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
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
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.
Racism and anti-Semitism are not a problem of biais. Firstly it is attack to human dignity. Secondly it is forbidden by the french law.
It is interesting to note you stated the info on racialism was probably coming from "My Kampf", and it
It was a joke on a talk page. Please don't put my sentence outside the context
turned out to come from a "sos racism" site :-)
Not only from that site.
Whatever.
The last edits do not justify banning
For the moment, only Curry started to talk about banning. Personnaly, I don't care. I didn't touch the Philippe articles that I though to be acceptable. But I will still move to talk page all atrocity his is able to say.
There is nothing to justify the insults you use
There is nothing to justify incitement to racism
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.
ok
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.
I'm not agasint speak about those theory, I'm agaisnt those who claim there are right.
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 ?
Except you, all wikipedians seem to agree the fact Philippe don't write articles to halp wikipedia, but onlu to bug us.
Aoineko
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
Racism and anti-Semitism are not a problem of biais. Firstly it is attack to human dignity. Secondly it is forbidden by the french law.
Can you clarify for me what is against French law? Is it against French law to have a neutral article describing what racism and anti-Semitism are, without making a judgment of any kind?
I sort of doubt if that would be against French law.
Following the UN point of view on wikipedia is wrong. It is *against* the very idea of a neutral and extensive encyclopedia.
?
The wikipedia strives not to take a position on any controversial issue. If an issue is controversial, we merely describe the issue, not taking a side. This does NOT mean that we act as if "maybe racism is moral, maybe not, who knows?" We are not moral relativists. But we just describe what racism is, and leave the value conclusions to the reader.
I'm not agasint speak about those theory, I'm agaisnt those who claim there are right.
Very good. To claim that they are right would be a serious violation of NPOV.
Except you, all wikipedians seem to agree the fact Philippe don't write articles to halp wikipedia, but onlu to bug us.
Well, I don't know enough to say for sure. It seems that Philippe does admit that his early efforts were bad, but he says that he will do better. I think that we should give him the benefit of the doubt for now. If he keeps trying to insert pro-racist (or pro-racialist) articles, then he should be banned for that.
But for now, let's see how he does.
--Jimbo
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
Secondly it is forbidden by the french law.
Guillaume, in this debate I believe that this partiuclar argument is *not* helping your case. You must try better to explain how this is relevant *in concrete terms* to Wikipedia, or concentrate on other arguments. Jimbo does not seem very likely to shut down Wikipedia after learning on this mailing list that this-or-that is forbidden by French law, and hearing the same over and over again is just tiresome. Exactly *who* is going to take Wikipedia to a French court? And what sanctions can they use to take down an American website?
I am not a lawyer. Are you?
It is interesting to note you stated the info on racialism was probably coming from "My Kampf", and
It was a joke on a talk page. Please don't put my sentence outside the context
Right Aoineko. Calling someone "Philippe Kampf" is NO JOKE. Especially after all the words you have used to depict him. Or it means we have a very different definition of what a joke is. Then we should try an article on jokes, that might be interesting to give examples
There is nothing to justify the insults you use
There is nothing to justify incitement to racism
There is nothing to justify insulting people and calling them bad names. It only leads to exasparation, suffering and escalation of violence. We are lucky Philippe is not replying to your insults with further insults. What would you do then ? Would you consider using even nastier insults, or calling the cops ?
For all I know, by "french law" calling someone "Kampf" or any other of the nice names you have used is *also* punishable. Check the last legal actions on these subjects. You might just as well be liable too. Think about it.
But apart from legal matters, for which I don't care much, don't do to others what you would not want others to do with you. At least that is what the Bible taught us. I believe that's a valid suggestion.
And a Wikip�dia where grown-up throw such words to each others faces is definitly not a place I would recommand to anybody, if only my kids. So please Aoineko, for the sake of peace, give up the insults.
------
Sur un autre th�me, tes traits 33%
1. Il m'a sembl� que l'essentiel des d�veloppeurs souhaitaient s'�loigner du html. Donc l'�criture actuelle n'est pas la bonne, il faut en proposer une autre.
2. De facon tr�s personnelle, l'�criture html me pose probl�me car tr�s mal interpr�t� par Op�ra qui transforme les < et > en garbages caracters assez fr�quemment. pour cette raison, je ne touche pratiquement jamais � la page d'accueil, ou aux pages contenant des tableaux, car je les d�truis. Si tu ajoutes partout ce genre de petites barres, je ne pourrais plus non plus toucher aux articles... c'est d�finitivement une raison pour mettre pour etre compte la proposition actuelle :-)
3. Si cette option est ajout�e, elle doit l'�tre sur toutes les wikip�dia, pas uniquement sur la francophone. Si elle est rejet�e, elle doit l'�tre partout. Apr�s, si elle est disponible, elle peut etre plus ou moins utilis�e sur les diff�rentes wikip�dia, c'est un autre probl�me
Donc, il faut que plus de personnes soient d'accord. Je le serais si une autre �criture (facile et interne � Wikip�dia) est adopt�e, car cela apporte une certaine �l�gance qui a son int�r�t et qui me plait. Okay ?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Le Sun, 2 Feb 2003 02:24:18 -0800 (PST), inspiré Anthere anthere5@yahoo.com écrivait la plume alerte :
Right Aoineko. Calling someone "Philippe Kampf" is NO JOKE. Especially after all the words you have used to depict him. Or it means we have a very different definition of what a joke is. Then we should try an article on jokes, that might be interesting to give examples
It was no joke, he made a mistake by getting in the flame war, so did I. I just recognize I still make mistakes too.
