User talk:AgentChieftain/Sandbox/Censorship in Dioism

I've started this article in my sandbox for a number of reasons:

1. To abide by the rules: I want to be doubly sure that this page does not violate Rule 7.2 in that it might be considered critical of censorship to discuss it. I want to be able to record events that have taken place regarding censorship in a neutral manner, as I believe that it is a significant part of Pakistan's history. All actions of censorship included on this page should only be recording the event, and not criticizing the event.
2. To ensure it's neutrality: I, the initial author of this article, am one who is often censored. As such, the article might reflect my opinions on the matter. This is not my goal, however, and I want others to edit the article to make sure it maintains a neutral point of view.
3. To determine what is allowed: In this article, I would like to at least partially include information about the phrase "pig disgusting" and it's influence on our culture. It was at one point the most prominent phrase uttered in the game, and it has left a lasting effect on Pakistani, Swedish, and Spanish society, to the point that Misho, one citizen who used to frequently reported the phrase's use, began using it in self-criticism in his newspaper. In spite of this, the article on the subject was deleted, so I want to reopen this case for consideration, and possibly offer for a neutral entity to rewrite it.
4. To prevent vandalism from my peers: This is obviously a subject that might be considered "touchy" for some Pakistani editors, as well as other citizens and editors with the experience of being censored. I think measures may need to be taken to prevent vandalism of the article, as it has the potential to be a frequent target.
5. To be accurate on the subject: During the later changes made to Criticism of Dioism, a page very similar to this one in terms of subject matter, some editors began to have disputes on the nature of the criticisms in the article, such as the one made by Aryamehr. I would like to prevent arguments such as these from springing up, because they're counterproductive and entirely useless to both the editors and the wiki as a whole.
6. To keep all of it tidy and in one place: Another problem with Criticism of Dioism is that the page is rather sloppy in it's current form, which results from an edit war and some changes that didn't hold to the format of the article. I'd like to prevent this from happening before releasing this article into the main namespace, as keeping the article in such an ugly state is insulting to our religion and the wiki that contains it. I would hate to see another potentially good page go to waste as a result of scuffles over editor's opinions.

And with that, I'm opening this article for discussion. Don't be shy in your suggestions, please. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 21:59, 30 January 2009 (PST)

Name

My first idea - I have a problem with the word "censorship" and with "in Dioism".
Censorship is often perceived as a negative action, therefore I propose we use the idea of "Content deletion"
I have the impression that you want to record certain "important" content deletion by the team, not Dioism-related only ones, therefore I propose the idea "in the New World".
New name proposal: Content deletion in the New World or something like that. Opinions? --Geo "Talk Pages" Belea 03:37, 5 February 2009 (PST)

Wouldn't this be changing the subject entirely? My intent with this page was to describe the phenomenon in Dioism specifically. Having a page for "Content Deletion" in general isn't a bad idea, but it would bring questions of notability into play, and it might become a frequent target of people who have been banned for vulgarities.

Also, Content deletion can have a negative connotation as well. Here's one that ties in with the religion theme: apologetics. What do you think? - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 03:58, 5 February 2009 (PST)

The main idea is that I do not understand the purpose of this page - recreating "Criticism of Dioism" or what? I have read your explanations in the talk page and the article so far and I fail to see clearly what it the goal of this page. :| --Geo "Talk Pages" Belea 04:29, 5 February 2009 (PST)

No, but I can see where you're going with this. Where Criticism of Dioism covers the viewpoints of critics of Dioism, this page would cover Admin involvement and the effects Admin has on Dioism. The two subjects are similar, but I don't think that the Tardigrade event for example would be called a "criticism". - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 04:38, 5 February 2009 (PST)

Well, I still disagree with the word censorship. :| --Geo "Talk Pages" Belea 04:56, 5 February 2009 (PST)

What do you think of "apolgetics", as I pointed out earlier? - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 04:57, 5 February 2009 (PST)

How about offense principle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations_on_freedom_of_speech ??? --Geo "Talk Pages" Belea 05:09, 5 February 2009 (PST)

That's an excellent suggestion, but I think it would sound awkward in the title of the page. Also, where "offense principle" refers specifically to a limitation in freedoms of speech, "apologetics" refers to the similar concept of changing extreme or unethical views to match modern or common standards. Both are appropriate, but I'm leaning towards Apologetics. Would you like to call a vote for consensus? - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 05:24, 5 February 2009 (PST)

First phrase

Due to its nature as a religion and the beliefs of it's followers, Dioism is frequently censored to protect the interests of the eRepublik staff.
Since when? As in do you really consider that content is deleted because it is a religion? Is it a joke? :D Also, to protect the team's interests? Since when? :D (you lost me) --Geo "Talk Pages" Belea 05:15, 5 February 2009 (PST)

I can change it to "nature of the beliefs of it's followers", which implies that the beliefs are profane. How would you suggest changing "interests of the eRepublik staff"? - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 05:19, 5 February 2009 (PST)

A final idea for today

This is going nowhere.... :( In order to (me) move on (for the moment) my general idea is like this. The team deletes content. Yes, it can be called censorship, although I (personally) totally disagree with that word and I can find a lot of other words that are not so negative. But it is done because that content does not respect the Rules (especially for not respecting rule 2 and rule 3). It is not done because the team dislike religion or it does not like how people think or because they are Gods or whatever, it is done because citizens break rules. I will disagree with any any idea that doesn't clearly state the bold phrase. Have fun at editing and I wish you all to have a great day! --Geo "Talk Pages" Belea 05:31, 5 February 2009 (PST)

Alright.

I'd like to point out that most of my ideas for this page (As well as many other of the pages on Dioism) are being based on how religions are covered on Wikipedia. I've modeled {{Dioism}} mostly after {{Template:Islam}} and {{Template:Christianity}}, and that this page is inspired directly by similar pages on Wikipedia.

You're right, however. The point of view of the article shouldn't really stray away from the fact that rules were being broken. When you're ready to work on this page again, I'd like to know your opinion on the current content of the article, specifically the Discrepancies section. Have a good evening, Belea. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 05:38, 5 February 2009 (PST)

Before this goes out to the "real deal"..

I would like to point out a few stuff as it seems to have a lot of bias and similiar. I don't have time now, whenever you guys are done let me know please? --Aryamehr talk 05:39, 5 February 2009 (PST)

Go right ahead, that is what I'm trying to remove. Try to keep the previous discussion in mind, though; the article needs quite a bit of work, and Belea hasn't said all that he had wanted to say. Also, please be sure to keep your comments polite. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 05:46, 5 February 2009 (PST)