-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi,
It's me who put this in the "racialisme" article. The word may be used by quite some people, but I really think that it was invented by racist groups and people to justify racism. Links in Google don't and can't justify anything.
And I also redirected the articles about "racisme anti-blanc" and "racisme à l'envers" to "racisme". Personnally I don't think such articles should be in Wikipedia. I think that it doesn't improve the quality and reputation of Wikipedia.
But if a great number of people think I am wrong, then put back these articles.
However, I do not support the idea to block people who write racist articles. It's counter-productive. It's better to correct their articles and show them the limit (as defined by the law in France). And this as long as they are few and we can correct their articles.
Regards, Yann
PS: I didn't subscribed to this list. So cc: me if necessary.
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
- -- http://www.forget-me.net Alternatives sur le Net http://keys.indymedia.org/showkey.py?key=0A34CBDA gpg --keyserver keys.indymedia.org --recv-key 0A34CBDA
Yann Forget wrote:
However, I do not support the idea to block people who write racist articles. It's counter-productive. It's better to correct their articles and show them the limit (as defined by the law in France). And this as long as they are few and we can correct their articles.
I don't think I can emphasize strongly enough that French law is irrelevant for our purposes here. Appealing to censorship laws is not a firm foundation for writing better articles, the NPOV policy is.
--Jimbo
Hi,
It's me who put this in the "racialisme" article. The word may be used by quite some people, but I really think that it was invented by racist groups and people to justify racism. Links in Google don't and can't justify anything.
Hello Yann
*you* think it was invented by racists. Other people do not think that way.
And I also redirected the articles about "racisme anti-blanc" and "racisme � l'envers" to "racisme". Personnally I don't think such articles should be in Wikipedia. I think that it doesn't improve the quality and reputation of Wikipedia.
But if a great number of people think I am wrong, then put back these articles.
Thanks. I put them back. However, after some thoughts, I moved the definition to anti-blanc rather than � l'envers, for it seems to me that word is more "famous".
When my kids are big enough to realise that their fellow children of another color (being in an international school, there are many colors, and many nationalities, and you don't MY color) are sometimes bugged by people, called names, etc...and start to look for definition of what racisme anti-blanc means, I will be very happy if there is such a place as Wikipedia to explain them in proper and honest ways what it is.
Racisme anti-blanc is not a no-word (I mean : with no existence). I don't care if it is in the dic or not, when people use it extensively, it is a word. When first humans improved communication between each others, they used words (and others means) which were not in any dictionary, but they communicated nonetheless with *these* words.
A language is alive; when a concept needs to be defined, people need to have a common frame to communicate, so they create words. Some white people think racisme against them exist. They call that racisme anti-blanc, they use that word extensively. So, that word *exist* in the french language, academicians are maybe too old or living in the wrong places.
Where will my kids go to understand what the word racisme anti-blanc mean ? In the dic ? noway, it is not there. Where is it ? On right-wing extremist internet sites. Do I want my kids to end up on these sites to find out what that word mean ? No, I would prefer them to find out on Wikipedia
If you have kids, and if they are starting to surf on the net, you will understand it is "beneficial" that this word "is" in Wikipedia Yann.
However, I do not support the idea to block people who write racist articles. It's counter-productive. It's better to correct their articles and show them the limit (as defined by the law in France). And this as long as they are few and we can correct their articles.
Regards, Yann
The french wikipedia is for ALL people speaking french. Not only french from France.
Thanks for giving your viewpoint and listening to mine
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Yann Forget wrote:
It's me who put this in the "racialisme" article. The word may be used by quite some people, but I really think that it was invented by racist groups and people to justify racism. Links in Google don't and can't justify anything.
I agree that when the word racialism(e) was invented it may well have been by racist groups. This seems to have happened around 1900. They may very well have done it to make their racist views more acceptable. For many of their opponents there was no difference at all between racialism and racism. For others the distinction was a useful one. Accepting that distinction did not make them racist. Nobody owns the word.
And I also redirected the articles about "racisme anti-blanc" and "racisme à l'envers" to "racisme". Personnally I don't think such articles should be in Wikipedia. I think that it doesn't improve the quality and reputation of Wikipedia.
Why shouldn't they be? If these phenomena exist, they need to be described fairly. That doesn't mean agreeing with them. A racist article and an article about racism are two different things.
