Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fennoscandian Split"

Revision as of 08:19, 28 March 2007

This is not written from a neutral point of view (not surprising considering the author), and as such is not appropriate as Wiki-content. It is heavily biased, insulting and therefore not encyclopedic in nature. [unsigned comment]

In that case, it needs an NPOV tag, not an inclusion one. Unless you're saying that there was no such thing as a "Fennoscandian Split"? This is an issue for those who know about the topic at hand. We (sysops) will step in if you cannot resolve it through discussion and consensus, or if you need moderation. Aridd 20:08, 7 February 2007 (GMT)

Thanks, inclusion tag changed to NPOV tag. There were a number of nations that left Scandinavia to instead found Fennoscandia. But the author of this article (who is residing in Scandinavia) is writing from a non-neutral point of view. Furthermore he is writing in slanderous conjecture about other nations and another region, without neither consultation nor consent from the nations and the region about which he writes. [Frestonia]

The article looks fairly neutral in its current form; both sides seem to be presented in a balanced manner and -judging by the talk section- it appears to be an accurate, if brief, account of the event. Anyone up for inclusion? -BENTON//Ioavollr

Actually-

Actually there's nothing on that page that is disputable "yet". Everything Frestonia has claimed so far is false, and Frestonia (the leader of the mentioned circle) is still being a Tyrant. They tried to control the U.N. vote, They tried to control Scandinavia as a whole, The I.S.S.P. backed them down and they got fed up with the Founder/I.S.S.P. labeled them Fascists and left.

Erikr Haakon - Odhinnia

Also, Frestonia is just blowing steam because they are irate at the fact I can pick apart nations and instigate "trouble" without ever having to leave Scandinavia... They even resulted to some very foul and inappropriate language as of late. Fennoscandia loathes the name Odhinnia.

Fennoscandia

Fennoscandia

World Factbook Entry: Founded 2006-06-04.

A clean natural environment, with bountiful resources, marked by ecologically sustainable development. An open and democratic political environment, with the rights and freedoms of the people in focus, marked by regional and international cooperation.

If you believe in democracy and the reconciliation of economic progress with social justice and protection of the environment, then you will feel right at home in Fennoscandia. If not, then you are better off just passing by.

All that = Pro-Democratic Environmentalists.

Bottom line:

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/NPOV

Quotes from the NPOV policy article:

"NSwiki policy is that all articles should have a neutral point of view."

"The neutral point of view policy states that one should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly."

"The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct."

Quotes from the "Fennoscandian Split" article:

"The Majority of the nations that left to form Fennoscandia were for the most part Die-Hard Democrats. They were a "Circle" of Democratic nations that attempted to Police Scandinavia to Democratic Pacifist Standards. Most nations of this "Circle" were U.N. Nations, and they attempted to control the U.N. vote of Scandinavia as well.

The bolded statements from the article are biased, accusatory slander and outright lies, written by one nation about other nations. Therefore this article does not conform to the NSwiki NPOV policy.

About the only part of this article that Fennoscandian nations would agree on and accept is: "On 2006-06-04 several nations departed Scandinavia for a newly formed region labeled Fennoscandia". And there's not much point in having an article that only states that.

This issue is one that unfortunately cannot ever be resolved through discussion and consensus. The opposing views are simply too disparate.

[Frestonia, on behalf of Fennoscandia]

In that case, you write in both points of view, clearly explaining whose is whose. You phrase it in such a way as to make it acceptable - i.e., "they allegedly attempted to control the UN vote of Scandinavia, an accusation which they deny". Although that bit shouldn't really be included at all unless there are concrete examples as proof? In which case: "[specific nation 1] has accused [specific nation 2] of [specific act] in [specific instance / example]; [specific nation 2] denies this, and explains that [insert explanation for the controversy]." It's your story; I can't write it for you. All I can do is give you hints on NPOVing. Aridd 17:35, 8 February 2007 (GMT)

Thank you for your reply and advice.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned previously, it just will not be possible to compose an article on why a number of nations left Scandinavia for Fennoscandia that is acceptable to all involved. At least not by the author of the current article (Odhinnia), and since he is the only one with any interest in creating one, it just won't happen.

No Fennoscandian nation is interested in seeing such an article in the first place. Any article on the issue that is composed without our consent and consultation will be contested, and any article that slanders us or makes accusations and allegations will be contested.

So the only alternative as we see it is deletion.

