Jonathan Walther wrote: 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

--- Guillaume Blanchard <gblanchard(a)arcsy.co.jp> wrote: 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 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

Guillaume Blanchard wrote: 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: 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(a)aronsson.se) Free Wireless Networking - http://elektrosmog.nu/

Anthere wrote: "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

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

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. 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. 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. You are right not to tolerate this kind of sentence. Absolutely right. But, not becaue of French law! Because of NPOV. --Jimbo

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(a)arcsy.co.jp> wrote: 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. Aoineko, the racialism theory is *not* racism. 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