Talk:Alain Vivien

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For NPOV we need ..[edit]

For NPOV we need more on this very controversial politician . --ZappaZ 03:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be exactly attributed - who said that was the purpose of the symposium? Who said, Vivien went there in connection with MILS (Scientology did, but a French government source says he went there for the French govermnent as former secretary of state, not for MILS, that he worked also for charity organizations during that time, and the only travels he made for MILS were to Brussels because of EU coordination. Who said Vivien advised the Chinese government? On what? How does he know? Irmgard 16:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

During his tenure as president of MILS, Vivien draw the attention international human rights organizations by his attendance of a symposium in Beijing organized by the Chinese government to justify its persecution of the Falun Gong and Christian House Churches. Allegedely, Vivien also advised the Chinese government on how to treat religious minorities.

I put the interview quotes into context by adding some text, and improved the translation in some points using a French basis [1] Irmgard 17:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vivien misused public funds?[edit]

There needs to be something on the lawsuits- what they were about, what the charges were, etc. Particularly, weren't there claims that he misused state funds during his tenure at MILS? When I initially wrote the stub, I was using Babel-fish to do the translating, as I don't speak French, so I could be mistaken on this point.--Scimitar parley 17:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced hearsay[edit]

A lot of this seems like unsourced hearsay, with vague claims, probably with some motivation to smear Alain Vivien. Take for instance the claims about Vivien's links to the Chinese government: no precise facts! David.Monniaux 17:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, it's a new article- bring in some references and help fix it up. I personally don't think much of Vivien, perhaps because he thinks Mormons and JWs are "cults", despite each having multi-million members. At this point, it seems like we know he has links; we just don't know their nature. If it's cult-related, it looks bad. If it's French government related, not so much. --Scimitar parley 19:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, do you have references where Vivien said that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons were cults?
And what do you mean by At this point, it seems like we know he has links; we just don't know their nature. If it's cult-related, it looks bad. If it's French government related, not so much.?
This article being a new article is no excuse for libelling people. The policy on Wikipedia, when reporting controversial allegations, is to clearly point out who said what where. David.Monniaux 20:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The probable source is [2] which qualifies as source under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites Irmgard 08:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually going by the MILS report, which treats the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses as cults. As Vivien was head of MILS, I assume he agreed with it, and hence my lack of respect for the man (which isn't to say that I'd include that in the article). What I meant was that although it seems fairly obvious that Vivien had links to China, we don't know what capacity he was serving. If he was there as a cult-advisor, it's controversial. If he was an official French government envoy connected to his other duties, it isn't really controversial.--Scimitar parley 14:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the info in the article is supported by references. If there is text that is not, please point it out. To add a "totallydisputed" tag to this article is nuts. Removed. If the article is designed, as David alleges, to smear Vivien, then fix it. I don't think so. Vivien was a highly controversial person for his involvement in the MILS, is modus operandi and the context in which he performed. We need to deocument these facts in the article. We need more info on his resignantion, comments by his peers and detractors and will also be useful to known what he is involved with these days. --ZappaZ 15:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Being referenced is not always enough. In case of negative statements on a person, it needs to be documented who said what under which circumstances. The negative points mentioned about Vivien are not referenced as needed for an encyclopedia. In the article, e.g. the mention of "serious concerns and critiques" - the reference, the link refers to, does not even mention Vivien and there is nothing said about what he did that was critiqued. Who alleged Vivien advised the Chinese government? Regarding the travels and budget, in the bottom of the Largeur ref, there is the MILS secretary (including his name and former position and who interviewed him) stating exactly the contrary (e.g. he did not travel much for MILS but he did travel for another humanitarian organization, where travel was necessary. He did not go to China at MILS expenses but sent by the state as former state secretary). but nowhere there is said who said who exactly accused him. --Irmgard 18:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing[edit]

I removed this para, because the CESNUR page is commented in an OSCE report regarding an investigation of FECRIS allegations as "The CESNUR report misrepresents the contents of the Regards sur newsletter: taking everything into account, there is insufficient credible evidence for the allegations to be made out." Misrepresented information does not belong into an encyclopedia, even if attributed (except as example for bad reporting of CESNUR in the CESNUR article). The exact evidence and evaluation is found under 15c. [3] --Irmgard 08:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, but no. You can add text referring to the "misrepresentation". Reverted. -- ZappaZ 17:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A partisan report by a partisan organization on another partisan organization is denied by that partisan organization in its partisan rebuttal? Am I missing something? Feel free to add text and a link about the rebuttal to the CESNUR report, but don't remove the allegations entirely. Even if false, they're noteworthy.--Scimitar parley 17:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. --ZappaZ 17:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite - the OSCE Report had the specific prerequisite: "it is important that the Committee appoint a Rapporteur able to state his/her complete independence from both the INGO concerned and from the source of the objection, as well as from any individuals or organisations which may attempt to influence the process. The Rapporteur should also state his/her impartiality with respect to the issues and parties involved and his/her lack of personal interest in the outcome." Besides being an official OSCE paper, this prerequisite should qualify the document as non-partisan. But you are right, Scimitar - it is better to show the CESNUR allegations and what a official neutral investigation says about it. The report is generally very interesting, regarding allegations against cult opposition. --Irmgard 22:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FECRIS again[edit]

