I think I remember stating somewhere that I gave just
the recent editions.
The first edits were *awfully* biaised.
But, I really don't think the last ones were so much.
In any case, there were not so biaised that the only
reaction to them be to *remove* them immediately,
without trying any cooperative editing. Cooperation is
not about removing what doesnot please you. It is not
about saying people are vandals and write only loads
of shit when you don't agree with them. It is slightly
more nicer than that.
It is interesting to note you stated the info on
racialism was probably coming from "My Kampf", and it
turned out to come from a "sos racism" site :-)
Whatever.
The last edits do not justify banning
There is nothing to justify the insults you use
The french-speaking wikipedia does not have to follow
the french law. Lybiens also speak french, and quite a
number of countries in northern africa. Some of them
are under islamist republic. I am sure some of them
would find the actual content going against some of
their laws; Would you accept them saying it should be
removed because it goes against their laws ? I don't
think so, but where is the difference ? When the
french-speaking wikipedia is printed to be distributed
in France, we'll have to worry about that. When it
will be printed and distributed in Lybia, we'll have
to worry about law. Not now.
Following the UN point of view on wikipedia is wrong.
It is *against* the very idea of a neutral and
extensive encyclopedia.
And whether it is true or not that human races do not
exist, some have theorized there were several races,
and this information should be in wikipedia. And as Ec
put it "racialism" is a theory, and must be
differenciated from "racism" which add the notion of
superiority of one race over the other. It is wrong to
qualify racism every theory that talk about race, and
as such to remove it from wikipedia, and it is wrong
to qualify as a racist every person who support this
type of theory.
As for all the below sentences, I have no worry. With
about 10 people jumping on any edits to immediately
remove them - just in case it might be offensive (and
before checking if it really is), there is very little
chance it will damage any reputation.
Meanwhile, we have a bunch of slightly better
articles, no ?
-- Guillaume Blanchard <gblanchard(a)arcsy.co.jp> wrote:
Bonjour,
Anthere gave you only very soft links... why ???
Here is the sentence that the majority of french
wikipedians don't want to
see in wikipedia.
All was wrote by Philippe :
In Racisme, jan 15, 2003 :
"Il semble que certaines races soient superieures
aux autres races pour
certains aspects; par exemple, les noirs courent
plus vite que les blancs."
Translation by "Babel Fish Translation" :
"It seems that certain races are higher than the
other races for certain
aspects; for example, the blacks run more quickly
than the white."
In Antisemitisme, jan 27, 2003 :
"Historiquement, il existe de nombreux motifs pour
justifier
l'antisemitisme, incluant des facteurs sociaux,
economiques, nationaux,
politiques, raciaux et religieux.."
Translation by "Babel Fish Translation" :
"Historically, there are many reasons to justify the
anti-semitism,
including factors social, economic, national,
political, racial and
religious."
In Antisemitisme, jan 27, 2003 :
"Les juifs sont des personnes d'une race
distinctement differente des autres
personnes. La discrimination basee sur une telle
distinction est donc
valide."
Translation by "Babel Fish Translation" :
"The Jews are people of a race distinctly different
from the other people.
The discrimination based on such a distinction is
thus valid"
Comment ?
Aoineko
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com