Talk:Paradox Interactive

Voice Chat Now Included

Voice chat is included in Diplomacy for treaty/negotiation purposes as of six months ago... Patch v1.3

Paradox Interactive was a division of Paradox Entertainment, but the companies have now separated. I am not exactly sure what P-E does (I believe they publish non-computer games). Jordi·✆ 09:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The last few edits.

I made the last few edits not under my new user name.

There seems to be a trend towards the highly subjective within any article associated with Paradox Interactive. Their games may be popular and many may enjoy them - but Wikipedia isn't a platform for their advertisement. --- Brheas 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Paradoc Interactive.png

Image:Paradoc Interactive.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not allowed in main article

Apparently this isn't allowed in the main article because it's not praise. Here's what I wrote, though. Despite what some claim, it is fact. If you think it isn't, feel free to register and find out.

"It should be noted that the Paradox Forums have several restrictions for posters. For example, any discussion glorifying the Holocaust or Naziism is strictly prohibited. Users may be banned for bringing up these topics in such a manner. The purpose is two-fold. First, Paradox wishes to continue selling its games in Germany, Austria, and Italy, where glorification of Naziism or the Holocaust is strictly prohibited. Secondly, such discussions can cause unnecessary hurt for users.

Paradox also has several restrictions that can cause immediate banning, resulting in some animosity from current and past posters. Asking for any information on when a future patch may be released will result in banning. Any mention of certain rival forums, such as The Tomatoforum, may result in immediate banning. According to some members, anti-Americanism is allowed, and encouraged in some cases, while anti-European or anti-socialist talk can result in immediate banning. Personally insulting mods or questioning them can result in immediate banning as well.

The forums do offer a good resource for information and tips on Paradox games, but posters must tread lightly. Ask intelligent questions and avoid certain topics and a new poster should be fine and have a fun time."

As an American member of the Paradox forums, I don't get a sense of anti-Americanism anywhere in the forum. There are a good number of American members and I doubt they'd continue to participate in forum discussions if there was general dislike of Americans. Panzer V Panther 13:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The rules about what is and isn't allowed aren't determined by the individual editors who work on this page. your edits were probably removed as they contain, in part, original research. see Wikipedia:No_original_research. if you can find independent verification of your points, and persist against any that edit against you in spite of this, then you'll get the section in--Mongreilf (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting

Interesting that positive POV is allowed, but what P-dox considers negative POV (though the statements were face) are not allowed.

If you feel that other parts of an article is against the guidelines you should strive to correct it, not add more of the same...

My initial revertion was based on Neutral point of view and Verifiability guidelines. I could also have added a link to "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Your addition was about Terms of Service of one webforum. Very few doesn't have that and this is hardly encyclopedic/notable. Several of your statemens are not verifiable, some even outright wrong, while some are mere hearsay. --Havard 11:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As I responded on your talk page, most of the statements are facts. All one has to do it so to the Paradox forums to confirm them. I will gladly edit out the few sentences that are POV and repost. RTexasUSA

Havard, are you having a hard time growing up? Everyone else has. Do point out the specific parts of his addition that are POV. Kyujuni 02:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is a valid concern here. What proof is there about this stuff? I don't remember being told anything about not mentioning the Tomatowhatsit place when I registered for the Paradox forums. I'd never even heard of it until five minutes ago and, having visited the website, I still don't know exactly what it is. O_o And not glorifying Naziism or the Holocaust? Big freakin' deal. That's just good sense. Only Nazis (read: morons), anti-Semites (read: morons), Holocaust Deniers (read: morons) and their ilk (read: other morons not specifically mentioned), would do that, Paradox's particular policy on it is irrelevant. Panzer V Panther 13:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Patches

The article mentions that Paradox continues to support their games long after release, which is great, but fails to mention that most of the games they release demand patches because they are so buggy in the first place. Conventional wisdom is to wait to buy a Paradox Game until the first patch. thezirk (talk)

"We had this vision of people buying a Paradox game without knowing what the game was; that 'Paradox' should be a guarantee for a type of game experience" Yeah, i sure know that experience, wait until the second patch and don't spend 20 dollars on three mechs. Not to mention it's 1.3 and the game still is buggy crap with seemingly one voice actor.speaking all women.i would have known that HBS gets bought by PE I wouldn't have Kickstartet battletech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.119.77 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Public?

