Re: [WikiEN-l] Islamism - no parallel encyclopedia within

When one is censored so much and so deliberatly, it is not entirely surprising that they try to use other means to have other opinions that the current trend inserted in that encyclopedia. As a reminder, this encyclopedia means to neutral, and in I am correct, neutral means to welcome all points of view on a topic. I do not necessarily mean every little opinion, but every opinion that might be relevant. To achieve that, it is a *good* idea that people of various points of view collaborate on these articles, and if necessary on talk pages. Collaboration : collaborate means "exchanging" point of view, trying to reach an agreement on what should be included in the article. This usually implies answering something else than "no" in talk page. Or even answering at all btw. I tried to talk to you on [[talk:islamism]], and all I got from you was "no" and a very very very very very deep silence. Relevant : I agreed some of the stuff inserted was biaised. I proposed to you to rework it. The current article is not informative enough. The proposed insertion, though biased is informative. Hence my desire for it to be inserted, after npoving. All I got from you was "no" and a very very very very very deep silence. Points of view : moving in a difficult and dangerous realm here. What are we talking about ? Islamism. Very hot topic. One that would deserve a specific type of loving care. One that we would suppose would interest a good number of people here. All the ones that have suffered a loss in 9/11. All the americans probably. All the french as well (for mind you, terrorism and violence DID NOT start 2 years ago). All muslim people on wikipedia (not many it appears). And all those interested by religion. In the end, who is working on Islamism ? You, Graft Steve who was in an edit war with you previously on that topic Who is currently reverting these articles ? RickK Who is trying to give hir opinion, and is either reverted or just not listen to 142 and I. In the end, the only ones that have access to these articles are you and Graft. Others are carefully left aside. 142 will soon be permanently shut up. And you will discourage me to try to work on this one, where my opinion is just good at being left unanswered on talk pages. I do not support the current islamism article. It is non-informative enough, and non neutral, and as such is not respecting wikipedia rules. At least, it is not respecting french point of view. Hence, I started a [[Islam in France]], where I will try to put the french point of view at least. Islamism should not be written by american only, and not by appently people of jewish culture/religion only as well. Catholics pov, muslim pov, bouddhists pov should be welcome as well. If you feel that it is a breach of wikipedia protocole to do so, please remember that France has a long history of contact with muslim people, hate and love with Algeria story, major bounds with this country that are not gonna be broken any time soon, that about 10% of French population is from Muslim extraction, that we live fondamentalism and/or islamism on our soil, not just by tv shows, that we are still struggling for integration of all these people, and that already now, the mixing of muslim and mostly catholics culture is producing great things. Our growth pains are from a different perspective than your fights against integrists. And they also deserve attention. I am quite disapointed, that no one cares about such a topic, and accept that censorship is being so hard on it. If only, because it would be enlightful to understand other points of view that the one one can read in books and newspapers. If only because american people deserve more than what is currently proposed on the islamism article. I am not knowledgeable really on that topic. So, my main proposition for Wikipedia sake is that I focus my next week end promotion of Wikipedia in north african countries, where a lot of the population is french-speaking (as well as english) and muslim. This was an interesting week RK. I am ****really**** glad that you stayed polite. I would have appreciated that you accepted to work with me as well. Sorry that we were not able to even work on talk page together.