Hello
Here's the texte I posted today for racialisme
"Le '''racialisme''' est relatif � la conviction qu'� une personne de l'existence de [[race]]s. Le terme est utilis� dans les sciences humaines et en particulier par [[Pierre-Andr� Taguieff]].
Le racialisme est le fait de d�signer une personne comme �tant d'une race ou d'une autre, plut�t que par exemple d'une couleur ou d'une autre. Par exemple, un article reportant un accident dans un journal, et indiquant qu'un conducteur est blanc est du racialisme."
------------
Here's the comment I had on the discussion page (of course, my definition was deleted)
''Rigoles pas des genoux � part toi personne ne connais ce mot. Consid�res que par d�faut ce que dit Aoineko est vrai ton mot c'est pipot i.e. dans aucun dico ! C'est une encyclop�die pas un d�pliant du FN. En attendant laisse b�ton. Merde, je suis peut �tre que ma�tre es science, mais mes notions scientifiques sont suffisantes pour savoir que tes th�ories sont aussi scientifiques que celle sur les aliens. Jul''
Is it a proper way to talk to people ?
---------
There are hits on google about racialisme. Some are from the french embassy, some on antiracist associations people like Taguieff and Poliakov, and Barthes are talking about this
But french people consider the word don't exist, they insult me, and delete my article
They replaced my article with
"Terme invent� par des groupes racistes dans le but de nier le racisme. Ce mot n'existe officiellement pas."
--------
Do you think that definition is correcte ??? I don't think so; and I think many people would disagree with it, not only me.
But, it is the definition that is on Wikip�dia now.
I don't know if people other then french speak french here. But, if they do, can they give their advice please ?
I think it is totally untrue that wikipedia is neutral. It is not. Unless you do something, and tell them not to delete what I write. I tried to merge my texte and their texte, but they deleted mine again.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Bonjour, I didn't delete the Philippe article about Racialisme, but just move it in the talk page because I didn't found this word neither in my dictionnary nor in "Le Dictionnaire de l'academie francaise" that mean this world not exist officilly in french language. After some search over the web, I found many mention of this word so I proposed an new article to explain this racist theory. I don't know how to handle word that not exist in french, but if I decide to create a new word, "ekojeslker" for exemple, then can I create an article on it in an encyclopedia ??? Sure, Philippe is a polite person, but dont forget what he wrote :
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"
I apologize french wikipedians for there rudness with Philippe, but we don't tolerate this kind of sentences on the french wikipedia !
Aoineko
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 03:26:40PM +0900, Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
Bonjour, I didn't delete the Philippe article about Racialisme, but just move it in the talk page because I didn't found this word neither in my dictionnary nor in "Le Dictionnaire de l'academie francaise" that mean this world not exist officilly in french language. After some search over the web, I found many mention of this word so I proposed an new article to explain this racist theory.
The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. And it is certainly not an arbiter which words people may or may not use. You may not use Le Dictionnaire de l'academie francaise as justification for removing an article.
Jonathan
Jonathan Walther wrote:
The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. And it is certainly not an arbiter which words people may or may not use. You may not use Le Dictionnaire de l'academie francaise as justification for removing an article.
I would agree with the sentiment, but I don't like saying "You may not". Better to say "It is not a good idea to..."
We already have some distrust between the French and English wikipedias, and I don't want them to get the impression that the English speakers will set every policy down to the last detail by edict.
--Jimbo
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 04:42:31AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
We already have some distrust between the French and English wikipedias, and I don't want them to get the impression that the English speakers will set every policy down to the last detail by edict.
My apologies. I wasn't aware of the situation. I love French cheese, wine, bread, and literature, but I don't have much patience for the Academy.
Jonathan
--- Guillaume Blanchard gblanchard@arcsy.co.jp wrote:
Bonjour, I didn't delete the Philippe article about Racialisme, but just move it in the talk page because I didn't found this word neither in my dictionnary nor in "Le Dictionnaire de l'academie francaise" that mean this world not exist officilly in french language. After some search over the web, I found many mention of this word so I proposed an new article to explain this racist theory. I don't know how to handle word that not exist in french, but if I decide to create a new word, "ekojeslker" for exemple, then can I create an article on it in an encyclopedia ???
