Difference between revisions of "Talk:Christianity"

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
({{PAGENAME}} NPOV Poll (2/0/1))
({{PAGENAME}} NPOV Poll (2/0/1))
Line 21: Line 21:
 
# I'd say '(In RL the Dignitatis Humanae compels Catholics to believe religious freedom to be a human right, but such nations don't acknowledge the existence of this document.)' is probably best terminated 'don't acknowledge the existence ''or'' ICly ignore it.' After all, a nation could RP Dignitatis Humanae existing but have an inquistion ''anyway'', and ruling out this prospect is just as bad as ruling out RPing the nonexistence of the DH. [[User:Eurusea|Eurusea]]
 
# I'd say '(In RL the Dignitatis Humanae compels Catholics to believe religious freedom to be a human right, but such nations don't acknowledge the existence of this document.)' is probably best terminated 'don't acknowledge the existence ''or'' ICly ignore it.' After all, a nation could RP Dignitatis Humanae existing but have an inquistion ''anyway'', and ruling out this prospect is just as bad as ruling out RPing the nonexistence of the DH. [[User:Eurusea|Eurusea]]
 
#:In this particular instance, the only reason Dignitatis Humanae became an issue is because the Syskeyia made it an issue.  Had the other nation stated somewhere, "We follow ALL the doctrines of the RL Catholic Church," but then violated that by ignoring that particular bit, I'd agree with you.  If on the other hand, Syskeyia demands IC that they follow it, and they respond IC that they don't acknowledge it, I can't agree with the concept that they're flauting the laws of the Church.  The principle at stake here is each nation's right to determine their own IC guidelines, not to have them forced upon them by another player. [[User:Frisbeeteria|&rarr; Fris]] [[User talk:Frisbeeteria|&Theta;<small>''talk''</small>]] 16:18, 3 Dec 2004 (GMT)
 
#:In this particular instance, the only reason Dignitatis Humanae became an issue is because the Syskeyia made it an issue.  Had the other nation stated somewhere, "We follow ALL the doctrines of the RL Catholic Church," but then violated that by ignoring that particular bit, I'd agree with you.  If on the other hand, Syskeyia demands IC that they follow it, and they respond IC that they don't acknowledge it, I can't agree with the concept that they're flauting the laws of the Church.  The principle at stake here is each nation's right to determine their own IC guidelines, not to have them forced upon them by another player. [[User:Frisbeeteria|&rarr; Fris]] [[User talk:Frisbeeteria|&Theta;<small>''talk''</small>]] 16:18, 3 Dec 2004 (GMT)
#:I agree with Eurusea. (Now who would have thought of that? :) ) ~Sys
+
#::I agree with Eurusea. (Now who would have thought of that? :) ) ~Sys
  
 
== Earlier discussion ==
 
== Earlier discussion ==

Revision as of 00:47, 15 December 2004

Christianity NPOV Poll (2/0/1)

Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes (~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.

Biased

  1. The latest edits of Syskeyia (who has been banned just yesterday for 24 hours for violating an agreement) are massively POV. For one, accusing Tanah Burung of "wanking" because of allowing something "despite the churches offical teachings" is blatantly POV. This user is not even making an effort of trying NPOV and in my opinion his latest edits to what we (even pantocratoria) considered a NPOV language should be reversed and if possible this user should be banned from editing morality-related entries which do not relate to his own nation. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 19:42, 2 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  2. Midlonia

Not Biased

Neutral / not clear

  1. I'm fine with people improving the language to an NPOV standard as long as we don't get into these damned edit wars. I thought the original article was a bit heavy-handed with the examples on both sides, and I would have liked to see links to forum topics backing up the various claims of religion-wanking. I am not fine with people making an honest attempt to improve the language, only to have the changes reverted by a single user who consistently disagrees with the basic premise that NS != RL . → Fris Θtalk 20:09, 2 Dec 2004 (GMT)
I would not regard the edits by this user as honest attempts at POV. I wasted hours now on discussing compromises on this article but this individual is clearly not interested in having something approaching POV. And with that attitude, compromise becomes impossible. We spent an entire evening together, you and I, to get something decent and he then just flips it all over to something that a) is outragiously POV and pushing his dogmatic point of view b) is insulting c) does not make sense at all. Enough is enough. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 21:51, 2 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Comments/Questions