[Frestonia, on behalf of Fennoscandia]

If such an event happened, and someone wants to write about it, you can't expect them to be prevented from doing so. A neutral point of view means including everyone's perspective objectively. You can help, as I indicated, by rewriting this article to give it an NPOV, including all points of view and phrasing it in such a way that it does not take sides. But it cannot be deleted simply because you don't want to contribute to it. Aridd 18:01, 8 February 2007 (GMT)

Very well... Such a solution could conceivably be plausible. Except for two things:

1: It would likely inevitably turn into a sort of "Catch 22" situation with endless disputes and edits due to the irreconcilable nature of the opposing viewpoints.

2: The original author (Odhinnia) likely never had any intention of presenting both sides of the story, but was rather set on slinging mud unopposed, and definitely had no intention of allowing any Fennoscandian nation to edit the article. The latter is evident as per this post made by Odhinnia, copied from the Scandinavian Regional Messageboard:

By request of many newer nations.... and one that particularly influenced me. I will be starting a wiki on the Scandinavian-Fennoscandian split. I will name names and tell how controlling the a certain ring of nations tried to be..... but Founder Muspellheim along with the ISSP would not allow them the level of control they were seeking to obtain.... Any Current Scandinavian Nation that has been here since BEFORE the split is welcome to Post in this wiki, but I ask it to be kept orderly... and that you create a log-in name so we can see who edited what.

FENNOSCANDIAN NATIONS ARE NOT WELCOME TO EDIT THIS WIKI-PAGE! (OOC: If any Scandinavian player has a nation In Fennoscandia.... Be mindful that this is in the SCANDINAVIAN section, not a Fennoscandian event.)

Erikr Haakon - Chieftain of Odhinnia

All in all, I personally would prefer if this was taken directly to Mediation Request, or possibly even Arbitration Request.

[Frestonia, on behalf of Fennoscandia]

Re the "FENNOSCANDIAN NATIONS ARE NOT WELCOME TO EDIT THIS WIKI-PAGE!" comment: NSwiki belongs to User:Goobergunch. Users such as Odhinnia create and edit articles here by his kind permission. They do not have the right to say who may or may not edit those articles. This is public domain. Anyone may edit any wiki article which has not been locked by sysops. Furthermore, an NSwiki article is not to put forth a particular point of view; quite the opposite. The author cannot prevent you from editing and NPOVing "his" article. Aridd 20:13, 8 February 2007 (GMT)

How bout if change the title to "Fennoscandian Split: Scandinavia's View" if i can get together a consensus of The "Active" Scandinavian Nations that were resident before the split? - Odhinnia

Sorry, no. An article should never present a single point of view. The very purpose of an NSwiki article is to present a neutral point of view on a specific topic. Aridd 20:13, 8 February 2007 (GMT)

I would like this to be added below Nations that Left:

Two specific non-democratic nations that left to join Fennoscandia were Quislington and Q World Dominion. Both nations were ejected from the region for their choice of government; however, Q World Dominion was allowed re-admittance. Quislington was not allowed re-admittance and returned to Scandinavia.

-Odhinnia

That appears to be purely factual, so go ahead. Unless there's actually dispute as to whether they truly were "non-democratic"? Aridd 20:42, 8 February 2007 (GMT)

Actually, it isn't purely factual. Neither of those nations were ejected because of their form of government. Quislington was ejected because of its choice of nation name - after Vidkun Quisling, infamous norwegian fascist and nazi collaborator, and its national motto; WWQD? (What Would Quisling Do) Aridd, I am aware that the author of an article cannot prevent anyone from editing and NPOVing it. The purpose of the copied post from the Scandinavian message board was to show that Odhinnia had (and ultimately has) no desire to present any non-biased, non-slandering view, which will make editing, solving disputes and reaching any consensus a more than arduous task.

But no matter, if it is the only thing that can be done to counter his spewing of lies and baseless accusations, then Fennoscandia will do it.

[Frestonia, on behalf of Fennoscandia]

Q is flaming with their edits. Odhinnia resents being in the same category with Nazism Because our form of Fascism as any form of Fascism is totally differnt from Nazism.... Because Nazism is SOCIALISM.

I've made a small NPOV change to the last sentence. Odhinnia has stated, by e-mail, that no proof exists regarding him using multiple nations. Inserting "allegedly" into the statement keeps the issue in the article, while showing that it's disputed. Aridd 14:19, 6 March 2007 (GMT)

Editing this article is now blocked

Enough! You've been asked not to constantly revert one another's edits, and you've been asked to use this discussion page to agree on a neutral, consensual version. No further edits to the article will be allowed until you have agreed on a new version here. Aridd 16:33, 19 March 2007 (GMT)

I believe that is a good call at this point, Aridd. I had a feeling it would become this way, and sadly I was right. As soon as I receive the log in information needed to take control of the user account Odhinnia created in my nation name (Frestonia), as I have discussed with Pacitalia, I'll try and chip in with some editing of this article.