Aoineko,
I have no dictionary at home other than Le Petit Larousse, so I am gonna ask you something
Please, could you check for me whether the word "biodiversit�" is in there ?
Yes ? good news :-)
No ? then, please, go ahead, delete about 50% of what I wrote in about 6 months. For it is all about biodiversit�. Please go to my page, and check my articles. You will probably find out about half of the things I talk about are NOT in the dic. Please, do remove all of them. DO !
Do you really think that just because they are not in the dic, they do not exist, and have no room on wikipedia ???
Now check out the words on google, and see where the real life it. Not in the page of an old grey book.
Why is that ? Because, our academicians are old, and they work slowly. Most theories, most concepts developped in the past 30 years (how old are you ?) are not in the dic yet. But they exist. People have been working on them for years, written books...
It is not because they are not in the academia book they should not be there, if enough people care about them, that gives them more reality than your grey and rusty book.
That's why the net is good stuff. It is up-to-date.
So, please, don't forget to check in other places that the french dict to check if something exist. And check reality of existence of words, BEFORE assuming they don't exist...
Another thing, I never say anything on computer science or egyptology, because I know very little about these fields. I think (hope ?) you would admit I know more about biology and genetics and race than you do ?
I will rework the racialism article. I am far from an expert (very far :-)), but I hope *very much* you will accept what I will write.
Do you know why
Sure, Philippe is a polite person, but dont forget what he wrote :
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"
I apologize french wikipedians for there rudness with Philippe, but we don't tolerate this kind of sentences on the french wikipedia !
Then improve them, instead of removing them. And also improve your way of talking to people who don't think the way you do. That might help Philippe to be more concilliant - as I think he was in the past two days.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Anthere, do you read my mails ????? I don't say racialism don't exist because there are not in the dictionnary. I said this word is not french, so we have to think about how to handle this kind of case. And what is the criteria that make a word that don't exist officially can be add in an encyclopedie or not ? I'm not the one that put the poor definition of racialism yesterday and I'm not the one who have removed [racisme antiblanc] and [racisme inverse]. Please stop firing in the whole.
Aoineko
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
I said this word is not french, so we have to think about how to handle this kind of case. And what is the criteria that make a word that don't exist officially can be add in an encyclopedie or not ?
The "culture" of English is very different from the "culture" of French in this regard. What I mean is, the idea that a word doesn't exist "officially" is a very odd idea to English speakers. Words exist when people use them and know what they mean.
I recommend using a variety of factors in determining whether or not a word is a "real word" for the purposes of the Encyclopedia. Whether or not it is in a dictionary is certainly _one_ factor that's worth considering. But common usage is also important, probably more important, isn't it?
--Jimbo
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
I said this word is not french, so we have to think about how to handle this kind of case. And what is the criteria that make a word that don't exist officially can be add in an encyclopedie or not ?
The "culture" of English is very different from the "culture" of French in this regard. What I mean is, the idea that a word doesn't exist "officially" is a very odd idea to English speakers. Words exist when people use them and know what they mean.
I recommend using a variety of factors in determining whether or not a word is a "real word" for the purposes of the Encyclopedia. Whether or not it is in a dictionary is certainly _one_ factor that's worth considering. But common usage is also important, probably more important, isn't it?
I agree. It's why I finally wrote an article on Racialisme.
--Jimbo
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
And what is the criteria that make a word that don't exist officially can be add in an encyclopedie or not ?
This particular part of the problem has a very easy solution: If there is any doubt about a word, start the article by explaining how and when the word has been used, for example
"the leader of the green party Mrs. Xxxx Yyyy has often used the word 'biodiversity' in her speeches in parliament, and in an often cited article in Le Monde in February 2000. She uses this word to mean ...".
As you can see, this is very different from
"I just invented the word 'elxkajels', and I want it to mean ...".
The former is NPOV, since it describes actual facts (Mrs X Y used this word), whereas the latter is subjective (I want...). The former helps people understand what they hear and read in news media, and thus has a place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is online and moves faster than L'Academie Francaise. Perhaps they should be reading Wikipedia to discover new words.