What's the company's stock symbol, if it's publicly traded? I looked everywhere, and couldn't find it. --66.191.125.140 (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it called Paradox Interactive in Sweden? I've searched the OMX (Sweden's stock market) and found nothing as well. --24.183.38.171 (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Paradox Interactive is a privately owned company according to http://www.allabolag.se/5566674759/verksamhet and the official name of the company in Sweden is Paradox Interactive AB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.197.61 (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

GamersGate regions

Is GamersGate limited to people residing in certain regions/nations? Thanks! SharkD (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC) No, it is not. All you need is internet connection and valid form of payment. And some games require third party registering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.145.77 (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

'Shortcomings'

I undid an edit that added a 'shortcomings' section talking about forum discussion of games requiring patches for bugs etc. Though I do agree that the 'Forum' section is a bit too sticky-sweet in its tone, the added section seemed to just point to a rant-like forum thread to back up a contention that Paradox games require patches, which unfortunately is an issue with nearly every game publisher and developer. I would suggest that if the author would like to add this point, he/she back it up with some details on if and how this problem is unique to Paradox. --GGG65 (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not that the Paradox games requires patches but that they ask to pay to get fixes. In fact the actual policy is to add some few "new features" and call the fixes expansions. Obviously in such a way clients has to pay to get fixes. Please read the trhead which I linked or more in general please make a research on that and you will find a confirmation of my statement --Calgaco (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This general concept (patches, expansions) is discussed in the fourth paragraph under the Games section. I'll reword that section a bit to be a little more NPOV, but it is covered there. To highlight this further, you would need to point out how this is different for Paradox compared to other publishers that use patches (and expansion packs). A search of forums and update histories shows Paradox's patching frequency and free fixes history to be equal or superior to that of many other strategy game developers such as Firaxis and Creative Assembly. If you have more third-party references or citations I would suggest adding them into the existing paragraph in the Games section. --GGG65 (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The first couple of fixes are required because the game is not playable at all or because the bugs are very big. Rome after the expansion (a pay for fixes) is still bugged and crashes. The point is that Paradox games requires patches that you have to pay for. "In fact the actual policy is to add some few "new features" and call the fixes expansions. Obviously in such a way clients has to pay to get fixes". --Calgaco (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at the Paradox forum? http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9558025&postcount=103 http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9547401&postcount=95 etc. --Calgaco (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That kind of forum posts would not be admissable as sources for this. You would need third party sources like game reviews and articles from gaming sites etc. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Is what the customers say about their game experience.--Calgaco (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

They do generally not live up to the Wikipedia rules about verifiability and adhering to a neutral point of view (You could also find forum posts that expresses the opposite view). For a more detailed explanation you might want to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Forum threads.. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I know the documents you quoted but please consider that my intention is not to assess/review Paradox games. My intention is sic et simpliciter to report the opinion of some customer. --Calgaco (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your intention is irrelevant in this matter as it is the material you add to the article that is the problem. The fact that a single customer is quoted from a forum thread is (besides the reasons I stated above) fringe theory. Please do not add the material once more as you do not have established consensus for this material, and you would also break the 3RR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You show the fact that you haven't read the thread that I linked: it is not one customer but many. Could you please try to have a look at it before reverting what you don't know? Thank you --Calgaco (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is one or several users, the point is that forum threads with very few exceptions (of which this is not one) are not permissable as sources in wikipedia articles. I have provided you with enough links for you to understand that fact. I can see that you do know what edit warring means from previous experience, and as such you should know that you will need to establish consensus before adding disputed material to an article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Another upcoming Paradox project

"Ship Simulator Extremes" is another upcoming game that Paradox Interactive will be publishing. It is currently scheduled for Q1 2010.

--RMS Gigantic (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Magna Mundi postponed

According to the Paradox Website Magna Mindi is postponed until ealry 2012. http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/magna-mundi--109.91.76.29 (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Redone Forums Section?

Alright, this part of my section is just saying that I'm new to editing, and I don't actually go on the Paradox forums, but I'm making this section for the sake of getting rid of an extremely bad section. Generally, sorry for the bad redo, but that's why I'm not putting it straight into the article, and I am instead simply posting it in discussion as a request for comments.

---

The complexity of the games often warrants player collaboration over the forums. Often, players will assist other players with the games, post modifications, and write "after action reports". Due to much of the game content being in plain text and image files, modifying the games has become very popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWizard (talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

New trend: In game DLC store

I have noticed that most games coming out now, published by Paradox but by other developers have an in-game DLC store which is never mentioned on the store page when you buy the game. Examples include:

Leviathan Warships Game of Dwarves War of the Roses Showdown Effect Starvoid Dungeonland Cities in Motion 2

Because they are by different developers but all published by Paradox I think there must be some kind of company policy in force here.

I'm not sure where this could be mentioned in the article or even if it should be.