Provided Odhinnia - whom it seems is now once again editing this article despite being blocked from NSWiki, now under the user name 'Erikr Haakon' - is willing to actually talk and actually reach a consensus.

[Frestonia]

Regarding your account, a message was left on Goober's talk page on February 21st; I'm surprised he hasn't got back to you on it. I've just sent him a TG, but his nation on NS hasn't been accessed for 11 days now, so I don't know when he'll receive it. Aridd 19:08, 19 March 2007 (GMT)

Quoting word for word from the Disclaimer "We would also like to make especially clear that NSwiki is an unofficial site and is not endorsed by either Jennifer Government: NationStates or Jolt Online Gaming. Although it is frequented by many NationStates players, we have no official affiliation with the site and remain an exceedingly unofficial site - NationStates and its administrators and moderators are not liable for any of the content of NSwiki." - Impersonation is impossible since there is no direct connection between the two sites? There's also nothing in the TOS about it. I've been "Authorized" by Kori (The Player known as Odhinnia and Erikr Haakon) to make edits on his behalf under one of his NS-Ingame-names.... To confirm you may telegram Odhinnia on www.nationstates.net to verify. He is willing to co-operate under the circumstances that Q World Dominion be reprimanded for his continuous malicious postings.--Erikr Haakon 00:40, 21 March 2007 (GMT)

Assuming you are not Odhinnia (by now, we have no reason to trust your word on it), impersonation is impersonation. It has been proved that Odhinnia tried to pass himself off as the player who controls the nation Frestonia. That was clearly malicious. Nor is this the issue at hand on this talk page. Aridd 12:43, 25 March 2007 (GMT)

Just delete it

This article is just utterly ridicilous. Definetly very far from being neutral. At least in it's present form. The last chapter has no truth to it whatsover. I don't see how, when about a group of 5 people wish to control the opinions 130-150 other nations is more democratic, than each of those nations controlling themselves. When latter is the factual situation in Scandinavia and always has been. Neither I can change what people imagine based from my nations title/motto/high ranking/flag or whatever, but it's all in their imagination, and has absolutely nothing to do with how the region is "run". But when the figments of peoples imaginations are in conflict with practice and real events, this hardly is a neutral point of view. Who ever locked it, should delete the last chapter at least. Or better yet, just delete the whole article, it is pointless.

If people really want to keep this article. My suggestion for the last chapter is this. This is entirely factual and as neutral as possible:

Frestonia (if I remember right) requested via telegram from Scandinavias founder Muspellheim, that some new nations were to be kicked out of Scandinavia, these nations were perceived by Frestonia to be national socialist or fascist. But since it is Scandinavias policy to allow nations of all ideologies to reside in Scandinavia, Muspellheim denied the request. As result Frestonia formed a region of his own, where he can kick out nations, that have politics that majority of Fennoscandias Security Council(?) doesn't agree with.

Remove the parts between (). And keep it locked like that.

--Muspellheim 01:57, 25 March 2007 (GMT)

That looks vaguely familiar, OH! That's very similar to what Odhinnia originally posted and was called a slanderer for, but it's turning out to be the TRUTH after all!

--216.79.145.128 12:28, 25 March 2007 (GMT)

The article will not be unlocked until consensus has been reached, on this talk page, regarding what its content should be. Or until there's consensus to delete it. Aridd 12:43, 25 March 2007 (GMT)

Deletion or Muspelheim's choice of words is fine with me. Fennoscandian nations are putting up so much red tape, the truth will never be "known" to anyone who does not already know it. --216.79.145.128 14:59, 25 March 2007 (GMT)

If you write a paragraph title "Reasons for Leaving", such as Odhinnia did, who do you think has the authority to write the content ? Yes, indeed, the nations that left ! Whoever disputes this primary logic has a big problem.

The statement on "the ISSP was there with massive military force blabla" was written by Odhinnia and can be removed for me

The other statements are "purely factual" (the buzz word on this discussion): There is no democratic process in Scandinavia: Muspellheim acts as a dictator, booting nations or not booting them according to his own principles. When did we ever had a vote in Scandinavia on any action by the Founder?

