Talk:Republic of Fwuvoghor/Era II

Edit Wars

OK, let's see what we can do to end this edit war. I'd like both of the interested parties, Chénier and Ceorl, I believe, to post their desired resolution to this issue here. Then we can discuss this in a civilized manner, and work out what we can do to get a page that both parties feel is acceptable. I would ask both of you to keep in mind that the wiki is a cooperative effort. In a public, shared page such as those found under a root-level realm page, no one person has the right to determine what the page will show, or the exact specifics or viewpoint. In a case where the two parties have unresolvable differences, we may have to resort to a very neutral main page, and two separate subpages with each side's specific viewpoint. I would hope that we can arrive at some such compromise. We have about a week and half before the protection on the main page expires. I think that we can arrive at this compromise before that happens. --Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Since that was already what I was doing, I'm in favour of having parallel accounts of RoF's history displayed. Neutrality, by past experiences with RoF and BT history pages, in impossible to obtain. -Chénier 15:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose having subpages, such as Republic of Fwuvoghor/Era II/Republican, Republic of Fwuvoghor/Era II/Monarchist, Republic of Fwuvoghor/Era III/Republican, and so forth. I was most involved in era II, but I see things I'd eventually like to nuance or correct in all of the time periods. Having a disclaimer announcing that RoF was divided in two groups, Teroist monarchists and Qyrvagg republicans, who alternated power frequently and constantly fought for control for the greater part of RoF's history, and that as such, monarchist and republican accounts of history were different and could be found in separate documents. -Chénier 01:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The republicans ousted the monarchists and took power. So i believe the official version showed in the history should be the republican version, because the republicans *ran* the government and wrote the history books. Having a link to a document which contains the monarchist viewpoint instead of the eras (which were designated by the republicans), portrays the monarchist view as the official version. In the interest of compromise however, I am open to a link to Cheners version under Republic of Fwuvoghor#Other Resources.

That doesn't even make sense, because the monarchists took over in the second era, and then kicked the republicans out of the realm entirely in the end. By your arguments, there shouldn't even be a single of your versions. The republicans did not always run the government, and books can be rewritten, much as you rewrote the history of the times you did not rule after taking power. -Chénier 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The wiki is not the official propaganda of the last person who happened to hold office in a realm. It is a collection of information, assembled by players, to try and show what happened, and when. Yes, you could say that your government burned all the copies of the old records you could find, but then you should say so on the wiki. But that still doesn't mean that you get to delete everything off the wiki that doesn't agree with your "official" viewpoint. In a case like this, where there are multiple antagonistic regimes that ran the realm, I think there should be multiple accounts under the official realm page. The realm page itself should be written from the viewpoint of an impartial historian. In the interests of OOC fair play, we need to let other players tell their side of the story, even if it doesn't agree with our character's IC viewpoints. If you want a place to to exclusively present your own propaganda, start an IC newspaper. But on the official public pages, we need to look at things from a player perspective, too. We need to have some way that each regime can tell their side of the story, and have it all contained under the official realm root pages.

To do this, we could either provide links to two different History subpages (i.e. Republic of Fwuvoghor/Republican Histories and Republic of Fwuvoghor/Monarchist Histories), or provide such links on the individual Era subpages. (i.e. Republic of Fwuvoghor/Era II/Monarchist and Republic of Fwuvoghor/Era II/Republican.) We could include some explanatory text about how the viewpoints of the various regimes differ significantly. Either way, we need to let the other players tell their versions. --Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's a common unbiased history that can be accepted by both parties, the first suggestion appeals more to my wiki formatting tastes. But I'm not convinced such a thing is possible. If you give too long a description, you are bound to have many arbitrary views on how and why things happened. If you go too short, the selection of what to put distorts reality. The whole conflict is on an accumulation of details which greatly affect the essence of it all. For example, the republican story says how Jean-Olivier killed in a duel the "poor old man who had been repeatedly tortured by the undead". The monarchist version doesn't, because the man was never good with a sword to begin with, so that he was old or tortured simply misleads the reader into thinking that a moment of weakness was exploited, when he was pretty much as strong (weak) as ever. And as for repeatedly, I think it was only once, but these are details that nobody can truly confirm and prove. There are also a great many deal of "coincidences", which one can assume to have happened for a reason with a high degree of certainty, while the other parties will deny these. But a lot of these coincidences affect key moments of Fwuvoghorian history, to ignore them is to leave out crucial moments of the realm's history but one can't mention them without the bias of the author's perspective. -Chénier 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought the second choice (Republic of Fwuvoghor/Era II/(faction)) would be appropriate if there was a lot of mutually agreeable history, as you only need to fork for the Era's that are in dispute. The first idea (Republic of Fwuvoghor/(faction) Histories) is basically saying that each side has a view so different from the other that they are essentially irreconcilable. I could go with either, really. --Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, they both have some appeal. If Ceorl has some preference, he could state it, or if he's just going to avoid this discussion in the hopes that the page stays locked forever on his version, well... -Chénier 00:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As for mutually-agreeable history, I'll have to look into the others deeper. I'm certain era III is overly buyist, and I think some revisions of the first era were done by Aarth in order to embellish the republican image. It'd make RP sense for the monarchists to do a complete re-write of the realm's history, after all, considering their information controlling and propagandist tendencies. -Chénier 12:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Era I was written entirely by you and Jupo. I don't feel the need to change the history, the time where i wasn't even around. Another point to note- Fwuvoghor just abandoned Enweil, and its "libraries" are no longer under Enweilian control. Somehow i doubt you are going to stop changing the library books though, even though you dont "control" them any more. Ceorl 18:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Stuff