  1. To clarify, I was the one who changed Syskeyia's original blatantly POV phrase:
    "which officiates same-sex marriage in defiance of the traditional orthodox teaching of the Church"
    to "which officiates same-sex marriage despite the traditional orthodox teaching of the RL Catholic Church"
    ... in an attempt to bring it back towards NPOV. If anyone (besides User:Syskeyia) wants to tackle it further, be my guest. → Fris Θtalk 20:09, 2 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  2. I'd say '(In RL the Dignitatis Humanae compels Catholics to believe religious freedom to be a human right, but such nations don't acknowledge the existence of this document.)' is probably best terminated 'don't acknowledge the existence or ICly ignore it.' After all, a nation could RP Dignitatis Humanae existing but have an inquistion anyway, and ruling out this prospect is just as bad as ruling out RPing the nonexistence of the DH. Eurusea
    In this particular instance, the only reason Dignitatis Humanae became an issue is because the Syskeyia made it an issue. Had the other nation stated somewhere, "We follow ALL the doctrines of the RL Catholic Church," but then violated that by ignoring that particular bit, I'd agree with you. If on the other hand, Syskeyia demands IC that they follow it, and they respond IC that they don't acknowledge it, I can't agree with the concept that they're flauting the laws of the Church. The principle at stake here is each nation's right to determine their own IC guidelines, not to have them forced upon them by another player. → Fris Θtalk 16:18, 3 Dec 2004 (GMT)
    I agree with Eurusea. (Now who would have thought of that? :) ) ~Sys

Earlier discussion

As you can see, I linked a shitload of pages to it but the article is still rather limited and POVish. Needs vast improvements. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 20:59, 26 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Made a few changes. First, Syskeyia is not a garrison state. It's more like a mix between Switzerland and Israel in that sort of regard. Also, I do not "abuse" Christianity in order to be "good." And, as I said in the little edit thing, when someone claims to be Catholic, RL Vatican documents should be said to apply unless the player states otherwise. ~Συσκευηα

Reverted said changes. RL Vatican documents are not assumed to be true unless a given nation states that they do. In free-form roleplay, nations are blank slates until a description is created by the player - there is no "default" setting of politics or religion. NationStates nations are unaffected by the real world unless they specifically choose to let them be affected, and that's what this wiki will reflect. → Fris Θtalk 21:08, 30 Nov 2004 (GMT)
Changed it back again. Going to what you said, if a nation claims to adhere to an RL religion, the doctrines, documents etc. of said religion should be said to apply to the nation unless the other nation claims a valid reason otherwise (i.e. living in a parallel universe, for example), and "because I want to" does not count as a valid reason in my book. See my message to you. ~Συσκευηα

does not count as a valid reason in my book - You didn't write "the book" on NationStates, Max did. In my year on NationStates, I've never seen anyone but you require that any portion of "freeform roleplay" conform to specifics of real world activities. We went through this once before, Syskeyia - NSwiki:Arbitration/Syskeyia#Final_decision states quite clearly

3) Nations in NationStates have no direct correspondence to real-world nations unless the players behind them specifically say that they do.

This is official NSwiki policy now, and your edits are not acceptable. If you continue with these reversions, your account will be blocked. → Fris Θtalk 21:29, 30 Nov 2004 (GMT)


Interpretation of Frisbeetaria seconded. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 21:35, 30 Nov 2004 (GMT)


"3) Nations in NationStates have no direct correspondence to real-world nations unless the players behind them specifically say that they do." Well, if they specifically claim to follow an RL religion, then it should be assumed that the tenets and such of said religion should apply to them unless they specify otherwise (i.e. alternate universes and such.) ~Συσκευηα
If I want to say that bananas are purple in Frisbeeteria, or I drive a Mercedes Benz with eight wheels, I can. I don't have to develop any sort of elaborate back-history to explain it. I think you're getting bent out of shape because it's religion, someting you put a value to ... but NS is fiction, and freeform fiction at that. Your opinion has been noted, but it carries no weight in my nation nor on NSwiki. → Fris Θtalk 22:42, 30 Nov 2004 (GMT)

moved Eurusea comment to Comments section above

Neutral language?

I have to say that while I agree with the assessment of a lot of nations in the article, I don't think that the language is particularly neutral. Is that just me? I don't have a problem with the article pointing out some of the common extremist positions which are taken by NS Christian countries, but words like "fatwah" are pretty over the top. --Pantocratoria 01:48, 1 Dec 2004 (GMT)


If only it was... *cough* Syskeyian Senate issues death warrant to obscure Tanah Burung society writer. Something he wrote was too "effeminate". -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 11:00, 1 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Geez, Knootoss, must you show only one side of the story and omit the other? ~Συσκευηα
What exactly does that link prove? That your senate unanimously backed down from your unanimously issued fatwahish death threat because of massive international pressure and ridicule? You issued the thing in the first place. ICly. That is the key point here. You have acted perfectly well as a fundamentalist (or "orthodox", if you prefer) nation on that particular issue. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 21:35, 2 Dec 2004 (GMT)
Got to say, I don't think it is particularly orthodox to issue the death penalty to just about anybody, according to the copy of the catechism I've got on hand. I still don't like the term fatwah, I'd feel a lot better with a different word (although the term was created for situations exactly like this I suppose). My two ducats. ;) --Pantocratoria 13:01, 3 Dec 2004 (GMT)

moved specifics of User:Frisbeeteria changes to Comments section above

TB can't be "in defiance of" something they don't recognize at all, your interpretation nonwithstanding. If you can't do NPOV edits, then stay out of the topic altogether. → Fris Θtalk 17:54, 2 Dec 2004 (GMT)