However, I do not support the idea to block people who write racist articles. It's counter-productive. It's better to correct their articles and show them the limit (as defined by the law in France). And this as long as they are few and we can correct their articles.
The difficulty here is who decides what French law means?
Eclecticology
Le Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:22:43 -0800, inspiré Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net écrivait la plume alerte : ....
Accepting that distinction did not make them racist. Nobody owns the word.
Yes, you are right, so I clearly stated in the definition it was a "cache sexe" for racism.
....
Why shouldn't they be? If these phenomena exist, they need to be described fairly. That doesn't mean agreeing with them. A racist article and an article about racism are two different things.
This is easy : racism means there is a difference between race. If in the article we show there is no such things as human races, how can you use a term such anti-caucasian racism without implying first there are different races, and as a consequence that regarding the race that are concerned the racism is different !!! If racism are different regarding the «race» you can compare them and say : oh anti-negro racism is worse than anti-caucasian racism or else. We face a contradiction in term like military music, and it also means we are not self consistent in our definitions.
However, I do not support the idea to block people who write racist articles. It's counter-productive. It's better to correct their articles and show them the limit (as defined by the law in France). And this as long as they are few and we can correct their articles.
Yes, but how should we face a massive and biased change of the definition.
The difficulty here is who decides what French law means?
It is secondary, first how do we handle conflicts regarding the infringement of the editorial rules concerning objectivity.
Eclecticology
Ethylocology,
julien tayon wrote:
Le Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:22:43 -0800, inspiré Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net écrivait la plume alerte : ....
Why shouldn't they be? If these phenomena exist, they need to be described fairly. That doesn't mean agreeing with them. A racist article and an article about racism are two different things.
This is easy : racism means there is a difference between race.
Not at all, and there are differences between races, at least at the DNA level, but the racial markers in a DNA analysis tend to be weaker than those which distinguish two individuals of the same race. It comes down to how important those differences are.
Le petit Robert gives the following for racism "Théorie de la hiérarchie des races, qui conclut à la nécessité de préserver la race dite supérieure de tout croisement, et à le droit de dominer les autres." This is very different from simply saying that races exist
If in the article we show there is no such things as human races, how can you use a term such anti-caucasian racism without implying first there are different races, and as a consequence that regarding the race that are concerned the racism is different !!!
Evidently, the people who say that there is anti-caucasian racism don't agree that there is no such thing as race.
If racism are different regarding the «race» you can compare them and say : oh anti-negro racism is worse than anti-caucasian racism or else.
Reverse discrimination is an unfortunate by-product of affirmative action. Without a belief that races exist there would be no affirmative action programmes either.
Eclecticology
Le Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:53:23 -0800, inspiré Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net écrivait la plume alerte :
julien tayon wrote:
Le Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:22:43 -0800, inspiré Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net écrivait la plume alerte :
[...]
Not at all, and there are differences between races, at least at the DNA level, but the racial markers in a DNA analysis tend to be weaker than those which distinguish two individuals of the same race. It comes down to how important those differences are.
eh eh I dont want to argue here :)
Le petit Robert gives the following for racism "Théorie de la hiérarchie des races, qui conclut à la nécessité de préserver la race dite supérieure de tout croisement, et à le droit de dominer les autres." This is very different from simply saying that races exist
fair enough, I do agree.
[...] Reverse discrimination is an unfortunate by-product of affirmative action. Without a belief that races exist there would be no affirmative action programmes either.
too complex for me, but I agree with the picture too.
I took a few days off. I thank everybody for their answers. I feel eased by your attitude and will go back on the redaction of articles where any further discussion will take place :)
Friendly yours,
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, julien tayon wrote:
....
Why shouldn't they be? If these phenomena exist, they need to be described fairly. That doesn't mean agreeing with them. A racist article and an article about racism are two different things.
This is easy : racism means there is a difference between race. If in the article we show there is no such things as human races, how can you use a term such anti-caucasian racism without implying first there are different races, and as a consequence that regarding the race that are concerned the racism is different !!!
Very simple, independent of whether there exists races or not, and independent of whether IF there exist races 'Caucasian' is one of them, it is surely the case that 'Caucasians' is a certain _group_ of people. And anti-Caucasian racism is a kind of racism that is directed to that group of people.
If racism are different regarding the «race» you can compare them and say : oh anti-negro racism is worse than anti-caucasian racism or else.
Well, you can, but you cannot do so on Wikipedia, since 'worse' is not NPOV.
