Forum:Keep real world religion off articles

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Keep real world religion off articles
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 November 2010 by Liquidhelium.

If one were to take the time to look at and compare the revision history of Zaros, you would see an awful lot of edit warring revolving around comparisons of real world religions to those of RuneScape. Now I certainly do see some similarities here and there, but one must consider all aspects of this. And a prime aspect is that there are so many different religions that what is lore in one may be blasphemy in another. This information, while maybe interesting to some, angers others. And lets be real for a second. We are a Wiki about an online game. We do not need these comparisons and conflict. So lets keep real religious references out of our articles for the sake of a bit of sanity.

Proposed: No real world religious comparisons in RuneScape wiki articles.--Degenret01 01:41, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As proposer ---Degenret01 01:41, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I find the comparisons very interesting, but I'd be happier if they were confined to the userspace. The bottom line remains that if we were to allow this, then anyone could pull a bunch of bullshit out of thin air and claim to have originated from a religion. The fact that there are about 100 million religions doesn't really help, either. --LiquidTalk 01:46, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - --Iiii I I I 01:46, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Is this going to be added to an existing policy, or will a new one be created? --Iiii I I I 01:47, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
I think this is just going to be something people can point to if a related edit war starts again. --LiquidTalk 01:50, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yea, what he said.--Degenret01 01:50, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
Generally, the forum where the rule was passed is cited whenever the rule is enforced. I try to keep track of these things here, but it's more of a futile attempt. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:51, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - While I also find these things interesting, I would doubt the reliability of any of the information, even if it was cited (in that the cited websites would be just as unreliable). It's safer to exclude the information completely. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:51, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Note that I do not support this because of political correctness and that I don't consider references to mythology (in this case, Egyptian) the same as religion. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:14, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
Changed to Oppose - These should be considered on a case-by-case basis, so a blanket rule against them would be arbitrary if we allow the exceptions I specified. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:32, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Zapport - As my comment on the Zaros talk page in the old war. ScionCrush 01:53, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Steler & OP Ablm578 01:55, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Now, you must realize what we are doing here. We are removing facts because they are offensive to some users. Where do we draw the line? What if I say I am offended by the fact that the article Saradomin exists? If I was to say that, that would mean one user is offended by the saradomin article and 0 are offended by the Zaros stuff. Should we then, delete the saradomin article? A line must be drawn before we even think of adding this policy. 97.114.132.167 01:57, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Generally, a good question to ask is: Does it appear in-game or any other official Jagex sources? The answer to the Zaros-Christianity parallels would be no. The answer to the Saradomin article would be yes. And we certainly can remove facts because they are offensive. What if someone said that the Zamorak stole looked like a penis? You're not going to allow that to stay, are you? --LiquidTalk 02:01, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Can it even vote? Its not even registered. ScionCrush 02:24, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing saying that IPs cannot discuss changes on the YG, since the changes also affect them. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:25, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Religion just causes problems, and thus if we don't try to bring Real world religion, the less problems we will have. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:02, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Black Zabbeth being based off Black Sabbeth isn't in any offical jagex sources. Guess you'll wanna remove that two? Its not a fact that the zamorak stole looks like a penis, its an opinion. I don't think it looks like one. I also hate edit conflicts.. so much..
Oh, and evil, its not cause any problems so far. At least, noone has been offeneded by it, its just been about if its speculation or not. 97.114.132.167 02:06, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Star FindTalk 02:28, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Simple and effective. Andrew talk 02:59, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that additions to articles such as this should be left out (implying that Zaros is Jesus? That's stretching it.), but saying that the desert gods are based on the ancient Egyptian gods or that Icthlarin's symbol is an ankh are both far more straightforward of a connection and completely logical to say. There are loads of references and whatnot that are never confirmed but remain undeniable, so when there's an obvious direct reference I don't think religious bits should be excluded. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 03:10, October 26, 2010 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