Not that I have anything against dictators, I am one myself, however don't pretend to be a super-democratic Founder, while you decide everything yourself.

Q

Well now, Muspellheim... Good to see that you at least care enough about something to actually come here. Not as good to see that you are, not surprisingly, siding with the one that started this debacle however.

In response to your little tirade: You know, one would have thought that a responsible, conscientious regional founder would have acted and reacted when a number of nations flying doppel sig runes, odal runes etc. (both of which are punishable by law to display in Germany and considered extremely offensive) in their flags arrived from an openly nazi region called "Axis" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=axis), and immediately started raising a ruckus.

As you may remember, I called it from the very beginning - before it happened - that allowing these nations to remain in Scandinavia would inevitably create controversy. And therefore I contacted you and suggested - not requested - that they should be booted, since I believed that was the only sensible and responsible thing to do. Considering that Scandinavia at that point was a region with close to 180 nations - that's a lot of nations to take the risk of offending. You didn't take my advice, and things turned out the way they have. Do not believe for a second however - as you wrote - that this was the only precipitating reason Fennoscandia was founded. Also, Fennoscandia wasn't my idea and project. I merely acted as the founding 'proxy'. There was massive displeasure and outrage over both how your region was run, its inhospitable political climate and your lenience towards openly nazi and fascist nations.

If you want to associate with nazis and fascists, if you silently condone nazis and fascists or if you even approve of nazis and fascists, then that is your prerogative. But there are many, in fact I would wager that it is the vast majority, that do not want to associate with nazis and fascists. You may think it 'democratic' to allow a handful of openly nazi and fascist nations to remain in your region, but seeing as how you have a history of booting or threatening to boot nations merely because they opposed or criticized you, you are in no credible position to play the benevolent, tolerant, democratic founder when - as Q said - you are anything but. And definitely do not join in with Odhinnia's/Kori's mindless rhetoric and accusations that the nations in Fennoscandia are not democratic because we don't tolerate nazi/fascist nations. That only serves to make you look stupid.

As for you, "216.79.145.128", whoever you are (judging by your Edit History, it seems very plausible that you are none other than Odhinnia): There is no "TRUTH" to be told here. Truth is just that - an uncomplicated, objectively verifiable thing. Truth is not subjective speculations and accusations. So until you are mature enough to stop resorting to subjective speculations and accusations, do not presume to even talk about "TRUTH". Much as you should not presume to even talk about or demand tolerance and respect as long as you profess to political ideologies that embody intolerance and disrespect.

Anyhow: Deletion of the article is something I personally wouldn't have any objections to. After all, I requested it to begin with. Eventhough I actually have started on an article - despite not really having the time and energy for it - to present the events in as neutral a way as possible.

[Frestonia - whom is growing more than tired of this]

Once again Frestonia fails to see the border between Life and Game. If you can't accept all type of Role play then you don't need to play. Maybe some hold National Socialist, or Fascist beliefs in real life, but maybe they don't. Step away from the game a While so you can distinguish between The real world and the Nation States World.

Democracy? An excellent Example, You all stated that only a hand full of nations left, and Scandinavia was at a population of 180 nations... 180 nations minus 20 nations = 160 nations...... That means a vast majority was not disturbed by the "Fascist/Nazi" presence. To go further, some of the nations that left still carry diplomatic ties and even friendships with Odhinnia..... Like South Onderon and Trader Kings. If Muspelheim had acted on this Minority's request then that would be surely "Undemocratic" by nature. Also, It was brought to my attention that Q World Dominion too was a belligerent plague on Scandinavia such as that you Claim Odhinnia to be. So let the Hypocrisy show in it's fullness.

The I.P. 216.79.145.128 Is a LAN I.P. belonging to the College Kori and I attend. So sue me for being forced to share the LAN router I.P. Any other bubbles needing bursting? --Erikr Haakon 21:02, 26 March 2007 (GMT)

Oh boy, where to start...?

Right, so what you're saying is that faced with players/nations that fly nazi paraphernalia and symbols, openly and proudly admit to holding nazi/fascist beliefs and come from a region (Axis) that does the same and where every other post on the RMB is a "Sieg Heil!" or "White Power!", one should assume that they are merely role playing, are nice guys in real life and don't pay any heed to it? I suppose that when Odhinnia/Kori has been behaving like a prick here on NSWiki and elsewhere, you believe one should assume that he is merely role playing as well? Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Yes, there is a difference between RP'ing a prick and being a prick, but from what I've seen, your little buddy Kori falls squarely within the latter category. While a good example of the former category is South Onderon. The player behind South Onderon has been brilliantly RP'ing a prick in the past, and there have been times when I have thoroughly enjoyed that.