Andre Engels
By the way...
French people agreed that the next french ambassador be *Youssefsan*, who many of you already know to be a well-balanced wikip�dien.
I am very happy to announce we were able to make that decision with NO dissenting voices, and NO vote (well, except Aoineko who can't help it anyway :-)).
I'll support Youssefsan in the role of "le petit rapporteur" (in which I can be confortably biased)
So... update your embassies !
Anth�re
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Yann Forget wrote:
It's me who put this in the "racialisme" article.
The word may be used by
quite some people, but I really think that it was
invented by racist groups
and people to justify racism. Links in Google don't
and can't justify
anything.
I agree that when the word racialism(e) was invented it may well have been by racist groups. This seems to have happened around 1900. They may very well have done it to make their racist views more acceptable. For many of their opponents there was no difference at all between racialism and racism. For others the distinction was a useful one. Accepting that distinction did not make them racist. Nobody owns the word.
I believe that whoever set the word, the distinction is *very* useful. Discussing (and maybe agreeing) there are enough differences between humans to taxonomise them in different groups (races) is an *entirely* different thing from using this information to justify a specific behavior from one group toward another.
And I also redirected the articles about "racisme
anti-blanc" and "racisme �
l'envers" to "racisme". Personnally I don't think
such articles should be in
Wikipedia. I think that it doesn't improve the
quality and reputation of
Wikipedia.
Why shouldn't they be? If these phenomena exist, they need to be described fairly. That doesn't mean agreeing with them. A racist article and an article about racism are two different things.
The phenomena exist sure enough. And any attempt to define words properly, to provide people with a common frame can only enhance communication between humans, relationships between humans and others living beings. I can't figure how properly defining words could be detrimental to wikipedia.
Another thing that might touch you better Yann. Dunno if you have kids. No matter how well you try to protect them, they end up knowing racism exist (and that is good they discover it exist rather than keeping eyes shut:-)). They look at things, listen to conversations, surf on the net...and sure enough...one day or another, they fell on an article about "racisme anti-blanc".
If they are curious (and usually they are), they wonder what it exactly means... Look in the dic (as I did for some words as a kid), and find nothing...weird, a word used by grown-ups, but it is said not to exist ? Unlike me as a kid, they will maybe be able to look on the net.
And where do you think they will end up ????
Ahhhhhhh, la CELEBRISSIME CINQUIEME COLONNE !!!!!!!
On y revient......
Ton gosse, pr�f�re tu qu'il apprenne ce qu'est le racisme anti-blanc sur un site tel que la 5eme colonne, ou dans un fabuleux article, bien document�, neutre (dans le sens non pas machi macha de politiquement correct tel que certains le concoivent, mais dans le vrai sens : information compl�te non biais�e pr�sentant tous les aspects de fa�on honnete et acceptable par tous ?), bref sur Wikip�dia.
Pour ma part, c'est *tout choisi* !
The difficulty here is who decides what French law means?
Eclecticology
The other difficulty here is who decide that the french wikipedia should follow the French law. Why not the canadian one ? Or the swiss (ah neutralit� !), why not the marrocan one ?
When was is decided the french wikipedia was french only ?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi,
As the discussion goes on, I subscribed.
I accept what people said about these articles. If people want this kind of articles, so let it be.
But as I do make advertising for Wikipedia to friends and others, I worry about the reputation of the site.
Le Vendredi 31 Janvier 2003 20:22, vous avez écrit :
However, I do not support the idea to block people who write racist articles. It's counter-productive. It's better to correct their articles and show them the limit (as defined by the law in France). And this as long as they are few and we can correct their articles.
The difficulty here is who decides what French law means?
Maybe I misexpress myself. I don't mean to make a court case to someone writing articles.
The problem is how you define what is NPOV? On this, I agree with Julien that the border is the Declaration of Human Rights and, when it is not clear enough, law forbiding racism. That it may be French or from somewhere else doesn't matter. Most European countries do have some law about racism. So there IS some consensus among quite a lot of countries about what is racism and what is not, and this consensus can be seen in the law.
And then it may be to prevent the author of an article running into troubles with on of these laws.
Yann
- -- http://www.forget-me.net Alternatives sur le Net http://keys.indymedia.org/showkey.py?key=0A34CBDA gpg --keyserver keys.indymedia.org --recv-key 0A34CBDA
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org