The opposite problem is words that have fallen out of use, that only need to be explained to help people understand really old texts, such as Phlogiston.
--- Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
And what is the criteria that make a word that
don't exist
officially can be add in an encyclopedie or not ?
This particular part of the problem has a very easy solution: If there is any doubt about a word, start the article by explaining how and when the word has been used, for example
"the leader of the green party Mrs. Xxxx Yyyy has often used the word 'biodiversity' in her speeches in parliament, and in an often cited article in Le Monde in February 2000. She uses this word to mean ...".
very good advice Lars, thanks
With some luck, the real names of some wikipedians could appear in wikipedia :-)
The former is NPOV, since it describes actual facts (Mrs X Y used this word), whereas the latter is subjective (I want...). The former helps people understand what they hear and read in news media, and thus has a place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is online and moves faster than L'Academie Francaise. Perhaps they should be reading Wikipedia to discover new words.
The opposite problem is words that have fallen out of use, that only need to be explained to help people understand really old texts, such as Phlogiston.
Hummmmm.....I don't know that word. It is not in my dic. Maybe it doesnot exist...anyway, it may belong to wiktionary more than wikipedia maybe ?
Seriously, phlog and phlox means flame. I would guess...that's an old type of lighter...or a cannon filled with oil-enflammed tissue used in middle age wars...or a mythological dragon...or a politician very skilled in spiting nasty comments...
right
I don't know
-------------
btw, thanks to all who gave good advices on this issue
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
The opposite problem is words that have fallen out of use, that only need to be explained to help people understand really old texts, such as Phlogiston.
Hummmmm.....I don't know that word. It is not in my dic. Maybe it doesnot exist...anyway, it may belong to wiktionary more than wikipedia maybe ?
Seriously, phlog and phlox means flame. I would guess...that's an old type of lighter...or a cannon filled with oil-enflammed tissue used in middle age wars...
"Phlogiston" is from the 18th century, and you are right about its connection with "flame". It was a substance that was theorized to exist in every combustible thing, and which would be released when it was burned. The closest modern concept might be carbon dioxide. There are a lot of words like that which represent dead ends in old science.
Eclecticology
After reviewing the matter, I do have a few observations.
1. I believe that Phillippe was acting in good faith in his efforts, and willing to adjust his writing to conform with community standards. It is quite common for the first draught of an article to show bias in some way. That only means that it requires improvement, rather than deletion. Just because it happens to be about a sensitive subject like race, and that it attempts to give some explanation of the term doesn't mean that the writer believes or supports the idea that he is describing.
2. Just because the Académie doesn't recognize a word, doesn't mean that it's not a word. Language changes faster than the Académie.
3. The difference between racism(e) and racialism(e) can be a difficult. British usage treats the two terms as identical, but American usage makes an important distinction between the two words. Saying that blacks run faster than whites would be a racialist expression but not a racist one. The proportion of blacks who have won Olympic medals in the 100 metre run suggests that the statement is true; it's what we do with that information that makes it racist. (Perhaps if there were more blacks in the Académie, it might run faster. :-) )
4. The issue of violating French law didn't help solve any problems.. Even assuming that the writing does violate French law it would be the job of a French judge to make that decision, not some individual who has decided that French law will be interpreted and imposed based on his own idiosyncratic view of that law.
5. There is a need to avoid oversensitivity with these subjects. Often what seems racist to some readers can have no such intention in the mouth of the speaker.
Eclecticology
Modify an article is our primordial right on wikipedia. Philippe can create any racist articles he want, we are free to modify it as we think honestly it have to be modify. In fact, except Philippe (+ Anthere?) no one in the french wikipedia are agree with the formulation (not the content) of Philippe articles. So it's normal that almost each time we wrote an article someone modify it.
Aoineko
Warning! Highly off-topic!
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Ray Saintonge wrote:
- The difference between racism(e) and racialism(e) can be a difficult.
