On ĵaŭ, 2003-01-30 at 16:11, Anthere wrote:
Ah, another thing
Curry is asking for the banning.
Of Philippe, no?
I put here the last articles posted on the french
wikipedia that are triggering this wish.
I say "this is really shocking, isn't
My fellow seem to consider these writings are
non-acceptable by french law, thus should not be on
Hmm... I can't speak for French law, of course...
These all need *desperately* some contextualisation, as they are about
terms whose usage carries a point of view with them. Naked as they are,
these do strike me as 'the kind of thing a racist would say, then say
"hey! i'm not racist, just _racialist_, and see how innocent it is!"'.
I'd be rather curious to see what kind of law they might break,
The current versions of these articles aren't necessarily the best way
to handle it; I think they would do better to discuss *and debunk*
racist notions as much as possible, putting them in the proper context
so when some kid hears about "racialism" or "reverse racism" and then
looks it up on Wikipedia they'll see a rational, neutral explanation of
what makes some people think and speak that way -- so they'll
_understand_ why to discount those ideas. Pretending the terms don't
exist or saying "oh, that's just what RACISTS think, if you touch them
it might rub off on you! stay away!" strikes me as ineffective, or even
counterproductive ("look, those Wikipedians are so biased they're afraid
to take us on rationally!"). There are lessons to be learned from the
evil that men do.
It's a fact that some religions (or some religious traditions) consider
homosexuality a sin, and that some people use this as a basis for a
stance against gay rights.
Of course it needs expansion and detail (I would agree the current
revision is better). Compare:
That's a direct translation of the first two paragraphs of the English
Later revisions have I think improved it with mention that there are
somewhat more tolerant traditions in Islam as well.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com