its design more than any previous one: About 26 percent are female, as opposed to 20 percent in the last version and 12 percent in the one before that. It's also telling that three-quarters of D&D's branding and marketing team is now female". (Vice, 2014) 
* "The countless histories documenting Dungeons & Dragons’ 40-year ascent to the cultural mainstream tend to gloss over the women who made the fantasy role-playing game what it is today. [...]  From the earliest days of D&D, women were shaping its look, its narrative, its affect and its fandom. This may come as a surprise since, in those nascent years, most women around D&D were tolerant wives and mothers. That’s not because D&D didn’t appeal to women; it had simply inherited the deeply masculine culture of its predecessor—wargaming. [...] In the July 1980 issue of Dragon magazine, TSR’s official D&D publication, Jean Wells and her colleague Kim Mohan penned the editorial, 'Women Want Equality. And Why Not?' Women from across the country had written in about the 'unfair and degrading treatment of women players,' who comprised, they wrote, about 10 percent of D&D’s fanbase." (Kotaku, 2017)
* "Women now make up close to 40% of the D&D community. While the goal is still for that number to fully reflect the wider population, it’s a huge leap from 2012, when women made up 20–25% of players. A big reason for that jump in female players goes back to the popularity of streaming, and the visibility of other women playing. [...] But it’s not like this sort of inclusion is something the D&D team just stumbled into. The company is dedicated to making sure that it starts from within. That statistic of women making up about 40% of players is similar to the makeup of the team behind the game. Women are everywhere behind the scenes in D&D, from artists to designers, and it shows in the game. [...] In addition to that writing, the artwork gives an immediate, clear indication of the respect this team has for its characters and its players. Gone are the days of heavily sexualized and objectified female characters in D&D art. Kate Irwin, D&D’s Senior Art Director, came in during the 4th edition, and she says that the representation of women was a major focus". (The Mary Sue, 2018)
* "And legions are into it, including an unprecedented number of adult and female players, attracted by a popular recent revamp and new online playing options. It’s the ultimate sign that nerd culture is now mainstream. [...] The company also made it more inclusive. Gone is the rule mandating female characters’ strength be less than males’. Gone is the sexist artwork — no more armored bikinis, no more monsters with breasts, no more topless ladies [...]. Women, in particular, love the new edition. D&D was originally a nerdy guy thing, emphasis on guy. Yet the number of female players is at 38 percent and climbing, according to Wizards of the Coast". (The Washington Post, 2019) 
* "One point Wizards of the Coast is especially eager to make is that 39% of their player base identifies as female, a number which they insist is growing. It's unfortunate to see such social stigmas still impacting the game; in the time it was introduced, such "nerdy" activities as Dungeons & Dragons were seen as unfit for women. This was a very harmful stereotype and it's understandable that the makers of the game would be so intent on breaking out of it". (ScreenRant, 2020) 
* "Earlier this month, Wizards of the Coast released several statistics about the Dungeons & Dragons playerbase, revealing that its core player group was much younger than expected. According to the demographics released by Wizards of the Coast to European retailers last week, 40% of players are 25 years or younger. By comparison, only 11% of players are 40 years or older. Unsurprisingly, the game has experienced massive growth over the last few years, with an estimated 40 million players, 39% identify as female". (Comicbook.com, 2020)
Several of these sources directly highlight the sexist art in the earlier editions & that the change in art style was part of a push to be more inclusive resulting in an increase of female players. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot, Sariel Xilo, that's very interesting! Also good to hear that the demographics have shifted a lot towards more gender equality. I'll leave it to you and others to decide if and how the (earlier) controversy should be included in this article. Thanks also for all the good work you've done on diverse D&D articles! Daranios (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks  I originally started to pull together sources on demographics because I wanted to expand on the playerbase in the main Dungeons & Dragons article (probably in the development history section). I don't think the fact that the demographics have changed (more women, younger players, etc) is controversial. I do think sexism in the game is controversial (fur bikini armor, female characters with different base stats in older editions, treatment of female players at stores/events etc) and, at this point, a section on sexism is probably warranted in this article since we have multiple academic sources, mainstream news sources & niche game industry news sources. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, 40% - that is impressive! :) BOZ (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your input. BOZ (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: Games Workshop uses the trope of the Battle of Rorke's Drift 1879, (also known as the Defence of Rorke's Drift, was an engagement in the Anglo-Zulu War. The successful British defence of the mission station of Rorke's Drift, under the command of Lieutenants John Chard of the Royal Engineers and Gonville Bromhead, 24th Regiment of Foot began when a large contingent of Zulu warriors broke off from their main force during the final hour of the British defeat at the day-long Battle of Isandlwana on 22 January 1879, diverting 6 miles to attack Rorke's Drift later that day and continuing into the following day.) for their  1985 campaign supplement for the Games Workshop Warhammer Fantasy Battle (2nd edition) game "Blood Bath at Orc's Drift", which pitted a small force of High Elves, Dwarfs, and Humans against an attacking army of Orcs. In 1997, Games Workshop again drew inspiration from Zulu for the Massacre at Big Toof River. In this event Praetorian Guards, a faction based directly on late-19th century colonial English forces, faced off against Orc attackers, filling the role of the Zulus.
