[WikiEN-l] Islamism - no parallel encyclopedia within

[Anthere]

From: Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com>
Anthere writes:
> can't help but take with a grain of salt the issue
> you raise above, with the fact you listed 
> [[Militant Islam]] for deletion just after RK
redirected
> it with justifications which were not convincing.


That's nonsense. The reasons stated were not only
convincing, they always have been STANDARD WIKIPEDIA
POLICY.

It is a clear violation of Wikipedia NPOV and naming
policy to make an exact copy of an article we already
have, retitle it, and then edit it to push your own
political and religious views.  People may not create
their own private encyclopedias within Wikipedia which
bypass our normal peer review process.

If someone doesn't like the article on [[Flowers]], or
on [[History]] or on [[Islamism]], they are welcome to
work with others in editing it and improving it. But
they may not copy this article, and make their own POV
version of it, and set up their private enyclopedia
within Wikipedia.

This is hardly "not convincing".  This is the standard
Wikipedia policy that all of us have always followed
from the beginning. If people like EntmootsOfTrolls
find themselves unable to follow our NPOV policy, and
unable to work with others in reaching a consensus,
then they should stay away from those articles
altogether.


Robert (RK)

--------

When one is censored so much and so deliberatly, it is
not entirely surprising that they try to use other
means to have other opinions that the current trend
inserted in that encyclopedia.

As a reminder, this encyclopedia means to neutral, and
in I am correct, neutral means to welcome all points
of view on a topic. I do not necessarily mean every
little opinion, but every opinion that might be
relevant.

To achieve that, it is a *good* idea that people of
various points of view collaborate on these articles,
and if necessary on talk pages.

Collaboration : collaborate means "exchanging" point
of view, trying to  reach an agreement on what should
be included in the article. This usually implies
answering something else than "no" in talk page. Or
even answering at all btw. I tried to talk to you on
[[talk:islamism]], and all I got from you was "no" and
a very very very very very deep silence.

Relevant : I agreed some of the stuff inserted was
biaised. I proposed to you to rework it. The current
article is not informative enough. The proposed
insertion, though biased is informative. Hence my
desire for it to be inserted, after npoving. All I got
from you was "no" and a very very very very very deep
silence.

Points of view : moving in a difficult and dangerous
realm here. What are we talking about ? Islamism. Very
hot topic. One that would deserve a specific type of
loving care. One that we would suppose would interest
a good number of people here. All the ones that have
suffered a loss in 9/11. All the americans probably.
All the french as well (for mind you, terrorism and
violence DID NOT start 2 years ago). All muslim people
on wikipedia (not many it appears). And all those
interested by religion.

In the end, who is working on Islamism ?
You, Graft
Steve who was in an edit war with you previously on
that topic
Who is currently reverting these articles ?
RickK
Who is trying to give hir opinion, and is either
reverted or just not listen to
142 and I.

In the end, the only ones that have access to these
articles are you and Graft. Others are carefully left
aside. 142 will soon be permanently shut up. And you
will discourage me to try to work on this one, where
my opinion is just good at being left unanswered on
talk pages.

I do not support the current islamism article. It is
non-informative enough, and non neutral, and as such
is not respecting wikipedia rules. At least, it is not
respecting french point of view.

Hence, I started a [[Islam in France]], where I will
try to put the french point of view at least. Islamism
should not be written by american only, and not by
appently people of jewish culture/religion only as
well. Catholics pov, muslim pov, bouddhists pov should
be welcome as well. If you feel that it is a breach of
wikipedia protocole to do so, please remember that
France has a long history of contact with muslim
people, hate and love with Algeria story, major bounds
with this country that are not gonna be broken any
time soon, that about 10% of French population is from
Muslim extraction, that we live fondamentalism and/or
islamism on our soil, not just by tv shows, that we
are still struggling for integration of all these
people, and that already now, the mixing of muslim and
mostly catholics culture is producing great things.
Our growth pains are from a different perspective than
your fights against integrists. And they also deserve
attention.

I am quite disapointed, that no one cares about such a
topic, and accept that censorship is being so hard on
it. If only, because it would be enlightful to
understand other points of view that the one one can
read in books and newspapers. If only because american
people deserve more than what is currently proposed on
the islamism article.

I am not knowledgeable really on that topic. So, my
main proposition for Wikipedia sake is that I focus my
next week end promotion of Wikipedia in north african
countries, where a lot of the population is
french-speaking (as well as english) and muslim.

This was an interesting week RK. I am ****really****
glad that you stayed polite. I would have appreciated
that you accepted to work with me as well. Sorry that
we were not able to even work on talk page together.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com