British usage treats the two terms as identical, but American usage makes an important distinction between the two words. Saying that blacks run faster than whites would be a racialist expression but not a racist one. The proportion of blacks who have won Olympic medals in the 100 metre run suggests that the statement is true; it's what we do with that information that makes it racist. (Perhaps if there were more blacks in the Académie, it might run faster. :-) )
The number of Olympic medals on the 100 metre run is not a very good metric to use here. There is namely a very large difference within the groups as well, and if there were (for example) one small black people who were such excellent runners that even their average runners were world class, while all other blacks were significantly slower than whites on average, we might still have the same results.
Analogous, I claim that whites live more to the south than blacks. Proof? Just check the list of people who have visited the South Pole (note: I have not actually done it, but it would surprise me if not the majority of them were Caucasian).
Apart from that, I must say that I do very much agree with your post.
Andre Engels
It's very difficult to work with babelfish translations, or with *any* translation, because the difference between POV and NPOV can be lost in a particular translation. Language is subtle, and nuance matters a lot.
"Historically, there are many reasons to justify the anti-semitism, including factors social, economic, national, political, racial and religious."
As written, this is POV, because it implies (but barely) that the reasons were valid justifications. It could be made more neutral by saying "Historically, many reasons have been given by the anti-semitic to justify their anti-semitism, including ..."
That's a fact, an unobjectionable one, which doesn't commit wikipedia to implicitly endorsing or condemning anything.
"The Jews are people of a race distinctly different from the other people. The discrimination based on such a distinction is thus valid"
This is impossible to render in NPOV. The best that could be done is to indicate that _some anti-semites believe_ such-and-such. It is *not* the position of wikipedia to decide such issues as whether or not Jews are "people of a race", nor (even more so) to ever claim that discrimination based on such a distinction is valid.
I apologize french wikipedians for there rudness with Philippe, but we don't tolerate this kind of sentences on the french wikipedia !
You are right not to tolerate this kind of sentence. Absolutely right.
But, not becaue of French law! Because of NPOV.
--Jimbo
Here's the comment I had on the discussion page (of course, my definition was deleted)
Not deletes, but moved to talk page
Is it a proper way to talk to people ?
It's not worst than stimulate the racism
But french people consider the word don't exist, they insult me, and delete my article
The word DON'T exist in french. That don't mean the theory don't exist. I wrote an article on that don't you see it ?
But, it is the definition that is on Wikipédia now.
False. Look at this page : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialisme
I don't know if people other then french speak french here. But, if they do, can they give their advice please ?
Good advice : Stop to bug us. There are several racist homepage where you can wrote your theory.
I think it is totally untrue that wikipedia is neutral. It is not. Unless you do something, and tell them not to delete what I write. I tried to merge my texte and their texte, but they deleted mine again.
Neutral don't mean to say all theories are right.
Aoineko
Why is it that these messages took so much time before being published ? I think holding on messages is really disrupting the flow of conversation...
--- Guillaume Blanchard gblanchard@arcsy.co.jp wrote:
But french people consider the word don't exist,
they
insult me, and delete my article
The word DON'T exist in french. That don't mean the theory don't exist. I wrote an article on that don't you see it ?
But, it is the definition that is on Wikip�dia
now.
False. Look at this page : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialisme
It was certainly not the definition you gave yesterday. It is totally stupid to hold messages, so when people can answer them, they are no more valid.
I don't know if people other then french speak
french
here. But, if they do, can they give their advice please ?
Good advice : Stop to bug us. There are several racist homepage where you can wrote your theory.
Aoineko, the racialism theory is *not* racism.
I think it is totally untrue that wikipedia is neutral. It is not. Unless you do something, and
tell
them not to delete what I write. I tried to merge my texte and their texte, but
they
deleted mine again.
Neutral don't mean to say all theories are right.
Very true Aoineko It is why we should state *nowhere* theories are right or wrong. This is true in both ways. Ideally, we should not state either that being an non-racist is the *right* way to be.
I hope most people, after reading the wonderful wikipedia, full of neutral articles stating every point of view, will be able to decide by themselves, what is right and wrong by themselves and for themselves.
It is not our role to tell them the right path.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org