There is no more Republican state. Any libraries in Fwuvoghor are now under Enweilian control. After a good book burning, the monarchist versions are now the ones to be found in Fwuvoghor's libraries. -Chénier 15:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

By your logic, because Riombara took Athol Margos, I can change everything on the Xerolco page, and post links to my propaganda, especially since Xerolco had only one region. RoF had a dozen odd regions and three duchies at its peak. Fwuvoghor library isn't all there is. Ceorl 09:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't follow at all. Xerolco was put together largely by the Blood Cult, and had very little to do with Athol Margos itself because of it's... 3 day(?) existence, with all the members ending up in Netherworld (something of interest to the entirety of the island, and which opened up the possibility of humans in NPC realms where before there was none). Comparing the two is a fallacy at best and an intentional deception at worst. To be honest, the thing I find most interesting about this is that both sides of the story wouldn't be presented. Admittedly, I did lose touch with RoF after a time, but I had always thought information control and censorship was more a mark of Retravic (and perhaps, to an extent, JO) than any other ruler. --Bannable 10:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Riombara never ruled Xerolco. The rebel republican government simply isn't recognized as official anymore, its version could be stripped altogether. In fact, I would say we sub-page this page, and give it two links: one to the official monarchist document, one to the official republican document. The monarchist version was sub-paged on Xerolco's for a lack of a better place to put it, but it ought to be here. -Chénier 12:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

...with all the members ending up in Netherworld - that's neither here nor there.
Xerolco [...] had very little to do with Athol Margos - Lol? It was Xerolcos's capital and sole region. It had *everything* to do with Xerolco.
[...] the thing I find most interesting about this is that both sides of the story wouldn't be presented. I haven't stopped Chenier from writing his own version on the Xerolco page. I haven't edited his history in Xerolco/Kingdom of Fwuvoghor or given links to my propaganda from Xerolcan page.
Riombara never ruled Xerolco. It rules Athol Margos, where Xerolco's "libraries" are. Now if Chener claims that he can change this page because Enweil owns Fwuvoghor city, then i have equal rights to change Xerolcan history as i see fit, because Riombara owns Athol Margos. Ceorl 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This should make it better. By the way, having personally ruled RoF, I can legitimately add historical content on the realm's page. The realm's dead, we are both just ex-rulers, except I actually have access to the city. You never ruled Xerolco, you were never even there, so you can't claim any legitimacy in Xerol affairs. RoF was, for the most part (at least the interesting part) divided in two pretty equal ideological factions, both exchanging rulership and other important titles rather regularly through time. If ever the need arises again, it would seem best to simply establish parallel pages as both visions are simply irreconcilable. -Chénier 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make it better. The Monarchists were kicked out of RoF. Nicolas's rebellion failed. Jean Olivier died. Retravic left. What access do you have? Your character is dead. Mordred, the same character i have had throughout in Fwuvoghor, is still alive, the last ruler of RoF, and the one who wrote the history. The entire history is written from Republican point of view, as they successfully eliminated the monarchists. Write all the pages you want, but dont link to your propoganda from this page, unless you link to this page from there as well. 07:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't. Many monarchists who lived in RoF survived. Valachi lived in there 'till close to the end. The monarchists won, the republicans were cast out of Fwuvoghorian lands. As for propaganda, the account was originally a short and relatively neutral summary, you've added propaganda elements to make it undesirable. If you really want to justify your censorship by saying "I've got the right, since I'm the victor", then it'll be my pleasure to rewiew the whole thing for historical corrections, because the monarchists, under Enweil and Avalon, are the victors. Notice the only part I touched was the part in which the monarchists actually ruled or held extreme power, I ain't playing with the sham of Era III. -Chénier 11:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is you who dont have the right. Valachi is in netherworld. Think he is busy changing libraries in Fwuvoghor? This is RoF page. not Enweil page. Ceorl 12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Stop thinking this is your own little personal page and that you are the sole owner of it. It isn't. -Chénier 12:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

EVer heard that the winners write history, Chenier? Sad to see you still haven't gotten over what happened two years ago. Ceorl 16:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I let your shameful propaganda stand for so long without correction. Now that you were cast down, corrections were in order. -Chénier 20:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

First get your reasoning straight- Are you arguing it should be there because "Mordred was cast down" or because you want to add to the history of BM? Again, Enweil did not destroy RoF- Avalon did. But they can add their propaganda to the Enweil or Avalon page, not link to it from this page. And even so, just because you take a city doesn't give you the right to change the history given in the official records- If you can do that to RoF, i can do that to Xerolco. Having it here portrays it as the official version of history, which it is not, as far as RoF is concerned. The realm was republican till the end, notice i am talking about the *realm*, not the city of Fwuvoghor. If you want a link to your account of the history, make a new page where all alternate histories of various realm can be put. Dont put it on the official realm page. Ceorl 08:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You two are so cute! When does the hair-pulling start? -Capet