Support - Agreed, I don't think theories on connections between real world religion and RuneScape should be on the page. Blaze fire12 03:26, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - There are a lot of religions out there, and I'm sure you can find some similarities from RuneScape to most of them. It'd be best to just keep real world religion out of wiki articles. Suppa chuppa Talk 03:49, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - 99% of real world religion references are totally absurd and should be removed not because they are religious but because they make no sense. "Zarosism is like christianity cos there's a god! and some followers!" yea. Whatever. But such a policy would remove legitimate trivia such as the Desert pantheon's references to Egyptian religion and symbolism. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:59, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per Psycho, these should be viewed on a case-by-case basis. HaloTalk 04:16, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm sorry, but this is political correctness. And I hate political correctness. Per all. 222 talk 05:40, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Psycho, this will just make it harder but it needs to be case-by-case :/ - [Pharos] 05:49, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - (edit conflict) Per Psycho and 97.114.132.167. Matt (t) 05:50, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

oppose - per pyscho. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:00, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support for Zaros, oppose for Desert Pantheon - While the comparisons with Zaros are completely absurd, we should include that Icthlarin, Tumeken et al. are obvious references. Anyway, I don't think comparisons to Egyptian mythology will offend anyone. ʞooɔ 07:32, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? Maybe someone still believes in that. LordDarkPhantom 07:41, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Nobody is going to be offended by this, unless its badly worded/vandalism, in which case you can simply edit it. LordDarkPhantom 07:41, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Runescape isn't about the real world (well it gives you a lessons what the real world is (Like G.E)), but religion, real religion doesn't belong in a game... --Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk 07:53, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - With restrictions. As long as Jagex do not disclose which religion the Runescape religions are based off, the wiki should not link the two sides, as there are many of uncertain area between real religions, which causes confusion among editors. The items, NPCs amd interactable objects are allowed to be compared to real religious items and figures, like the holy chalice or so on, since they only depict relations with religions in general, but not pointing to any specular ones. Rewlf2 10:32, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per Psycho. Remove if it is nonsense, but if it does have a relation, then don't remove information. bad_fetustalk 13:10, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Psycho. BUKKITZ WEEL SMITE YOU!!!Murd3rlogistTalk Contribs Sign here 15:15, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As I am one of those editors of the Zaros page... sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:10, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Case-by-Case - Per Stelercus and Morian. I agree that things like the Desert Pantheon should be mentioned, but, like everyone else has said, the crud on the Zaros article - definitely not. If anyone finds it offensive, within reasonable terms, I think it should be removed. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:38, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Psycho. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 19:38, October 26, 2010 (UTC) 
Support, conditionally - The most common difference between a "mythos" or "pantheon" and a "Religion" is usually the number of adherents still left alive and/or worshipping. The cult of Horus is dead, without his ever having returned to the mortal world to avenge the death of his father, Osiris, and assuming the throne. That's a mythos. (It is dead, right?) Ditto, Chiron, son of Zeus, giving up his life to atone for the sins...er, crimes of Prometheus. But in say AD&D, how do you give Jesus Christ ability scores? All 25s? Then what does his Dad get? I support the prohibition on using religious comparisons, but oppose the exclusion of mythological comparisons. So does anyone we know worship Oghma? :) TheLastWordSword 19:56, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

You completely made up that distinction, and it's totally false. Mythologies are stories, religions are practices. (wszx) 22:08, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
A mythology is a religion that lost power. just as a religion is a cult that gained power ;) --jakezing 22:11, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
That's your opinion, which is wrong. Mythology is the study of myths, which are defined as traditional or legendary stories, usually involving some type of hero, that don't have a logical explanation. Religion is a set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Finally a cult is a religious sect that is considered to be false or unorthodox by the religion it is based off of. You need to learn a few things. HaloTalk 22:18, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
So we cant call the greek/roman mythology religion, despite the placement of all the standard religion stuff? And you didn't follow the quote i used.--jakezing 00:50, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
Ancient Greek and Roman mythologies were not religions, they were the stories which were used by the religions. (wszx) 02:12, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
So would you say that the story of Gabriel is mythology?  Tien  02:38, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
This is major flamebait and is in no way productive, so we shall end this discussion. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:17, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
Chill your pills Psycho. It has been suggested that the desert pantheon's parallels would be permissible because they correspond to ancient Egyptian beliefs, which people don't really follow any more. Given that sort of talk, it's important that we're all on the same page as to what the terms "mythology" and "religion" mean. And to Tien, yes. Gabriel is a mythological character from the Abrahamic religions. (wszx) 03:29, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
Mm, that was all I wanted to know. I was not expecting anything more than a simple answer to the question, though I suppose that the "So" in front gave the impression of aggression.  Tien  03:34, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to single out religion as impermissible. Rigorous, consistent and reasoned application of the trivia and NPOV policies will handle this content just fine on a case-by-case basis. (wszx) 22:08, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support on condition - going into details is not needed but a cursory mention is acceptable. --jakezing 22:11, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This discussion would go far more smoothly if we focused on if the comparisons between Runescape religions and real-life ones have MERIT. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't think the desert pantheon is based on Egyptian beliefs, but the Zaros comparisons are far more speculatory. Speculation has no place on the wiki. If, however, Jagex were to say that Zarosianism WAS based of Christianity, then the mention of this would be permissible, and, indeed, required.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.30.18.7 (talk).

