Template talk:Dioism/Views

Neutrality

Let's be neutral. I mean, everyone is absolutely convinced that, outside the game, this book is a good story, but this wiki is written by citzens, not people. So it has to be regarded as a real religious book. When we talk about wars we talk about them as if they were real. Let's talk about this book as it if were a real religious book. --MiniBill chat with me 14:50, 28 June 2008 (BST)

I agree, but I don't want the template to say that the article is wrong. It does represent the history of Pakistan, but it is told with extensive hyperbole and exaggeration, as well as a lot of fiction.

Also, you have to take into consideration that Aryamehr is an Anti-Dioist, and is considered an enemy to Pakistan (He is the villain of The Book if you haven't noticed). His suggestions thus far have been mostly constructive, but I think he inclined to disagree with me out of principle, rather than out of the improvement of the article. --AgentChieftain (TALK|HIST) 15:06, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Changed a bit --MiniBill chat with me 15:09, 28 June 2008 (BST)

This text has no accuracy at all, even if one bit is correct there are a lot of parts that are not correct and there is no evidence at all that shows that this "book" is saying the truth. I don't care if it's religious or not, it contains biased information, direct attack on people and it provides no historical background for Erepublik so that should be said and nothing else. There is no "may" or "might" we all know it's wrong, biased etc. --Aryamehr 15:12, 28 June 2008 (BST)

As we all now The Bible (sorry for me citing a real book, but it helps to understand the point) is biased and inaccurate.

We just have to make clear that is a religious book, and it should be regarded like you regard a real religious book: it contains religion, not history --MiniBill chat with me 15:14, 28 June 2008 (BST)

I agree with that one. And it think we should use AgentChieftain's idea. A controversy page in the Book of Dio in which Citizens can read the difference between this religious article and the actual history of The New World. ----Belea2008 15:19, 28 June 2008 (BST)

And a link to the History of Erepublik. --Belea2008 15:23, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Well, the template was fine until someone changed it. It said that it was religious, biased and inaccurate. --Aryamehr

You don't say of a religious book that is biased and inaccurate, it's implicit.

On the other's hand saying that The Book of Dio is biased and inaccurate can be viewed by many as an offence --MiniBill chat with me 15:22, 28 June 2008 (BST)

So according to you it's fine to write whatever page you want as long as you name it "Religious book"? If I wrote a new "Religios book" just insults to everyone, would it be fine? This is just a question --Aryamehr 15:28, 28 June 2008 (BST)

And now, after this point, your opinion is irrelevant. --AgentChieftain (TALK|HIST) 15:32, 28 June 2008 (BST)

You didn't answer the question, AgentChieftain... I'm also curious about the answer to that question. --Belea2008 15:33, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Fine, but let it be known that he is trying to degrade the article, rather than improve it. He has previously vandalized four of the pages.

1. No, because this is relevant to Pakistan. You're overlooking the significance of The Book in Pakistani culture.
2. No.

--AgentChieftain (TALK|HIST) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (BST)

• +1 on the current version(the one intoducing "religious views") --MiniBill chat with me 15:24, 28 June 2008 (BST)
  
• +1 on the current version, since I wrote it. --AgentChieftain (TALK|HIST) 15:39, 28 June 2008 (BST)
  
• +1 on the current version, with the condition that the Book of Dio contains a controversy section (in which Citizens write the differences between the religious article and the actual History of the New World.) --Belea2008 15:43, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Was caps lock really necessary? :)

I will try to add that as soon as Admin approves of the contents of The Book. --AgentChieftain (TALK|HIST) 15:51, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Template

Speaking of which, MiniBill, is it possible to have the category link to the soon-to-be Controversy section, via an anchor or something? And do you think that would improve the quality of the template? --AgentChieftain (TALK|HIST) 15:56, 28 June 2008 (BST)

The link to the Controversy section can be added, IMHO in the template page. --MiniBill chat with me 16:00, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Fictional

I have added the phrase "Also these articles contain fictional parts." If you disagree with it, let's talk about it. --Belea2008 chew the fat 18:08, 9 July 2008 (BST)

I elaborated on that a little bit, based on an older version of the page. "It contains a lot of inaccurate information that Pakistani citizens have written for their enjoyment."

I have removed that phrase... wait a second.... --Belea2008 chew the fat 18:45, 9 July 2008 (BST)

Propositions until now:

• "Also these articles contain fictional parts." - Belea2008
  
• "It contains a lot of inaccurate information that Pakistani citizens have written for their enjoyment." - AgentChieftain
• "It contains a lot of inaccurate information that Pakistani citizens have written as their religious book." - Aryamehr

(wait a little more... I have more to add)

Religion or fun?