94.6.250.82 (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Citation needed

The learning curve being steep is something that was marked as citation needed. the following articles / reviews mention the steep learning curves. There are also numerous forum posts to that effect but I figured those couldn't be sources. (overall they seem to agree, though there are some that say they aren't too bad).

this is my joystick on march of eagles wargamer about hearts of iron III

I have no idea how to fix this in the article though, can I simply replace the citation tag with a [N] tag with footnote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorishilhorst (talk • contribs) 06:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Cancelled games

The company has cancelled 5 games. This is important to consumers and should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futomato (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

References

DLC

Would criticism of Paradox's DLC practices be major enough to be worth mentioning? EditWorker (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Only if one were very careful to maintain neutrality in doing so. Citing major games journalist websites or VERY popular complaints from fan sites (I.e. reddit or something like that) could count so long as one explicitly states it was them who made the complaint. This coupled with any response the company had to these complaints would make for a relatively neutral post. Make sure to run it by someone who is either a long time editor or an admin before you publish anything, just to be safe. Jyggalypuff (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Battletech/HBS

I propose a paragraph be written on HBS studios, Battletech (published by Paradox programmed by HBS) and HBS acquisition by Paradox, with a link to the Harebrained Schemes LLC wikipedia page at the top of it. With Harebrained schemes now owned by Paradox, it, and any further actions done by HBS studios, is now directly relevant to Paradox activities. Jyggalypuff (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Ownership

The owner of Paradox is listed as Tencent. This is misleading given they only own 5% of the shares in Paradox Interactive when WesterInvest AB and Investment AB Spiltan own significantly more shares (33.4% and 22% respectively according to the company's 2018 accounts). Should this be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.207.215 (talk • contribs)

We can use their latest filings to mention that, yes. It gives a better impression. I found the link to their investment breakdown and will include the top 5 --Masem (t) 19:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Game series sections

can anybody help or be willing to help.

for games likes crusader kings, eu, etc.

Paradox as a publisher for Penumbra: Black Plague

I had no idea about this, but it turns out that Penumbra: Black Plague was published by Paradox. Still, for some reason Paradox is not listed as the publisher in Steam's store page. 84.231.70.192 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Tectonic Shut Down

Article needs to be updated to show the closure of the Paradox: Tectonic studio in Berkeley, along with the cancellation of that studio's project, Life By You, in June. Doug (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

2020 revenue figures... in 2024?

Who is maintaining this article? Why are the revenue figures more than 1000+ days stale? 71.184.117.73 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

24 September 2026 Discord controversy

@Masem: My edit was reverted as an “extremely minor controversy.” I understand the concern about undue weight, particularly for an international company and a controversy primarily discussed in Turkey may not warrant inclusion in an article about an international company. However, the incident has also received coverage outside Turkey. For example, the Russian gaming publication Championat reported on 23 September 2026 that the controversy had led Turkish users to flood Hearts of Iron IV's Steam reviews, causing the game's recent review rating to fall to mostly negative, the lowest rating the game could reach within a single day. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Would that be more suited to the Hoi4 article, the Paradox Interacive article, or the Paradox Development Studio article? - PhilDaBirdMan (talk | contribs) 01:51, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

But HOI4 is owned by Paradox Interactive. The issue is not the game itself, but a decision made by company officials on Discord. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources? I think it could be included if you have reliable sources. - PhilDaBirdMan (talk | contribs) 02:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, i have many countable local sources about the incident. And one Russian source if needed. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

a "a moderator of an official Discord server operated by Paradox Interactive" is likely not a company official and may not even be a company employee, just a contracted user to manage the discord server. Its certainly not going to be a decision made from the top management there, unless we have sources that actually state that. Masem (t) 02:17, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The “official HOI4 Discord” link provided in the About section of HOI4’s official Steam publisher page leads to the aforementioned server. I am not claiming that the moderator is a Paradox employee or that the decision came from Paradox's senior management; I am simply describing the server as operated by Paradox Interactive because it is officially linked and presented as the game's official Discord server. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

above you claim it was "a decision made by company officials on Discord", which is not something we can conclude. Masem (t) 03:49, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

That moderator is indeed a Paradox Interactive employee. The person who made the decision is Nicolas Hubert, who has been a Hearts of Iron IV Discord's community manager for 3 years 9 months. His LinkedIn profile explicitly stated this information. (He has currently deactivated his account due to the heavy backlash.)

https://ca.linkedin.com/in/nicholas-hubert-417641231

You can check if you want. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

that's not a "company official" though. Unless we know they were told by the company's senior management to disallow that image use, we have to assume the decision started with them, not higher up the chain, hence why making this a controversy related to the company makes zero sense. Masem (t) 10:42, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The boycott and review changes were not limited to HOI4. Negative reviews were posted on all games owned by Paradox Interactive, and their Metacritic scores were lowered.

HOI4 director Batya, issued a statement regarding the matter and acknowledged that the rule was erroneous. This also shows that Batya took ownership of the rule and that it was not solely related to the community manager.

https://www.webtekno.com/paradox-yasanan-olayla-ilgili-sessizligini-bozdu-h225592.html

Additionally, beyond the usual DLC related controversies that have occurred over the years, what distinguishes this from a typical “game” controversy is that it concerns "historical" and "political" events and a decision made at an official level. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

If its just a review bomb, that's not a huge thing to have at a company. If we're including controversy at a company page, its things like wide-scale sexual misconduct like with EA or Ubisoft. A review bomb can be briefly described on the game's page. Masem (t) 02:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, you can't use Steamdb as a source here to say there were negative reviews. You need an reliable independent source. Masem (t) 02:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The issue in question is already quite widespread. The incident has generated significant activity among streamers, historians, and the media in Turkey, and there are many sources covering it.