..In which case you OPPOSE. This wants to ban all religions. You, however, want to judge them on a case by case basis. That is exactly what we do now, and, thus, from your point of view nothing needs to be changed. Oh, and no one on this wiki ever said zaros was based off christianity. 75.174.232.112 09:56, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - by removing all real world region won't make anything on the wikia then just not seeing it but it will be good, because this isn't the real world. --Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk 10:00, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I challenge you to go remove all Black Sabbeth references from Black zabeth due to the fact that "this is not the real world." See how good you do with that. So tired if everything I do being removed while I'm gone. Seriously, cant you just leave these articles alone? 3rd age farcaster 10:06, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
The references do exist. If Jagex wanted to make them irrelevant to irl things, they could easily accomplish it. However, they do have a relevance to real life. Thus, removing them means removing information, which would be utterly pointless. bad_fetustalk 14:27, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
So why remove the zaros stuff, but not black zabeth? 75.174.232.112 16:20, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
Black Zabeth is reasonable, however Zaros is UNreasonable. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 22:14, October 29, 2010 (UTC)We wouldn't remove Black Zabeth 'cos we use common sense in these situations. Real Nub 15:55, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
The zaros stuff is facts, and only facts. You think facts are unreasonable? 75.174.232.171 16:29, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
Removal of anything unreasonable is already covered. There is no need to remove any reasonable references to real world religions. bad_fetustalk 15:48, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Completely banning references to real-world religion is not right. It might be a touchy subject, but if the information is legitimate, connections between the game and real-world religion should be allowed on the Wiki. If it's something completely obvious like the Desert Pantheon or the Holy Grail, then that information should absolutely remain. But total speculation, like the garbage we constantly see on the Zaros article, should be removed. Situations like this need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Blindly censoring the Wiki is not at all how we should deal with this. Quest.png Morian Smith Saradomin crozier.png 23:26, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per other opposition. I would have agreed with this at first had it not been that some are identical (as pointed out by several others) to their real world counterparts. I had also thought that using common sense and a neutral point of view would rid us of pure speculation. I guess not by seeing the Zaros article. Remember, we aren't them. We are an unbiased source at all times, don't present a roadblock with juxtaposed positions, it only creates speculation. Ryan PM 03:19, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Ryan, UCS should tell us when we're going too far, and NPOV *should* stop us from speculating. PS I lol'd at RS on Conservapedia Real Nub 08:50, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Psycho, case-by-case. Do we really need a long YG discussion any time a single edit war takes place? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 15:42, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Psycho and 97.114.132.167. Seijana 21:32, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional support - As long as it follows a guideline similar to RS:IAR I will accept it. --クールネシトーク 02:21, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Nobody has posted in over a week, and there is nothing close to concensus. Religion references will continue to be judged on a case-by-case basis. 75.174.232.171 19:56, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

{{Closure}} ----クールネシトーク 20:31, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus. General sentiment has trended towards a case-by-case examination instead of a blanket ban. RS:UCS should be used to determine if a reference to religion is acceptable. --LiquidTalk 00:36, November 14, 2010 (UTC)