Talk:Caliphate (4e Environment)

Titles

Discussion partly moved to Talk:Warning Policy#Warnings Issued on 4e Campaign Settings Caliphate Supplement. --Green Dragon 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)

Why did GD change the Arabian titles I chose for the Caliphate's provinces? --Wrecan 12:44, 8 November 2011 (MST)

They are religious titles. I thought it would be better to just use what they mean. Thoughts? --Green Dragon 18:11, 8 November 2011 (MST)

I was trying to go for an evocative flavor for the Caliphate. Are you just going to change the name of the country to "Empire" too? Could you at least ask before making substantive changes?

Also, they are not religious titles. They are Arabic titles. No different than my using Russian terms like "boyar" in Winteren. The only religious title is "Caliph" and "Caliphate" itself. And why is it a problem to use religious titles? The Caliphate has a religious bent, being dedicated to the Philosophy of Ferroclasty. --Wrecan 06:49, 9 November 2011 (MST)

It's (some) are like calling someone "Pope". Does that not imply something compared to "head'? It does. --Green Dragon 13:56, 9 November 2011 (MST)

A caliph is not a pope. He's an emperor. (Actually, the etymology of "caliph" just means "successor", as in successor to Mohammed, but it doesn't have to refer to Mohammed. So it doesn't have a literal religious connotation. At most, it has religious subtext, and I'm still nto sure why that's problematic in a world with religion.) The lesser titles -- emir, malik, and sultan -- have no religious connotation. They are just arabic words for commander, king, and sovereign. --Wrecan 15:10, 9 November 2011 (MST)

Google says (define:Caliph) "The chief Muslim civil and religious ruler, regarded as the successor of Muhammad. The caliph ruled in Baghdad until 1258 and then in Egypt until the Ottoman conquest of 1517; the title was then held by the Ottoman sultans until it was abolished in 1924 by Atatürk". It seems like it directly relates to a religion to me... Just like "Pope" does. I guess it would work if you made a 4e deity working with the Muslim faith and made this land follow that religion. I don't see this currently though, which was my reasoning. --Green Dragon 18:30, 9 November 2011 (MST)

Except you didn't eliminate "Caliph". (It's still used in the Geography section.) You eliminated the words amir/emir, malik, and sultan, none of which have any religious connotation. And you kept the name of the kingdom as "Caliphate", and that word is used throughout the article. Can you please change the titles back to what they were? And obviously I cannot make a 4e deity in a world without deities. A major point of the Caliphate is that in a world without gods, philosophies become religion, and their leaders can act much as religious leaders do in this world. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy.

Point of correction. The titles you changed were "emir", "emirate", "satrap", "vizier", and one use of "caliph" (though not a second use of that word or any of the many uses of "caliphate"). Of these five words, only "caliph" has religious overtones. There is no justification for changing any of the other terms on religions grounds. As for "caliph", the Caliphate is modeled on the Ottoman Empire, with its langorous attitudes, philosophical restrictions, and slow decline into decadence. That's why I call it the "Caliphate". It is simply a faithful society centered don the philosophy of Ferroclasty, rather than on Islam. --Wrecan 08:16, 10 November 2011 (MST)

[1] (direct rudeness: rudeness) (2:1). Issued on 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST) --Green Dragon 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST).

Let's see... (Google Define)

Emir– A Muslim (usually Arab) military commander or local chief

Rmirate– The rank, lands, or reign of an emir

Satrap is fine.

Vizier– A high official in some Muslim countries, esp. in Turkey under Ottoman rule.

Do I now ask if you acknowledge your mistake? I'll refrain from such word usage, thank you. In a game a chess asking people to admit their mistakes (if so) is, for me, undesirable. --Green Dragon 23:46, 10 November 2011 (MST)

Do we also decide that all "kings" are Christian because king is an English word applied only to Christians? How about "boyar"? All Russians boyars have been Orthodox Christians. All Arabic terms apply to Muslims because Arabs have been Muslims for more than 1,000 years.

And again, what's wrong with using religious terms to describe a nation based on philosophies?! Where is the policy of this Wiki that tells people that if they use religious terms, their posts will be edited to excise religious overtones? This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. By the way, am I allowed to ask you to leave the game? because if the "game" is "editing these Patronage wiki pages for substance, rather than for compliance with the Wiki's guidelines for etiquette and profanity, then yes, I'd like you to leave this game. Because it's turning a project I loved into one I now dread reviewing, because I never know what you'll have done to it.

And what are you planning to do about the name of the country, GD? It's "Caliphate", the most religious of all the words I used. Are you going to rename this page? Are you going to hunt down and remove every reference to the Caliphate throughout the Patronage pages? How can you justify changing "amir", but not "Caliphate"? This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. --Wrecan 06:32, 11 November 2011 (MST)

[2] (direct rudeness: ill-considered accusations of impropriety, belittling a fellow editor, other uncivil behaviors: lying) (3:1). Issued on 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST) --Green Dragon 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST).