I did not use the data to show that there were negative reviews, but rather to demonstrate the scale of the incident.

According to the data, 23 September 2026 saw the largest number of negative reviews Hearts of Iron IV has received in a single day since its release. I can use another source if you prefer, but the information provided is neither incomplete nor excessive. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:EVENTCRIT applies, and this seems subject to WP:Recentism. In a few weeks/a month this will be old news. It’s not the only time Hoi4 has been review bombed, and yet those aren’t included here. An inclusion in List of review-bombing incidents seems better than here. - PhilDaBirdMan (talk | contribs) 02:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

This incident, unlike other review-bombing campaigns, is not related to the game itself. It is a sociopolitical issue involving countries and their peoples.

Atatürk is the founder of the Republic of Turkey, and the use of Atatürk as a profile picture was banned on the game's official Discord server, with the Armenian Genocide being cited as the reason. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Review bombing is a response to something not directly associated with the game. The review bomb is a way to try to signal discontent to the publisher by forcing lower scores, in expectation that the company will step into deal with that matter. Masem (t) 10:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I’m not against this. However, this situation differs significantly from the other incidents and has a much greater media impact nation wide. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The sourcing doesn't justify this. Keep in mind, WP is not the place to vent about issues, there should be good third-party coverage of why it is controversial. And we cannot use steam store pages or forum posts even if by a Paradox game developer for sourcing related to controversies. Masem (t) 11:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Given this article from TRTWorld which describes likely the whole of the issue, it is definitely not appropriate to include on the Paradox page given how trivial it was and how quickly it was resolved (eg Paradox explained that they would only allow in-game images of figures from that time to be used as forum avatars, thus concluding the problem). It may not even be appropriate at the HoI page, given how tiny an impact it has (see WP:UNDUE). Masem (t) 11:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The issue has not yet been resolved. Although the matter concerns Paradox Interactive as a company, Batya was presented as the person responsible for addressing the issue, and no official apology was issued. Several Turkish content creators and communities have also made statements regarding the matter. Furthermore, the fact that the issue was addressed quickly does not necessarily indicate that its impact was negligible. On the contrary, the sources provided indicate that the issue gained considerable attention.

The Hearts of Iron game director is not the subject of the issue here. (His statement was included only as a supporting source.) The boycott and negative backlash concern Paradox Interactive's games as a whole, and the issue has been covered as an internationally relevant matter.

The fact that the issue was also reported by an international outlet affiliated with the Turkish state (TRT World), as well as by prominent media organizations such as Times India, provides significant coverage for its inclusion. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@Masem LiberalAdam12 (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

This is literally making a mountain out of a molehill, and why we look well beyond what players claim and instead rely on reliable sources as well as consider WP:DUE. Two sources talking about this is at best a sentence in the game article. It has zero impact how most other groups that matter see Paradox or HoI. Masem (t) 00:17, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we are making further progress in this discussion. I have provided multiple independent sources covering the incident already, while your objection remains that the matter is too trivial to warrant inclusion and constitutes undue weight. Since we appear to have reached an impasse, I think we should seek a 3O rather than continuing the same discussion between us. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here from WP:3O. I have closed your request as I count three people already in this discussion (User:LiberalAdam12, User:Masem, and User:PhilDaBirdMan). Perhaps an WP:RFC would be appropriate instead? Plus then the benefit of a couple weeks of distance from the situation will make it clearer whether WP:RECENTISM is a concern here. Packrat3860 (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I would support this. - PhilDaBirdMan (talk | contribs) 02:09, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I no longer think we need an RFC. - PhilDaBirdMan (talk | contribs) 00:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

If for no other reason than my own clarity, do you think that this information clearly should or clearly should not be included? Packrat3860 (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Given the rapidly changing nature of the subject, I considered it appropriate to create this section at this stage in order to preserve relevant information and prevent the loss or fragmentation of details over time.

Including newly reported developments directly under this heading may also help maintain chronological consistency and provide a clearer and more organized overview of the subject.

What can we do to reach a resolution on the matter and determine whether the article should be created? LiberalAdam12 (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Again, the problem is that this was a short lived flare up of complaints that since has died down. I see no ongoing coverage of it in any other reliable sources beyond TRTWorld and India Time pieces from a few days ago. It makes the matter completely UNDUE from WP's perspective, we're not here to just cover minor controversies. Masem (t) 10:57, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The relatively short duration of the incident does not necessarily determine its significance. Discussion of the issue also continued after the initial incident. For example one of the biggest Turkish HOI4 content creators, published a joint statement announcing that they would refrain from playing Paradox Interactive games until the matter was addressed.

