Mabinogi World Wiki is brought to you by Coty C., 808idiotz, our other patrons, and contributors like you!!
Want to make the wiki better? Contribute towards getting larger projects done on our Patreon!
Too much speculation and personal opinion
@Mystic The vote was not bias since I was not acting on it based on my own opinion, I was acting on a justified vote. I honestly don't care what people on the IRC have to say there. If they want to be a part of this discussion and have their votes heard then please invite them to join the conversation. Also, I apologize for doing that edit, I assumed the conversation was over. Please leave my past history out of this, if you notice since then I have taken their advice and have been editing solely on fact. As for the examples, I clearly highlighted them below.
@Generally Remembrance≠Speculation, especially since everything we know is a form of memory.
@Kadalyn Saying there is multiple Glases makes him not a god is speculation... The Lugh being a Milletian was disproved in another thread. (If you don't know where it says Lugh's a God then please read the whole thread.) I kind of agree with Corple not being a god, but as I said, that is debatable based on context, which isn't our place to decide. Also, not all important text is included in the strategy guide and neither are keyword responses. What we think is irrelevant, fact is fact is correct. If somewhere in the game it says that blank is a blank then we can't deny it, even if it is being contradicted. Facts are written in stone. Wikis (or at least this one) are supposed to be based on fact. Our opinion on how something is being taken into context or if we should disregard a fact do to another fact is irrelevant.
@Infodude
—Infodude |
Yes you were. http://wiki.mabinogiworld.com/index.php?title=Gods&diff=prev&oldid=321676
Evidence for Lugh:
Evidence for Elatha: The ending of G10...
Evidence for the Falias Gatekeeper:
—Eabha (Falias), talk to him a few times outside of G12 |
Evidence for Corple:
Another piece of evidence for Lugh:
—Meven, Mabinogi Keyword |
@Pyro That's odd, I remember someone else putting up Cromm as a God...
Except it was based on your opinion because you had to formulate that conclusion from somewhere (and I laugh at the claims of a justified vote when you didn't consult anyone on it, didn't verify votes nor wait for responses before acting on it). You should care what people on IRC have to say because they're contributors like you and some of them are even wiki staff (in fact, some of them are people who have told you what to do and what not do do). To say you don't care is just displaying your own self-serving nature, it was clear from the beginning that I was acting as their representative and letting their voice be heard through me. Furthermore you can't just dismiss them and then turn around to say that I should call them here (especially when fluid text would be more beneficial to this situation than static conversation). I brought your past history into this because despite your claim otherwise it's exactly what I "notice" that you're doing here. So no, you haven't been taking that advice. You can't say that Lugh was disproved as a Milletian in when it's all your speculation because that's not proof.
You're still ignoring parts of the argument for your own benefit. To repeat what I said in my very last post, the things you've been bringing up aren't FACT: [being] is a god. It's "Fact: [person] said [being] was a god.". It's too circumstantial to be called "proof" which is what I said earlier regarding solid proof. What we think is relevant because it helps us discern between these differences which you can't seem to be able to see. Context is important and we can't leave it out because context also carries meaning (this is ignoring that Corple is very clearly called a mortal and that's not contextual). It's most definitely not irrelevant, to say so just displays a lack of understanding of language, communication and meaning. You haven't been able to display "Fact: [being] is a god" which is what I said from the beginning. It's all conjecture and speculation on unreliable testimony which seemingly contradicts other information given in game. Since the beginning I've maintained and still say that no one has been able to conclusively say that [being] is a god. Without that you lack justification to say that, to do otherwise is (again) misleading and misinforming. The purpose of the wiki is to accurately inform, language etiquette says we're to do this as efficiently as possible. You appear to display interest in neither of these. If you think that's unfair of me to say then show me wrong.
If you don't mind me making an interpretation, and no offense intended to anyone I may accidentally end up insulting, but I think what Pyro's trying to imply is not that the IRC members' opinions don't matter; rather, it's more like they're not going to be considered because they're don't appear to be interested enough to post here, where the discussion is taking place, with the sole exception of you. I'm kind of of the same mind; I'm not a regular member of the IRC, and I don't think Pyro or Infodude are either, so forgive me if I say I can't exactly take seriously complaints that were made "behind our backs"-esque. That's kinda the reason I suggested you use direct quotes too, down below (or maybe bring some IRC members to the wiki?).
And to be fair, you may have displayed why they may not be called gods yet, but you've not proven why they should stay in the category of "mortals". Kinda following from Kadalyn's comment below, but in my mind those three are kinda stuck in a limbo of "could be considered a god in a way". Not exactly an ideal section to place in a wiki, so yeah, let's resolve this discussion first.
"I honestly don't care what people on the IRC have to say there. If they want to be a part of this discussion and have their votes heard then please invite them to join the conversation" leaves little room for interpretation. I also stated exactly why it was that they don't want to come here earlier. They don't want to have to deal with this due to how Pyrus and Infodude have and continued to behave. As to the last point, that's not really being fair. Rather it's more like picking at straws. For the purpose of the debate with the points I've made and set it's irrelevant.
"I honestly don't care what people on the IRC have to say there." That sounds a lot like a location to me.
Though I can agree that Pyro and Infodude - perhaps me, as well - tend not to look out of other people's viewpoints often. So, thanks for working with us for this long, I suppose.
And...I wouldn't quite call it picking at the straws. They've enough power to be gods; what we're discussing more now is whether the general populace "worships", for a rather general term, them enough to be considered one. Sure, you've pointed out rightly that not a lot of people were claiming them to be gods, which is why I proposed the "criteria", but neither have you brought up the exact instances of their "deitification" and said conclusively why those specific sources are dubious. And in light of the recent posts, especially more so for Lugh. You're going to have to discredit a head clergyman before you can remove the label of reliable source from that.
No, I don't think I'm wrong when I say you haven't fully pulled them outside the "god" heading.
Location doesn't matter, if anything it just reinforces my point. Doesn't matter where their opinion comes from, it still counts and that should be recognised.
And yes it is strawpicking because I don't have to conclusively show that they're mortals for my original reasoning to be valid. Simply in showing that the state of things appears to be invalid is sufficient to remove it. If it remains inconclusive then it can't go back on the page the way it was before. On that matter, if only a few people claim it when no one else does then it's innately dubious simply because accounts don't match up. It's only natural that when the vast majority claims one thing and then a very select few claim something different with no apparent link or basis to build off that one would be suspicious of the few unless those few had something solid to back them up. Meven might be a head clergyman but that has no real bearing on this because it doesn't necessitate knowledge of all things to do with religion. He's no more or less a reliable source than any other in the game.