Does the King of Denmark require Denmark be a religious land? The United Arab Emirates does not imply that it is ruled by a single emir. Therefore the term is an loose as using God, Christian Faith for an article. Also, per definition, Caliphate falls into this situation as well. You could use religious tones if you used the named religion. You can't, though, pull names out of religious background and place them on things. It is considered (1) blasphemy, (2) propaganda, etc. Arguing for these things is like arguing for no laws. No, my analogy is me stopping to respond to these comments. --Green Dragon 11:47, 11 November 2011 (MST)

Yes, the King of Denmark requires Denmark to be a religious land -- Christian, in fact. It's in Section 4 of the Danish Constitution. All the European Kings are titular heads of their national Churches, because a monarchy is derived from the divine right of kings. So, yes, emirs are Muslim just as much as kings are inherently Christian. I am not pulling names out of religious background. I explained to you that I am using the Turkish names for things to evoke a Turkish atmosphere for the kingdom, just like I use Russian terms in Winteren to evoke a Russian flavor for that kingdom. And since I am not Muslim or Christian, I imagine "blasphemy" is the least of my transgressions against those religions. At any rate, calling a non-Muslim fictional character a "caliph" or a "king" or an "emir" or even a "pope" is not blasphemous under either Islam or Christianity. Most importantly, however, it's not this Wiki's policy to enforce religious laws, is it? --Wrecan 12:13, 11 November 2011 (MST)

Kings of England un-submitted to the Catholic church to make their own church, and still where kings. The change the of their power source is irrelevant. Muslims go to Mecca for pilgrimages as a unified whole. Therefore something which is "Muslim" has a connotation to a unified whole and breaking from this unified whole is, please correct me where I am wrong, considered (1) blasphemy, (2) propaganda, etc. --Green Dragon 19:09, 11 November 2011 (MST)

Shia Muslims use the term "emir" even though they were not subservient to the Caliph in Baghdad. In fact, there were periods in which there were multiple caliphs in the Muslim world. Just like when Henry VIII created his own Church so he could be King of England without Papal authority. The analogy is precisely the same. Kings are Christian. Emirs are Muslim. It's just a language issue. So that's where you're wrong. Would you like me to recommend some books on the history of medieval Islam, if you want to learn more? In the meantime, can you answer my question about where I can read wiki's policy on using religious terms to describe campaign elements? (That's my third time asking for this info.) --Wrecan 22:14, 11 November 2011 (MST)

I'll have to take a look at that use of the terms then. That could change things. D&D Wiki's polices are stated on Meta Pages#Policies. I would direct you to here then this use related to religion. --Green Dragon 22:34, 11 November 2011 (MST)

Wrecan has a good point. I'm a sad holder of one of the most useless degrees ever - a degree of Ministry. I was lucky enough to be educated by a non-backwoods-christian-propaganda-school, so I actually have a knowledge base here!   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   23:06, 11 November 2011 (MST)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Thanks for the links, GD, but I already looked through that and saw nothing that would prevent someone from calling a leader of a nonreligious nation a "caliph" or any of the less nobles "emir" or their territories "emirates". --Wrecan 07:12, 13 November 2011 (MST)

I am referring to "religious [...] epithets (such as against people [who are Muslims]) directed against another contributor".

It is a fine line if the use of these terms is okay or is not okay. According to [3] "The well known companions, Abdullah Ibn Umar and Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas, refused to give their allegiance to Imam Ali for the entire duration of his caliphate. (Ibn Al-Athir, his history Al-Kamil, v3, p98). But the Imam did not punish these companions." Later they mention "If it was permissible for a Muslim, who was a contemporary of the caliph, to refuse to give his allegiance, it would be more permissible for a person who came in a later century to believe or not to believe in the qualifications of that elected caliph. In doing so, he would not be sinning, provided that the Caliph is not assigned by Allah." So, I guess it is okay to be against caliphs. The question if it is okay to use the terms outside of their religious context remains. With regard to this they say "Even Umar confessed to the fact that the election of Abu Bakr was without consultation of Muslims. (See sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, Tradition 8.817) On the other hand, election implies choice and freedom, and that every Muslim has the right to elect the nominee. Whoever refuses to elect him does not oppose God or His Messenger because neither God nor His Messenger appointed the nominated person by people. Election, by its nature, does not compel any Muslim to elect a specific nominee. Otherwise, the election would be coercion. This means that the election would lose its own nature and it would be a dictatorial operation. It is well known that the Prophet said: 'There is no validity for any allegiance given by force.' Does this open election mean that the terms remain in the Muslim faith? I am asking if these terms are then specific. --Green Dragon 11:56, 22 November 2011 (MST)

But I am not calling any contributor a Caliph. Since the rule only bars religious epithets "directed against another contributor", I can't see how I could possibly have violated a rule, regardless of whether these terms are specific to the Muslim faith. --Wrecan 15:07, 22 November 2011 (MST)

Google define epithets: Such a word or phrase as a term of abuse.