The issue has also been covered by international gaming outlets, including 3DJuegos and iXBT Games, as well as international media outlets such as Euronews, TRT World and India Times.

Therefore, it clearly meets the criteria for inclusion under the UNDUE guideline. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Only Euronews, TRT World and India Times would be reliable sources we can used for WP. And that there was only one article from each of these indicates it was a short lived controversy. Wikipedia is not here to post every single incident, we have to go by the degree of coverage from reliable sources, and this limited coverage does not merit much for inclusion per UNDUE, certainly as it relates to Paradox as a company. Masem (t) 21:45, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

While I agree that articles do not need wholly completeness, the sources cited here are decent according to WP:CITEUNSEEN. I have just argued below. IgelRM (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The sources I added were not all intended to establish the same thing. Some were included to document how the incident began and the subsequent dispute, while others provide independent coverage of the controversy and its international reach.

You mention Euronews, TRT World and India Times as the reliable sources that can be used. However, you have not accepted the international coverage from IXBT Games and 3DJuegos either. Both are independent international gaming/news outlets that covered the incident, so I don't think their existence can simply be disregarded when assessing the overall degree of coverage.

I also don't think that the fact that only one article was published by each of several outlets necessarily establishes that the controversy was merely "short-lived." The relevant question for UNDUE is the nature and extent of the coverage available from reliable sources, not simply the number of articles published by each individual outlet.

My intention is not to document every minor incident involving Paradox Interactive, but to provide a concise account of a controversy that received coverage from multiple international outlets, including Euronews, TRT World, India Times, iXBT Games and 3D Juegos. I believe the appropriate approach would therefore be to assess the sources individually and determine how much weight the coverage supports, rather than dismissing the incident solely because the coverage was relatively recent or limited in duration.

The situation has also not yet been resolved or simply put behind us. Turkish content creators have issued a joint statement declaring that they will not play Paradox games in an effort to put pressure on Paradox. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

IBXT is a content reposting site, with no clear editorial standards, so its not usable. 3D Juegos is, but its story is not giving any real different details from the others. We can't use social media accounts for those reporting on this, those are primary sources and too involved to be appropriate to describe a controversy. So there are only four sources, but all covering essentially the same details.

All four do not make it to a major controversy regarding Paradox but describe it as a review bomb. That makes it appropriate to include on the game page, but barring any large scale impact on Paradox itself (a handful of gamers protesting by not buying further Paradox games is not sufficient for that), it doesn't belong on this page. Masem (t) 00:05, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think iXBT Games can simply be dismissed as a reposting site without addressing its editorial status. It is an established gaming publication with its own editorial structure and published an independent report on the incident.

For iXBT's editorial policy: https://ixbt.games/page/about.html

I understand that the sources largely report the same core events. However, I don't think that makes their independent coverage irrelevant. Multiple independent outlets choosing to report on the same incident is itself evidence that the incident received external coverage, even if the reports do not contain substantially different facts. Moreover, the sources do not describe this simply as a review bomb, but also as a backlash against Paradox Interactive.

For example, TRT World's title about the matter is: "Game maker Paradox faces backlash after Ataturk profile-picture ban stirs outrage in Türkiye."

Another example from Euronews is: "Famous gaming platform blocks Atatürk portrait: Boycott movement begins."

I'm not arguing that this deserves extensive coverage or should be portrayed as a major controversy. I am arguing for a brief and proportionate account based on the available independent coverage.

The joint statement was not presented as a Wikipedia source, but as a counterpoint in this discussion. Moreover, the content creators who issued the joint statement include some of the most subscribed Paradox YouTubers in Turkey. Therefore, I think it is entirely reasonable to mention the statement in this discussion. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Even if we take IXBT, we do not use headlines as part of reliable sources (see WP:HEADLINES).

Social media posts regardless who made them are not reliable sources for describing a controversy, as those are likely biased and take a specific side on the issue. We need reiteration through third-party reliable sources.

And again, I've said that this might be appropriate on the HoI page but it is having zero impact on Paradox as a company given what the sources say. It doesn't belong on the Paradox page because its only over the forums of one of its games. Masem (t) 01:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want the content of the sources, the TRT World article says:

“Paradox Interactive, the developer of the popular grand-strategy game Hearts of Iron IV, has said it will review its Discord moderation rules and bans following a backlash in Türkiye over the removal of a Turkish player who used Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s image as a profile picture.”

If we are going to use an official's social media posts as primary sources, then yes, we can use them. WP:ABOUTSELF

For example, the statement by the HOI game director on the Paradox forums is a primary source and can be used. And i did.

The sources provided state that the negative reactions were not directed at the game itself, but were part of a broader protest against the decision made on Paradox’s official server. Therefore, it was not only HOI4 that was affected; several other games were also bad reviewed and get backlashes as a result of these reactions and were subject to calls for boycotts online.