Leaving beside my last proposition (I have removed from my las edit), AgentChieftain.... I don't understand something... these texts are religious or enjoyment articles? --Belea2008 chew the fat 18:58, 9 July 2008 (BST)

They're both. The untrue/offensive parts of the book are intended to be funny. --AgentChieftain T / H / E 20:02, 9 July 2008 (BST)

As a Substitute of Template:Fictional

The original intent of this template was to mark Dioism-related articles as fictional and biased in favor of Dioism. I think that if this template is used, then Template:Fictional, which serves the same purpose, is not necessary on the page. This can be the same for ((Template:Church/Views)).

Agree/Disagree

Current consensus: +5 / -1

+1 - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}
+1 I totally agree.(Rufus)Honestly 05:22, 28 August 2008 (BST)
+1 Well, I agree. ----Altnabla 18:24, 30 August 2008 (BST)
+1 --Parsley Magnet 18:30, 30 August 2008 (BST)
+1 --Siclo T / H / E 18:37, 30 August 2008 (BST)

---

-1 No, and don't think you can get away by getting all the pakis to vote here in favor of this. Both templates will exist, because it's religious views and fictional information. --Aryamehr talk 18:31, 30 August 2008 (BST)

RufusHonestly isn't Pakistani. Also, you are usually the only one to disagree with things like this. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

I agree, we may all be from the same country, but at least there's more than one of us who agrees, unlike you who... oh wait nobody agrees with you. --Senor Schlong 18:36, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Nice one. If you want voting to work then it has to be open registration with the majority of the Erepublikan players. You can't vote when the majority of active editors are /v/ers that only come to vote things that in favor of them. Rufhonestly is just doing this because he is doing this church thingy. --Aryamehr talk 18:40, 30 August 2008 (BST)

And that's why RufusHonestly agrees; he has an opinion on this, and the change affects his work. That's the reason why his opinion counts, as does ours. This change doesn't affect the majority of Erepublik players. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

It can due to new players getting confused and getting fed with wrong information. It's fictional info, and it's part of a religious book. Simple as that, people will think religious book is legitimate.--Aryamehr talk 18:46, 30 August 2008 (BST)

While you can argue as much as you want. Fact is you're the only one complaining. ----Altnabla 18:48, 30 August 2008 (BST)

I'm positive that they will not think Dioism is a real-life religion. You should give new citizens at least a little credit. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

Is anybody else going to disagree? It's not really fair for Aryamehr if everyone who disagrees is remaining silent. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

Admin already disagreed and denied this after putting fictional and religious views on Sand Voting on everything is not fair as there are more active vakis and vaki friendly people than the rest. --Aryamehr talk 12:23, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Admin hasn't really been a part of this conversation yet; I'm almost certain that they're waiting for us to decide. Also, there are plenty of editors that aren't Pakistani, but they are not taking part in the discussion because it's not relevant to them. I can ask for people to voice their opinion via talk pages, but that would be a bit of a nuisance, don't you think? - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

Now that I think of it, you can ask the First Churchists if they have an opinion on the issue. I'm sure they're going to have an opinion on this matter. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

Voting is not always the right way to go. Debate and find the flaws and the good things. There is no reason not to have fictional and religious views. It needs to be said that this is fictional, and also part of religious views. As far as I know there is no clear message that religious views templates are fictional but I could be wrong, too lazy to check that up right now. --Aryamehr talk 13:01, 31 August 2008 (BST)

The fact that a religious work is fictional is implied.

If Template:Pakistan/Religious Views doesn't imply this, then I can add it to the template's page. It's what we originally made the template for, after all. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

I don't see anywhere on that template saying it's fictional. Just that it's the views of pakistna and not the new worl.d --Aryamehr talk 13:44, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Bumping to the top of Recentchanges one last time before I propose this to Admin. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 15:55, 5 September 2008 (BST)

This template is wrong.

According to the template, it says "Religious views of Pakistan" but I don't see any official referendum or majority of the Pakistani people following and doing what it says. Perhaps it should be changed to "Religious views of the Pakistani Government"? How can a few people force a religion on a whole country? --Aryamehr talk 18:07, 15 September 2008 (BST)

HAHAHA, No.

You're well aware that everyone who lives in Pakistan is a Dioist. We all came from the same place, and we're all following the same emperor. Are you going to keep asking me to do pointless crap to "confirm" our religion, or are you going to let me continue my constructive edits and improvements to the Wiki? - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 21:37, 15 September 2008 (BST)

I'll be a bit more specific.

Everyone in the Stardust Crusaders and it's satellite parties are Dioists. As you know, the Stardust Crusaders have always been in power. and have always held an outstanding majority. Ever since The Book of Dio was introduced, we've accepted it without question. There's no need for an "official referendum", since our doctrine has evolved from the Stardust Crusaders Charter itself.

Having Dio post a referendum asking if we hold the majority is, in essence, stupid. Pakistan has always been this way. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 21:51, 15 September 2008 (BST)