Sorry, Zappaz, CAP is, as Marty said, no very reliable source. Here's what the horse's mouth says: [4]

The Standing Committee, meeting on 18 March 2005 in Paris, with Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, in the chair:
[...]
adopted, on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly, the following texts:
[...]
Recommendation 1697 (2005) on the European Federation of Research and Information Centres on Sectarism (FECRIS): request for consultative status with the Council of Europe;

I'll make the necessary text corrections. --Irmgard 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure?.... the recommendation #1967 was rejected. The full text reads: "recommends that the Committee of Ministers grant FECRIS consultative or participatory status, as appropriate"[5]. But that recommendation was rejected by the commitee of Ministers, PACE. Please check again, my French is pretty basic. Thanks. --ZappaZ 23:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am sure - actually, the above info is also not fully up to date. The latest on #1967 is CM/AS(2005)Rec1697 final 18 July 2005 which reads:
1. The Committee of Ministers has carefully studied Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1697 on European Federation of Research and Information Centres on Sectarism (FECRIS): Request for consultative status with the Council of Europe.
2. It agrees with the principles followed by the reporting Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly in dealing with the request, as set out in paragraph 2 of the Recommendation.
3. It shares the conclusions reached by the Assembly on FECRIS and its member groups, presented in paragraph 3 of the Recommendation.
4. The Committee of Ministers approves the Parliamentary Assembly’s recommendation to grant consultative/participatory status to the European Federation of Research and Information Centres on Sectarism (FECRIS), presented in paragraph 4 of the Recommendation.
The CAP text is of February 2005. The #1967 was approved by the Standing Committee of the Assembly on March 18 and passed on to the Minister's Council by the Bureau on March 31, both decisions are online at coe.int. I do not know what CAP referred to in February.
Sure, the report was not approved by the American president, but I do not think that's required for Council of Europe documents ;-) --Irmgard 07:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of FECRIS and their background? An article on FECRIS will be verry useful, now that they are "officially recognized". Indeed a very dark day for Europe. --ZappaZ 14:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read the CAP pamphlets on FECRIS, if you mean that (and Dick Marty has done so as well and had a thorough look at the CAP website (5a additional information 1in the report). If you wonder, why the COE was not so impressed (and I not either), read the Dick Marty report. Dick Marty has no history whatsoever with NRMs but as former prosecutor against drug dealers and mafia he is an old hand at evaluating evidence. His final remark: "On reading the objecting representations as a whole and when faced with the voluminous documentation which accompanies them, a rather sinister atmosphere is cast around FECRIS and its member groups, and the Rapporteur can quite understand why the three parliamentarians saw fit to voice their concerns. When the specific allegations are taken in turn, however, and the material presented in their support subjected to close scrutiny, this atmosphere is thoroughly dispelled." I am glad that the allegations have been looked at and investigated by a neutral instance - and I am very glad, that allegations which were upon investigation not sufficiently proven or misconstructed are not accepted by the Council of Europe - that's a big brownie point for an international organization (BTW, I do in political questions not often agree with Dick Marty) Irmgard 17:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can say whatever you want but this nomination is bad for Europe and by any European that does follow an alternative religion. This is from their website (my emphasis) "Our analysis is based on the evidence derived from the behaviour of organisations. It is important to resist the pressure to place cultic/sectarian behaviour on the safe ground of belief and religion. The argument is a false one based on a superficial approach to the issues and incompatible with scientific analysis." . This makes me very sad. Let's talk in three years from now. My prognosis: the potential of religious persecution with white gloves and under the cover of the European Parliament. Very upsetting. --ZappaZ 23:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Religious persecution is what is taking place in Tibet with Buddhists and in North Korea with Christians - that's a similar error in order of magnitude as your previous one. The big majority of minority and alternative religions in Western Europe doesn't have any real problems, neither with governments nor with cult observer groups like FECRIS, and even the majority of, e.g., Scientologists doesn't have problems either. It is far more dangerous in France to be a Jew, there is a very real risk to meet with verbal or physical attacks by Muslim groups - something Chirac is personally standing up against. --Irmgard 09:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The big majority of minority and alternative religions in Western Europe doesn't have any real problems Do you say that based on your experience? is that your POV? Have you asked any of your friends that pursue alternaive religions (if you have any), if that is what they feel? From what I have heard from direct interaction with these people is that they indeed feel that they live under a cloud of religious persecution. --ZappaZ 18:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have walked in such shoes - for many years. And yes, I have then heard about "persecution" - that it took place in the US (and I took part in demonstrations against it - everyone did in the group). And there were some problems getting visa for the US (because people of the group did go there for a "visit" and stayed without permit). And there were some problems with the phone company - because the group didn't care to know or keep the local rules or didn't pay the bills. But personally, I have then never made any experiences that would come anywhere close to persecution or feeling threatened or anything the like, even though the public relations were then much worse than today. And the only thing I heard since personally about religious persecution was from people who were persecuted by that group - stalked, threatened by phone and in writing, slandered with their employer, etc. and I also did get some veiled threats from that direction - and I did read published stories about persecution which upon investigation were no religious persecution: kid not permitted in private Kindergarden - the parents had a record of not paying bills. A woman refused by employers and seeking asylum in the US (and getting it) - when investigated it was found to be a fake, the employers belonged to the same group and had written the letter upon request). And I know also some people of other minority groups who have no problems. On the other hand, I could recently compare my experiences to those of family members who lived in the former DDR - and they had as confessing Christians very real problems and real reasons to feel threatened (and even some more they did not know about at the time and only later found in their Stasi acts) - things people living in a democracy cannot imagine.
It was interesting to see how you reacted on the news of the admission of FECRIS as NGO in the COE - the COE is much less potent than the UNO, it's a consensus group of countries whose influence goes as far as consensus goes. And you write in a way as if the executioner of the medieval inquisition was actually knocking at the doors of every minority religion anywhere in Europe. And I can imagine that someone who belongs to a group which does not care much for information from outside sources and relies very much on inside information, and who gets such messages does really feel afraid and feel persecuted - not because of any reason in the real world but because of the frightening message from a trusted source. And then he/she might involuntarily watch out for negative experiences and interpret any bad-tempered neighbour as religious persecution. And the people outside of the group wonder if this guy or gal has paranoia because they feel persecuted and there is no persecution to be seen, just a bad-tempered neighbour - and they feel even more persecuted because the other people are so callous in view of religious persecution.. Such social mechanisms do exist - with individuals and with groups. But the source are internal messages - not outside circumstances. " --Irmgard 20:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your long comment, bt I would suggest we keep the polemics out of these pagesa and focus on editing. I admit that it was my mistake to engage and respond to these polemics as I did. Take care. --ZappaZ 14:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polemics[edit]