Sources:

TRT World: "The negative reviews also spread to other Paradox titles."

“Following these discussions, it’s become clear this rule needs to be revised and has not been enforced consistently,” Batya said, adding that Paradox would review the rule, the actions taken and the bans issued during the controversy.

"The company said it would provide a further update on its rules."

India Times: "The reaction was not limited to the original player. Screenshots and discussions about the moderation decision began spreading through Turkish gaming communities, turning what had initially been a Discord dispute into a wider argument about how Paradox was handling historical figures."

At the same time, HOI Game Director Batya stated in a post on HOI4 Official Discord: “I want to start off by reiterating a point from yesterday. Our handling of this situation has created a lot of frustration and left the impression that Paradox had taken a position on Atatürk. Paradox never aims to review history or take positions on political figures, and we clearly handled that responsibility poorly.” LiberalAdam12 (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

All of which says that any issues here are related to HoI only, even if a few other Paradox games are affected. If it was significant across the entire Paradox brand, we'd see other, likely English-language sources, pick up on this. But its basically an issue that is related to a subset of HoI players. It makes it appropriately only to the HoI page.

Wikipedia is not here to air out every game's controversy that arises from the player base without much wider reach. Masem (t) 03:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Paradox's game director acknowledges that this is a company-wide matter. The available sources likewise support this, while you are saying that “all of which says that any issues here are related to HoI only” without providing any sources to support that claim.

That is not what is being proposed here. This incident received coverage from multiple international media outlets, and the available sources indicate that the issue concerned Paradox Interactive and its official community moderation, rather than merely the player base of a single game.

Wikipedia is not a place where validly sourced edits are rejected for unfounded reasons. Invoking Wikipedia:UNDUE when the subject has received coverage from multiple established international media outlets does not, by itself, establish that the material constitutes undue weight. If you believe it does, the relevant policy-based reason and supporting sources should be provided.

Otherwise, repeatedly rejecting sourced material without addressing the sources or providing a policy-based justification could raise concerns aboutWikipedia:Gaming the system. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

You are reading way too much into what's been said by Bayta on the impact on the company overall. Its not like Paradox is completing changing how it does business from this, just established that for their forums the only acceptable images of historical figures from that period of history that are in their games will be based on the images they have of those people in their games. It is not like a long-standing problem that they've been accused of avoiding many times before, just correcting a decision made by a forum moderator when a new situation was encountered. They made a quick decision and cleared it up. Just because a small number of gamers say they are boycotting Paradox because of it is not sufficient to make it a big issue.

The sources are there but in the overall scheme of sourcing, these are low tier sources in terms of quality of information, only one of them dedicated to gaming, and none of them represent the typical sources we'd expect for a major controversy of a major publisher. I've seen this type of controversies trying to be pushed for inclusion all the time on WP with similar types of poor sourcing, it's been a problem for years because gamers that want to see these controversies given a big discussion in WP articles do not understand what WP's goals are and the type of expectations we'd want if we are going to include controversy coverage. Without any additional coverage, this is, at most , a sentence or two to be included at the HoI page (because it involves historical figures from that period, not from any of the other historical simulations Paradox publishes), but not at Paradox's page. Masem (t) 04:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

To give better examples, look at the scale of issues discussed at Criticism of Electronic Arts, or Activision Blizzard#Other legal disputes, or at Intellectual property protection by Nintendo, where we list significant controversies those publishers have - this nowhere approaching that scale. Look at List of review-bombing incidents and note that if they are involving a specific game, the game's article may mention that, but not at the publisher's page. That's why you're find to include it at HoI but it just is nowhere close to the scale for being on the company page. Masem (t) 04:20, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I am only relaying what the official said. The official explicitly refers to Paradox as a company, so how is that mind-reading?

HOI Game Director Batya: “I want to start off by reiterating a point from yesterday. Our handling of this situation has created a lot of frustration and left the impression that Paradox had taken a position on Atatürk. Paradox never aims to review history or take positions on political figures, and we clearly handled that responsibility poorly.”

“It’s not like Paradox is completely changing how it does business from this.”

Even if it does not completely change how the company operates, the way its community rules are implemented will change, yes. As a result of this incident, Paradox’s community rule will change. Paradox Interactive’s community rules are, apart from certain game-specific differences, generally consistent across its communities. Therefore, a change to these rules affects all Paradox games and communities. Since changing the rules is a company-level decision, it is directly relevant to the article.

"They made a quick decision and cleared it up. Just because a small number of gamers say they are boycotting Paradox because of it is not sufficient to make it a big issue."

What are the sources for "quick clear up" and "small number of gamers"?

“The sources are there but in the overall scheme of sourcing, these are low tier sources in terms of quality of information, only one of them dedicated to gaming, and none of them represent the typical sources we'd expect for a major controversy of a major publisher.”