Also, you haven't got your facts straight regarding the figures. Seeing as how you apparently weren't playing by the time these events transpired (?), but have received all your information as hearsay (from Odhinnia/Kori likely), that is understandable. What is not understandable however is how come you even deem yourself qualified to partake in such a definitive, assured way in any discussions concerning the events, when all information you have is second hand, fed to you from a biased source.

When Fennoscandia was founded, its number of nations when things had settled down was not 20 - it was 38, and that is excluding the few stragglers that were only 'testing the waters', that is Zyklon B, Quislington and Odhinnia's puppet Askjavik. Since the number of nations in Scandinavia at that point was 178, that translates to between 1/4 - 1/5 of the total nation tally of Scandinavia. That's hardly a 'handful', but is rather quite massive from my point of view. Furthermore, bear in mind that most players do not actively role play, keep up with events in their regions or even check the RMB's. Most players aren't even aware of or care about other player's nations and what is happening around them, but are content with just tinkering with their own respective nations.

Regarding the Q, you don't even know anything about that nation, the player behind it and the events that transpired in Scandinavia before you started playing - and neither does Odhinnia/Kori. I do. So again, do not be too assured of things that transpired before when all information you have is second hand hearsay. And before you get any ideas: No, I am not the player behind Q.

To finish this, let me assure you however, that no matter how annoying and dislikable I find Odhinnia/Kori and his ilk to be, they were by no means the deciding factor in precipitating the founding of Fennoscandia - eventhough they may like to think so. They were merely the last straw.

The main underlying reasons were events that transpired before either you or Odhinnia came to Scandinavia.

In a brief summary, the nations that formed Fennoscandia envisioned a region that would work co-operatively, where everyone could have a say in how the region should work and be developed. Scandinavia doesn't work that way. Never has and never will. Not as long as Muspellheim and the I.S.S.P nations remain there. Fennoscandian nations did not and could not feel at home in a region where the founder in their eyes shows a complete disinterest in, and even active oppostion to, any and all suggestions and initiatives to develop the region. Where even such a trivial thing as updating the World Factbook Entry with a link to a regional forum - something which a founder with even the slightest interest in developing the region and make it a decent place to be for its nations would see as a given - requires you to more or less cajole and beg for it.

A few points in case: "I am the ruler of Scandinavia. If you don't like it, you may leave. If you continue this discussion, I will help you leave.", "Recruiting is retarded, we won't do that!", "Shut up or be silenced permanently!", "I say, you do!", "No assembly will be allowed to represent Scandinavia.", "Don't bother. It will just be like the fourth or fifth forum that nobody ever uses."

Any of these bites sound familiar? To you, they likely don't, but to Muspellheim, they should. Because these are all more or less verbatim things Muspellheim has said in the face of various players with various suggestions on developing Scandinavia or with complaints about his disinterest in doing so.

If you enjoy staying in a region that works in such an autocratic and constraining way, then good for you. The Fennoscandian nations didn't.

Now, to all involved: Do we have a consensus on deleting this article so that we may end this tiresome, pointless ordeal? Or does anyone insist on continuing it?

[Frestonia]

Surely Surtr is not as bad as you would make him out to be..... Just a benevolent dictator. As of recent if you would check the Scandinavian World Fact Book Entry, it has the newest forum on it, aswell as the wiki. Odhinnia campaigned for Wiki usage among Scandinavia nations and to have the link In the Fact Book Entry.

Zyklon B <- The name it's self is a Nazi Concept and you dare to talk about Odhinnia/Kori being Nazi. And Zyklon B is a wanderer, they never stay in one region long at all..... 1/4 to 1/5 of the population left? That's still not a majority..... And even non "RPing" nations are allowed a vote in a FAIR Democracy.

To talk of Biased Referencing, You get your information on Kori as a Roleplayer from a biased source, yourself. Maybe if you would ask a nation like Trader Kings or South Onderon... you could dig a little deeper to see his true style of RP past his belligerent tough guy Erikr Haakon.

As for a consensus to delete... Q seems to want to keep the page. He mentioned not once deletion in either a positive or negative manner. Also there has been another nation in this discussion iavollr... Perhaps to reach a consensus either, but preferably both of these nations should state their opinions.

--Erikr Haakon 12:19, 28 March 2007 (GMT)