Zappaz, I think you're going a bit far here. I don't know what this FECRIS organization is exactly, especially since there seems to be a little confusion (cf their site):

Warning
We warn our visitor of the existence of another web site which uses the same acronym " FECRIS " as ours. Its denomination is "Foundation of Expert Critics of Religious Institutions and Societies" which claims a relationship with our organisation, pretending to have similar goals and suggesting a possible collaboration with us. We denounce any possible collaboration and the improper use of our denomination of origin. This process could create a confusion which would be all the more unacceptable that their text contains inaccurate, tendentious and false information regarding us.
(David, I took the quote from the real FECRIS website fecris.org, FYI) --ZappaZ 00:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, I strongly doubt that they can compare to the historical Inquisitions. The Inquisitions typically had sweepingly broad enforcement powers; I do not see how a private organization with no delegation of public service compares.

This reminds me of people commenting on MILS and MIVILUDES as a "religious police", or arguing that these entities gave orders to the police with respect to Falun Gong protesters. Such institutions are, as many in France, just advisory bodies whose only power is to public reports (the conclusions of which may or may not be followed by public powers).

Finally, this is not the place for polemics. There are political forums for this. David.Monniaux 07:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article talk pages are not covered by Wikipedia:NPOV.--Scimitar parley 15:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to current policy:
On Wikipedia, the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.
Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into another H2G2 or Everything2.
David.Monniaux 16:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You find two semi-off-topic posts to be turning this place into a soapbox? I personally think that you're being a little overly-sensitive. You should see some of the crap posted on other talk pages. My point was that it's perfectly acceptable to be a polemic on the talk page, as long as your posts work toward helping the article.--Scimitar parley 17:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my main point. My main point was that using words like "Inquisition" etc. just adds unnecessary hyperbole and aggressivity. David.Monniaux 17:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
David is right. There is no need to get into these polemics here. I will refactor what I wrote above. --ZappaZ 00:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide view needed[edit]

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. This article needs to incorporate more points from a French and German perspective. It violates WP:BLP and reads like an attack piece. Cirt 15:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alain Vivien. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alain_Vivien&oldid=1199301018"