I mean in the sense of blasphemy or propaganda. --Green Dragon 16:21, 22 November 2011 (MST)

It doesn't matter what the definition of "epithet" is because my use of the word is not "directed against another contributor", and it's only when an epithet is "directed against another contributor" that its use violates a rule. --Wrecan 06:15, 23 November 2011 (MST)

Well if it is inherently insulting to Muslims reading the page the chance that one of these Muslim readers will also be a contributor exists, therefore I assume it is directed against another contributor. I don't understand why the term has to be exclusive rather than inclusive. --Green Dragon 20:10, 23 November 2011 (MST)

If "direct against another contributor" included epithets that are "inherently insulting", then Wikipedia, which uses the same policy regarding personal attacks, would not be allowed to have any pages that use inherently insulting language. And yet it has this page and this page. And yet, there is no indication that anybody at Wikipedia thinks either of these pages violates the same policy that you think may be violated by the use of the words "caliph", "emir" or "emirate".

If "emir" was an inherently offensive word, then it would not be used as a name for Muslim children. And yet the Wikipedia page on "Emir" says that "amir", a variant transliteration of "emir" is a proper name among Muslims. Moreover, there is a Star Wars character named "Wat Tambor", who holds the title "emir" and runs an "emirate". He is certainly not a Muslim. Yet nobody has ever complained. (It's also the etymological root of the English word "admiral", which means "emir of the sea".)

"Caliph" is the name of a gay bar in San Francisco, and a proper name.

Neither "caliph", "emir", or "emirate" are on Wikipedia's list of ethnic slurs. So I can't see how you can possibly interpret these words as being either "inherently insulting" or "directed against another contributor", as defined by the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks, which this website has adopted. --Wrecan 05:49, 25 November 2011 (MST)

Right, they are names. I reverted it back.

About the personal attacks. We want to keep D&D Wiki within personal attack's broad spectrum. If Wikipedia were using those terms to say any African decedent related to that term, it would be different. Do you understand the difference? --Green Dragon 14:34, 25 November 2011 (MST)

All I know is that if you intend to apply a standard stricter than that applied by Wikipedia itself, you need to promulgate your own policy so that people can understand they will be held to a stricter standard. --Wrecan 19:25, 25 November 2011 (MST)

As I said above "If Wikipedia were using those terms to say any African decedent related to that term, it would be different." meaning that those pages are intended to be informative. --Green Dragon 23:40, 25 November 2011 (MST)

How would it be analogous to what I was doing? I wasn't saying that every Muslim is a Caliph. I gave one fictional character the title of Caliph.--Wrecan 07:18, 27 November 2011 (MST)

If the use was related to specific religious titles, then it would. They can also be names though. --Green Dragon 10:54, 27 November 2011 (MST)

How would if be analogous?! If an offensive word is a name, suddenly it's okay? I really don't understand what criteria you are using to determine if something is an offensive epithet. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. it doesn't make any inherent sense to me either. --Wrecan 12:37, 27 November 2011 (MST)

[4] (other uncivil behaviors: lying) (1:2). Issued on 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST) --Green Dragon 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST).

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Sorry, an excepted name of people related to the organization should mean it is okay to use differently. --Green Dragon 21:49, 28 November 2011 (MST)

So if I could show any of the people in the link I just provided were Jewish, then their surname is no longer considered by you to be an antisemitic term? --Wrecan 08:53, 29 November 2011 (MST)

Not necessarily. This question goes back to how organizations and people find it to be on a large scale. I looked at a few muslim-name databases and they had the ones you listed. I would trust them enough to say "okay". Finding specifics is not acceptable, and Wikipedia can only be used insofar. --Green Dragon 11:41, 29 November 2011 (MST)

Except Wikipedia's policy is the policy this website has adopted. Again, if you think Wikipedia's policy is insufficient, then this website should adopt a new policy with all the comment and discussion that entails. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. --Wrecan 12:59, 29 November 2011 (MST)

[5] (direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor) (2:2). Issued on 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST) --Green Dragon 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST).

"What is considered to be a personal attack? ... religious ... epithets". How is the epithet defined in this instance? And what if it is not an epithet? --Green Dragon 16:16, 29 November 2011 (MST)

Wrong. A personal attack is "religious... epithets... directed at a contributor." This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. If I want to name an NPC "Joe A-hole", I should be allowed to, even though calling a contributor an "A-hole" would be considered a personal attack. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. Don't do it ad hoc.

