Talk:Royal House of Astonia: Difference between revisions

::::Foremostly I would like to address the specific allegations of false or exaggerated claims against me, this being the appropriate forum for doing so. The claim that I made the assertion that the Aurum-Astonia conflict was caused by "astonian militarism" is not borne out by the edit history of [[Adinan History]]. As of the 4th of March 2021, before you had made any amendments to the page, the only usage of the word "militarism" is stating the reason that the Astonian Treaty was signed- the original wording being that it "would be signed to contain the blatant militarism of the Astonian Emperor SinjoroJoCrafter." I believe this is an accurate paraphrasing of the reasoning given within the document itself (describing [[SinjoroJoCrafter]] as a "lit fuse that would go off at any second - if not kept in check"). It accurately portrays the intention of the parties to the treaty. However even if the use of "blatant" were to be construed as a non-neutral phrase in the article, its usage would nonetheless be borne out by the facts. Astonia had been party to very many conflicts during its existence that are attested to on the wiki- such as the secession from Adina, second war with Adina, pearl-on-sighting the entirety of SPQR, the fact that a tribunal in Icenia convicted for a killing based on denying Astonian titles within Icenian borders (can be verified through their discord but for brevity I have attached the verdict and some of the evidence<ref>https://imgur.com/a/DWpLfYv</ref>). It is a reasonable exercise to determine that this does not constitute the general norm within nations and ergo the finding that it was militaristic is justified both in terms of explaining the reasoning of the parties to the Astonian Treaty but also in describing conduct which to an observer could fairly reasonable come within the bracket of militarism. In so far as the word blatant goes, it is also the case that the actions prior were conducted "without any attempt at concealment; completely obvious"<ref>Blatant - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabularyhttps://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/blatant</ref>. The second claim of false or exaggerated edits is again truncated from its context. The article did not make the unqualified claim that Astonia ''was'' a "haven for adinan monarchist radicals" but rather that the creation of [[Arlington]] "gave rise to a concern that Astonia would be the new Antigua for radicals under SinjoroJoCrafter’s unstated influence". Stating that Adina had a concern would be accurate and is categorically not the same as stating the claim was factual. However there is some objective basis for the claim just by a cursory sweep of the wiki. Astonian currency was circulating in [[Moloka]]<ref>[[List of Currencies on CivRealms]]</ref>, a nation formed by the exiled monarchists of Adina and therefore it would be fair to say there was at least some association between the two groups. Moreover in discussion in the CivWiki discord it has been confirmed by the leader of [[Arlington]] that it was merely a nation formed to evade the constraints of the Treaty<ref>https://imgur.com/a/UR3hQ4H</ref>. Adina expected subversive actions from [[Arlington]] and these expectations are now confirmed in fact. Extending on from that were the requisite associations for the premise to also apply to monarchist radicals too. Nonetheless that does not need to be proven, for all the article claimed was that concerns existed. That statement neither gives legitimacy to those concerns, nor dismisses them and I believe met the objective standard of the wiki. In regards to the final claim of false or exaggerated edits, it is again, not the case in my opinion. It is the case that citing claims on the wiki is undoubtedly a burdensome activity at the best of times, and it must be remembered that this is the medium for a Minecraft server's historical documentation. Issues that can seem uncontroversial at the time can later prove to be controversial and then years later, sourcing these events is highly challenging. This applies to this edit, which has existed in its current form, unchallenged for some time. It is unfortunate that this is the case for the documentation relating to the raiding of the house. However, the raid was never linked directly to [[SinjoroJoCrafter]], but rather to his civ nation of belonging. If as stated, my aim was to slander, the blame would be laid directly. Nonetheless in subsequent discussion regarding this edit, it was stated that the possibility of this raiding having occurred could not be ruled out<ref>https://imgur.com/a/9ivabAy</ref>. It seems somewhat unfair to condemn me on the basis that something might be wrong, as opposed to be actually wrong. The claim itself was undirected and so I fail to see how it slanders anyone directly. As for slandering nations, I'm not really sure what my vested interest to smear CivEx [[Arlington]] would be. The relevance was that the house in question was the Patriarch's house and therefore somewhat worthy of note in context of Orthodoxy. I hope this addresses some of the concerns stated regarding my objectivity and I will now move onto the specific facets of this article. I concur broadly with what has already been stated by the CivWiki administrator prior, however would just like to add a few things. My overriding concern when editing this page has been to preserve wherever possible the intended purpose of the article. To this end I am aware that the edit might be met with some reaction from yourself, so I ensured that throughout the process I corresponded with the Wiki team and that where I was making alterations they were fully evidenced. Moreover though I had potential disagreement about whether 7misun qualified as a pretender or not, I nonetheless preserved the original intent of the article by not altering that assessment of pretendership. Where things have been removed from the article it is because I believe they directly contradicted the sources. For example the claim that there was an occupation force backing 7misun is not necessarily borne out by the evidence. For one Adina washed its hands of Astonia after the auction, which it was given the land and groups for. We never maintained any bunkers or infrastructure in those areas, nor was there some sort of continuous presence. We administered the area like a bankruptcy liquidator would, not an occupying army. The interview claims that the area was entirely depopulated. Perhaps you can militarily occupy a depopulated area, but it stretches the natural usage of the word. The lack of enforcement of [[Incentives|Incentives']] claim was added because it is important context to have. The original declaration was not entirely serious in nature, and had it been, logically it would have been enforced in one of the conflicts Adina won. If the fact that it was never enforced was omitted, the reader would get a fundamentally different impression of the claim than was reality. I hope this clarifies matters somewhat. [[User:ImperatorMendes|ImperatorMendes]] ([[User talk:ImperatorMendes|talk]]) 22:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)