This is your personal assessment aswell. Can you show me a source that confirms this? The significance of a news event can be assessed based on factors such as the amount and quality of coverage and the persistence of the event. These considerations are addressed under Wikipedia:Notability (events). The incident meets the relevant criteria. There is no basis for the claim that these sources are insufficient simply because they do not represent the types of sources you personally would expect. The rule that was put in place will remain in effect going forward, and the reason for this policy being binding is this incident.

Furthermore, there are two international gaming-media sources, while four international news organizations have also reported on the incident.

On top of all this, the section heading in the article was given only as much space as the coverage warrants. It provides neither too little nor excessive information. The section covers the emergence of the incident, its cause, and the subsequent statements. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I've seen gaming news for decades to have a good idea of what actual events have major ramifications and how the industry speaks, and all this surmounts to is a chance in its community's rules, not a change in how Paradox itself does business. Such things happen all the time without even being reported. I pointed out above what type of criticism actually ends up on major game developers' pages here, which would not include anything of this small scale (at this time). Again, the stuff can be included on the HoI page, it just doesn't have the impact to make sense to include at the main Paradox page since it has to do with a small change in how its community rules are enforced - no major impact on the company has occurred due to that.

You're also misapplying and misreading the use of notability (events), that's for evaluating a standalone page, but even there, there needs to be enduring coverage, not just a burst over a couple days (which is what we have here).

I will add that this Rock Paper Shotgun article just came out, it doesn't give any new information nor change that this should not be on the Paradox page, but that's a far more expected source to cover gaming news that would be appropriate on the HoI page or at the review bombing page. Masem (t) 11:59, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the distinction between the scale of the rule change and the notability of the event is important here.

You noted that events of this kind are often not reported and may remain limited to individual communities. In this case, however, the event did receive coverage from seven international media outlets, including three gaming publications and four general news outlets. That level of independent coverage seems relevant when assessing whether the incident received significant attention.

"I pointed out above what type of criticism actually ends up on major game developers' pages here, which would not include anything of this small scale (at this time)."

I'm not aware of a source or Wikipedia guideline that establishes that this incident is "small scale." If there is one, I would be interested in seeing it. The examples you mentioned may help illustrate the types of events that have previously been included, but I don't think they establish a minimum scale that an event must reach before it can be included.

Similarly, I don't think the size of the underlying rule change alone determines whether the event has encyclopedic value. The available sources indicate that the change received international coverage and generated a notable response. Batya's statements and the reporting concerning the reaction provide context for that response.

"Again, the stuff can be included on the HoI page, it just doesn't have the impact to make sense to include at the main Paradox page since it has to do with a small change in how its community rules are enforced - no major impact on the company has occurred due to that."

I don't think the HoI article is necessarily the appropriate alternative simply because the incident occurred within an HoI-related community. The subject of the coverage is the response to Paradox's community-management decision and the subsequent change to Paradox's community rules. If the sources are primarily discussing Paradox and its community management, it seems reasonable to consider the Paradox article as well.

The change also has an ongoing aspect, since the revised community rules apply from 25 September 2026 onward. This gives the issue some continuing relevance beyond the original incident.

If Wikipedia (events) is not considered the most appropriate guideline for this particular case, I believe the general notability guideline is also relevant because the incident has received significant coverage from multiple independent sources.

I also intend to add the newly published article as a source for the updated information, since it contains a new statement concerning the incident. I don't see anything in that coverage indicating that the subject is specifically about HoI4 as a game. Rather, the incident concerns Paradox's community management and the rules governing its communities, with the particular community being the context in which the incident occurred. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Masem LiberalAdam12 (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Its described in sources as a review bomb. That makes it small scale issue that is appropriate on the game page, but until there's much clearer evidence that Paradox has been significantly impacted by this, it doesn't belong on the company page.

Notability is not what we should be using at all , that describes when something gets a separate page. We are looking at WP:NPOV and specifically WP:UNDUE. In terms of HoI, the issue is due there, but again, considering the whole of Paradox coverage it is undue on the company page.

And the change of a moderation policy across a developers' forum even if it applies to all their games is not something we'd have on the main company page on WP. That's trivial details. Since the issue game up specifically with HoI4, that's where it makes the most sense to say what happened. Masem (t) 16:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The coverage WP:DEPTH is also important. Standard journalistic procedure like reaching out to the alleged moderator or Paradox, but sources put the emphasis on what Gürkan and Nişanyan said instead. IgelRM (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

These sources were included to document how the incident began and the disputes between the parties involved.

Additionally the HOI game director’s statement is sourced directly from their own post on the forum. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Waiting makes our job easier by giving secondary sources time to analyze and publish. If you're concerned those sources are going to disappear before discussion runs it course you can save a copy of things now with your notes. But for now it seems that the consensus is that there's WP:NOHURRY. Packrat3860 (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

References

RfC: September 2026 Atatürk controversy

Can the article include a section covering the September 2026 controversy involving Paradox Interactive's official Discord server and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, given the available independent international coverage and the number of such sources?