P.'s talks are NO JOKE either.
There is nothing to justify the insults you use
There is nothing to justify incitement to racism
Yes, arguments ad hominem do not serve your opinion. Sorry, Aoineko I cannot support you on this even though I fully agree with you. It decreases your credibility : you were clearly fooled by a provocator. Next time be more careful, you erased P.'s own unforgivable behaviour. "Defending a cause with bad arguments is the best way to screw it up" Nietzche (approx)
There is nothing to justify insulting people and calling them bad names. It only leads to exasparation, suffering and escalation of violence. We are lucky Philippe is not replying to your insults with further insults. What would you do then ? Would you consider using even nastier insults, or calling the cops ?
That's a luck in our bad luck he did not reply. And, yes I could consider calling cops if there are serious grounds, even if I get blamed for this. No one is supposed to ignore the law.
But apart from legal matters, for which I don't care much, don't do to others what you would not want others to do with you. At least that is what the Bible taught us. I believe that's a valid suggestion.
::demonstration of how this could lead to a flamefest, ::and that we shoud stay neutral Anthere I am an atheist thanks God, this does not apply to me then :) ::end of demonstration don't catch the flame pliz!
You're right, I have thought about the law point of view thanks to all of you, it is one point to take into account but not pertinent in WP spirit : I therefore propose that we respect epistemological principles such as considering Ockham (who was Franciscan Anthere) razor for instance as a good criterion for accepting (or rejecting) a theory. We may have to define our epistemological principles then, shouldn't we ?
And a Wikip_dia where grown-up throw such words to each others faces is definitly not a place I would recommand to anybody, if only my kids. So please Aoineko, for the sake of peace, give up the insults.
On one hand, insults are unforgiveable, on the other hand Aoineko is right : there are fights some days and P's behaviour is unforgivable too, Anthere. I do rather face conflicts, than ignore them.
Friendly yours,
P.'s talks are NO JOKE either.
I had understood from what other people said that Philippe was probably NOT talking. So...do you mean he is ?
don't do to others what you would not want others to do with you. At least that is what the
Bible
taught us. I believe that's a valid suggestion.
::demonstration of how this could lead to a flamefest, ::and that we shoud stay neutral Anthere I am an atheist thanks God, this does not apply to me then :) ::end of demonstration don't catch the flame pliz!
Fair enough I stay by this assertion though
You're right, I have thought about the law point of view thanks to all of you, it is one point to take into account but not pertinent in WP spirit : I therefore propose that we respect epistemological principles such as considering Ockham (who was Franciscan Anthere) razor for instance as a good criterion for accepting (or rejecting) a theory. We may have to define our epistemological principles then, shouldn't we ?
go ahead and put these principles down we'll see but science is not the beginning nor the end of everything.
And a Wikip_dia where grown-up throw such words to each others faces is definitly not a place I would recommand to anybody, if only my kids. So please Aoineko, for the sake of peace, give up the
insults. On one hand, insults are unforgiveable, on the other hand Aoineko is right : there are fights some days and P's behaviour is unforgivable too, Anthere. I do rather face conflicts, than ignore them.
Sure.
I noticed you put this into action by being yourself responsible for a *vandalisme* this morning. It was very fortunate Aoineko noticed it and corrected your very arbitrary deletion (you were strongly lucky he labelled that "erreure")
Check out http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=P%E9dophilie&diff=26449&o...
with comment : diffamatoire, non objectif
Clearly, all your recent edits show that you are yourself very biased, with a strong scientist side, and a difficult relation with everything that is related to unusual sexuality. It is important to know, for us to be very careful of what you do.
Btw, I finally understood why we disagreed on the racism page
Your comment : " Le doute sur les sciences, un coup on les invoque, l'autre on les r�voque. Tu reconnais donc que le racisme n'est pas une th�orie scientifique, ou quoi?"
This comment shows clearly the need to separate racism and racialism. For when you are talking of racism, you are really dealing of racialism. Racism is not a scientific theory, and all you are talking about belongs to racialism. When this is clear to you, we should move the discussion to the racialism discussion.
Friendly yours,
yup.
btw 2 : as for the article on cunninlingus, allow me to be more of a reference than you maybe. I will be glad if you provide references.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org