I also note that you seem to labor under a misapprehension of the meaning of the word "epithet". The word "epithet" does not imply "insult". It's definition is "any word or phrase applied to a person or thing to describe an actual or attributed quality." The Wikipedia policy actually links to Wikipedia's own entry on epithets, which confirms that epithets are not inherently insulting. That's why Wikipedia must qualify the policy with "directed against another contributor". It is unacceptable behavior to call out a specific contributor's religion. It is not a violation of the Wikipedia (or this site's) policy to say "Jerry Seinfeld is Jewish" on an article about comedian Jerry Seinfeld. It is a violation of Wikipedia (and this site's) policy to say "You are a Jew" to a specific contributor, even if that contributor were Jerry Seinfeld. (I use "jew" because I'm Jewish -- I have no idea and don't care what religion you are.)

This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. If you want this site to have a different policy, you need to go through the process of amended this site's policy. --Wrecan 09:49, 30 November 2011 (MST)

[6] (direct rudeness: ill-considered accusations of impropriety, other uncivil behaviors: lying) (3:2). Issued on 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST) --Green Dragon 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST).

Google define: epithet — Such a word or phrase as a term of abuse.

You can call anyone religious. It's just like how you keep saying things like "ad hoc" ect to my admin status. Whatever. It's off-base and irrelevant. Just like comparing apples to oranges, you can compare apples to religion or even Green Dragon to oranges. --Green Dragon 12:18, 30 November 2011 (MST)

First, the Wiki Policy does not link to the Google definition; it links to the Wikipedia definition, which does not make an epithet per se insulting. Second, the definition you cite is the second, alternate definition, after the one being used by Wikipedia! This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. Third, I didn't say your admin status was ad hoc. I said your contributions are ad hoc. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy.

Moreover, no, you can't direct a comment to a contributor by labeling them with a religious term. Go to Wikipedia. Call a specific contributor a Christian. See what happens. You are dead wrong on this point, GD. --Wrecan 16:36, 30 November 2011 (MST)

[7] (direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor, other uncivil behaviors: lying) (1:3). Issued on 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST) --Green Dragon 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST).

Unless it says "this is defined by the following link" you can't go off that. English is English. First, second, third, even fourth definitions also do not matter. Saying what admins do or do not do is incorrect. I am an admin among other things. If an admin were to do something ad hoc it relates to RfA's.

You are a contributor who makes extrapolations with every grain of sand on the beach– even though they are all still grains of sand. Did I just post this to see what happens? No, I am making an inference which is okay to do. Does my "this is fact" wording mean it is fact? No, but I could justify my "understanding" of my comment. Make sense? --Green Dragon 18:25, 30 November 2011 (MST)

This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the definition of "epithet" that Wikipedia links to in the very rule being discussed is not the definition that Wikipedia is using. That's the whole point of the hyperlink. --Wrecan 07:45, 1 December 2011 (MST)

[8] (direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor) (2:3). Issued on 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST) --Green Dragon 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST).

Has the people who clash ever read a legal document? Read one, it'll change your life.

Have people who mention grammar as a misunderstanding ever learned English? Learn some English and then we can discuss grammar. Until this time I'll just continue treating such comments as the trash that they are. You can also take the initiative to correct the mistake as this is a wiki. --Green Dragon 10:36, 1 December 2011 (MST)

GD, my identity is not secret, as I'm a published writer, so you can obtain my real name and confirm that I am an attorney who has been practicing law in New York for over a decade. So, yes, I know grammar. I also have read some legal documents in my life. And drafted them. And drafted legislation. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. --Wrecan 07:21, 2 December 2011 (MST)

[9] (direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor, other uncivil behaviors: harassment, lying) (3:3). Issued on 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST) --Green Dragon 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST).

How is reading the document as it states it wrong?

I can also repeat myself multiple times, and sometimes I feel like people just want to hear what they want to and its getting on my nerves having these circular talks, however I have talked with people working for GNU and they have said exactly what I have. So... Am I reading them wrong and they are? No. They even made the license. --Green Dragon 10:14, 2 December 2011 (MST)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

You can stop replying whenever you like. I don't believe that you've talked to anybody who actually worked on the GNU. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy.. --Wrecan 08:23, 3 December 2011 (MST)

[10] (direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor, other uncivil behaviors: lying) (1:4). Issued on 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST) --Green Dragon 17:38, 3 December 2011 (MST).

Well, I have. I can send you their emails if you like. I have sent them to Badger already and you can even read about the discussion elsewhere (this has already been discussed). Does this mean you can't read legal documents? Not necessarily, but it does mean you are wrong. I just don't want to leave around this confusion as it is not good for people who are getting to know D&D Wiki, so having you understand things is a good thing. --Green Dragon 14:24, 3 December 2011 (MST)