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@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@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