As you can see, the Orcs are stand-ins for the Zulu forces, and the British Colonial are depicted as "High Elfs".
I believe it is your duty to stand in solidarity with Mork and Gork against oppressive and racist colonial stereotypes. And I'm going to leave you with an inspiring contemporary quote.
Impi! O nans'impi iyeza,
Uban'obengathint'amabhubesi? 49.185.137.168 (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but what does that have to do with Dungeons & Dragons? BOZ (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Games Workshop "Blood Bath at Orc's Drift" 

message: Coast hired the pinkertons recently to go after a youtuber that got Magic: The Gathering cards 2 weeks early 2603:7081:1C46:4000:97F:2FEF:7626:DE4B (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about D&D and not Magic. But an editor did add a sentence to Hasbro#Criticism and controversy. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I could swear I saw it added somewhere else as well, but I can't think of where. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  did somebody already add something about the pinkertons stuff 

message: Can somebody explain to me the point of this paragraph?
* In 2022, academic Christopher Ferguson conducted a survey study of 308 adults (38.2% non-White, and 17% Dungeons and Dragons players) and found that the game "was not associated with greater ethnocentrism (one facet of racism) attitudes". Ferguson concluded that Wizards of the Coast may be responding to a moral panic like that surrounding Satanism in the 1980s.
It's complete non sequitur with no leadup and no followup, that doesn't fit into anything and only seems to exist because somebody felt the need to shove in a dissenting opinion, without any care of actually integrating it into the article. Also, a study conducted on 308 people, of which only 17% actually play the game (at least that's what I'm descyphering from the terrible phrasing) is shoddy science, and that's being generous. To say nothing about the fact that framing DnD's history of problematic portrayal of race and the criticism it got from the playerbase as a "moral panic" is simply asinine. Not to mention it's one poorly cited and questionable study against dozens of reliable sources that are far more relevant. The inclusion of this is WP:UNDUE. This feels like an attempt to shoehorn in the POV of a certain notorious group of tourists who in between harrassing Star Wars actors and going on long tirades about why there should be no women in Warhammer, have decided to also be DnD fans who want to lecture us on why the whiteness of their hobby is sacrosanct. We don't need this. 46.97.170.46 (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Might have been added by @Sariel Xilo, who may wish to comment. 2601:240:E200:3B60:E0FD:4466:64:7446 (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember correctly, someone else added it here & in a few other D&D articles but I added the clarification (survey size, etc). I'm on mobile right now & don't have time to find the diffs for when it was added. I'm fine with removing it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that this is this Christopher Ferguson (psychologist). Are there quantitatively better studies on the topic?  Daranios (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Hardly relevant since the controversy is about DnD's outdated and tonedeaf treatment of races and cultures through problematic tropes, stemming from Gygax's own... ahem, "biological essentialist" views, not this bizarre idea that the game somehow turns players racist, which is the absurd strawman that Ferguson's scientifically questionable study was trying to debunk. There is no moral panic. DnD players just want their favorite hobby to keep up with the times and correct past mistakes. 46.97.170.46 (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Where was someone suggesting that the game turns people into racists? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely my point. Nobody made that claim. The controversy is about the game's own treatment of race, and Gygax's history. There's has been an ongoing backlash to WotC becoming more inclusive and improving in terms of representation and diversity, from an insignificantly sized but very vocal minority (most of whom don't even play the game), and it seems they're trying to dishonestly frame the discourse as "yet another moral panic but from the opposite extreme of the political spectrum". 46.97.170.46 (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I see what you mean now. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher who?