Background

On September 2026, a moderator on an official Paradox Interactive Discord server told a user that an image of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk could not be used as a profile picture because Atatürk was considered a controversial figure. The moderator cited Atatürk's alleged association with the Committee of Union and Progress during the Armenian genocide as the reason.

The incident subsequently received coverage from multiple independent news outlets, including international outlets outside Turkey. It also generated a substantial reaction among players, including a large number of negative Steam reviews for Hearts of Iron IV. Paradox subsequently acknowledged that its rule concerning real-world persons as profile pictures required revision.

The question for this RfC is not whether the incident was justified or whether the moderator's historical claim was correct. The question is whether the incident has received sufficient significant independent coverage to warrant inclusion in the article, and, if so, how much weight should be given to it.

One editor has argued that the incident is too minor and that including it would constitute undue weight. The counterargument is that the incident received coverage from multiple independent international sources and resulted in a substantial public reaction, making it more than a trivial isolated user complaint.

Question: Based on Wikipedia's policies on significant coverage, reliable sources, and due weight, should the article include this controversy? If so, what would be an appropriate amount of coverage?

Please consider the available independent sources and the actual extent of coverage rather than the personal significance of the incident to editors.

International coverage

3DJuegos

India Times

Euronews

TRT World

Rock Paper Shotgun

IXBT Games

Turkish coverage

Milliyet

OdaTV

Sözcü

Cumhuriyet

Halk TV

LiberalAdam12 (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose All sources consider this a review bomb, a small scale response by players. Across video game publisher articles where there are sections equivalent to controversies or similar types of criticism, we don't cover standalone review bombs, but instead allow those to be placed on the appropriate game that triggered or was affected by it (in this case Hearts of Iron IV) as well as on the list of review bombing incidents. In this specific case, while the result was a change in what images Paradox allowed users to have on their Discord server to avoid creating any type of political strive going forward, this has no apparent impacts on Paradox as a company at a high-level scale. Its understandable that Turkish players that respect Atatürk may be upset and have stated their intent to boycott Paradox over not being able to use images they want, but at this point, there's no indication that Paradox the company has had any great impact to their business at this point. Considering the limited amount of coverage relative to what we usually use to document major controversies for video game publishers, this is UNDUE at this point to include on the company page. Masem (t) 11:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think this conflates the underlying controversy with the subsequent review-bombing campaign.

  The proposed section is not intended to document a review bomb as such. The underlying event was a controversy over moderation on Paradox's official Discord server, where a moderator treated Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as a "controversial" figure and justified this in connection with the Armenian genocide. The subsequent negative-review campaign was one of the reactions to that incident, rather than the incident itself. Contemporary coverage also reported the Discord moderation controversy independently of the review bombing. [India Times]

  The incident was not specific to Hearts of Iron IV, and sources also documented that other Paradox games received negative reviews as a result of the backlash. [TRT World]

  Furthermore, Hearts of Iron IV Game Director Batya stated in response to the backlash that Paradox's community rules would be revised, and a new rule was announced the following day. This company-level change is directly relevant to the Paradox Interactive article.

  Given the variety of independent sources documenting the incident, as well as its documented effects beyond Hearts of Iron IV, I do not think that UNDUE is established here. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's a "community forum board" not a company-wide change. There's no corporate aspect to this. Masem (t) 13:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Per WP:RECENT, WP:LASTING. - PhilDaBirdMan (talk | contribs) 12:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  WP:LASTING Following the incident, Paradox representative Batya stated that the rule had been changed, and that going forward it would apply not to “controversial figures” but to all historical figures born on or before January 1, 1800. Therefore, this constitutes a change to a company-wide community rule.

  WP:RECENT The fact that this controversy is recent does not, by itself, prevent its inclusion. The events have already occurred, have received independent coverage, and have resulted in a documented change to Paradox's community rules. LiberalAdam12 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  I added those policies because while it may seem like the end of the world now, it might not be relevant in a month or two, and we just have to wait and see. Even if there are claimed “lasting effects”, we’re not even a week after the incident, so if we wait this could end up being nothing or it could be massive. - PhilDaBirdMan (talk | contribs) 12:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Bad RfC, and I have removed the RfC tag accordingly. Please feel free to start a new RfC which does not front-load and follows WP:RFCNEUTRAL, which would be a statement like Should the article include a section covering the September 2026 controversy involving Paradox Interactive's official Discord server and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk?, and only that. The RfC may point to prior discussion, but this one is clearly front-loaded in favor of one position, and that is unacceptable. The filer of the RfC may, of course, state their own position as a comment in the RfC, but not as part of the RfC question. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  In addition, do not direct respondents as to what to consider or not. Material like "Please consider the available independent sources and the actual extent of coverage rather than the personal significance of the incident to editors." is entirely unacceptable in an RfC as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)