Jump to content

Talk:Viviane Reding

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

Reding assaulted

[edit]

I don't know if it is notable enough, but is certainly worth mentioning here that on Wednesday 7 July 2010, Reding was assaulted by a man with mental health problems in front of the Palace of Europe. Source: [1]. That was the very day she had her meeting with Thorbjørn Jagland there to kick off joint talks on EU's accession to the Convention on Human Rights. The irony of it! --Insert coins (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did add it to the article after all. The incident did have almost no coverage, but it certainly is notable because top European politicians like her don't get assaulted that often. The circumstances (her meeting) add to the interest. --Insert coins (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Lack of Objectivity in the "Roma Controversy" Section

[edit]

Would anyone agree that this section reads not so much like a Wikipedia entry, as an advocacy piece attacking the subject? Maildej (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree. --Insert coins (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. It's all become seriously passionate. Maybe someone will agree with sufficient conviction to rewrite the story in a more wiki-appropriate dispassionate style. (Unless you think it may turn out to be a passing spat that can be removed from the article completely after three months.) Charles01 (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your observation. I suggest we wait some time until the dust has settled and the passion phased out. The European Council today is out on the issue so more information will become available. The section should stay in this article but not in this form.Otto (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Rightly or wrongly, it reads as if it has been written by an outraged French editor. Most French citizens are extremely touchy about allusions to Nazi collaboration, perhaps understandably. --Ef80 (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This last comment is ignorant, up to its last two words, "perhaps understandably". Mrs Reding may have been banking on such ignorance, but since this is the interpretation that the wikipedia editors gave of her comment, can you list one country occupied by Germany for a similar period during WW II and where Jews and Gypsies fared better than France?Truth or consequences-2 (talk)
I rest my case. --Ef80 (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People have come crawling out of the wood work who have not edited in a while just to push a certain POV and have an obvious agenda. I have asked for partial protection of this article and if it gets too much it may be best to remove the section and fully protect the article for a short while. --Triwbe (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is a textbook case of one editor - i.e. Truth or consequences-2 (talk · contribs) - against every one else.--Insert coins (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. How can WWII history be irrelevant to the wikipedia entry, given that Mrs Reding made a point of bringing it up? And, may I point that the person who actually initiated the reverts in both cases is doing the accusing here?Truth or consequences-2 (talk)
I entirely support "Truth or Consequences", context is everything for a complete understanding! 85.54.239.176 (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roma is the plural of Rom, as has been adopted by English more or less systematically, and correctly, from Romanes. Thus "les roms" in French should be "[The] Roma" in English. The addition of an 's' to form a plural from what is already a plural ["Romas"(sic)] is no more correct than "some sheeps" or "two childrens". I'll just mention that my father who escaped Petain's Nazis during WWII as a [Jewish] boy told me he looked upon people we saw at the Paris 4 Sept. 2010 demo against Sarkozy's stigmatization of an ethnic group as people he "could have counted on" at the time.

I don't feel like re-editing this but I'll sure point it out (quoting from the wiki entry as it stands as I write):

"He also pointed out that 80% of the camps removed during August 2010 were of "gens du voyage", i.e. less than 20% were Roma camps".

"Gens du voyage" (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gens_du_voyage) being an official euphemism for French Roma, or Manouches, this is not a defence, as it purports to be, but rather a seriously incriminating statistic, if true, on the French governments' ethnic targeting.

Is it not also the case that Sarkozy's July 2010 outburst against "crime" etc. (aimed at Bulgarian and Romanian Roma), came as a supposed reaction to a violent demonstration against a police station by a French Manouche community, the only link between the two being the ethnic ingredient? Here we have a selective use of the full force of the law targeted specifically against Romani communities, be they French, Romanian or Bulgarian citizens.

I don't rest my case, and I don't hold my breath that those who don't want to see this will be open to verifying it either.

Albertino1212 (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading of the Gens du Voyage entry is wrong, Albertino1212. I am not sure how fluent your French is, but for the benefit of all I will translate. The entry plainly says of Romas that "among the itinerant population of France [i.e., legally, les gens du voyage], they constitute but a minority". The BBC faq is wrong in stating that gens du voyage is a euphemism for Roma, at least in the French case. The error may be understandable as the terminology and demographic situation are different in Great Britain, especially since British media may wrongly equate Irish travelers with Romas too. Not only is "Gens du Voyage" not a euphemism for French or foreign Roma, but instead it was specifically introduced to replace a previous categorization that could have lent itself to ethnic interpretation (see the French entry, again). I am not aware of an ethnic link being drawn by Sarkozy in his speeches either, let alone being accurate given the demographic facts; but of course, I may have missed something on that.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook group

[edit]

An IP has been continually re-adding a statement that a facebook group was created today calling for the individual to resign, despite that it's clearly not notable. Rather than risking continuing an edit war, I welcome comments from other users. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I´m terribly sorry, but I think the point is being missed. Should we inform of news of a single terrorist threat on an obscure middle eastern website? I think the answer is yes. As these events are happening this week, and if one searches for the topic, the facebook page comes up clearly in the search results. Please don´t use fallacies to defend your position, neither the date, nor the size of the group is truly relevant. If news were based on those things, the Phelps demonstrations would have never been covered by the media. Nor would have the tea party movement at its inception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.60.16.10 (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC) —Moved comment from User talk:Giftiger wunsch GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a news site, and a facebook group started today is not significant to the encyclopaedic coverage of the topic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    and the how about the deleted media coverage in spiegel? 85.54.239.176 (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see anything related to media coverage in der Spiegel; I have only recently been involved in this article. As such, I currently have no opinion as to any other edits you have made (and I assume were reverted). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


 + *:: Sorry about not signing my previous comment! You can see the der spiegel article at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,717643,00.html 
 + It refers to a major news paper, and says: 
 + "The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung argues: 
 +  
 + "It's malicious of Reding to condemn the clearing of illegal camps and the eviction of Romanian and Bulgarian (that is, European) citizens with the remark that such a thing is morally intolerable 'after World War II.' Ms. Reding has disqualified herself with this comparison to the Nazi era." 
 + "After a little reflection, it might have occurred to her that postwar Europe has not been free of ethnically motivated persecution. Yet no one with a minimum of understanding would compare the French effort with, say, the massacre of Srebrenica. Viviane Reding has exhausted her credibility. If she doesn't realize as much, and apologize, she needs to resign, before she does lasting damage to the relationship between the EU and France." 
 + I do personally believe that if the newspaper published it, and der spiegel reproduced it, it is a valid bit of information for the article. But I will not change it myself. I´ll leave that up to you. Best Regards 85.60.16.10 (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also other opinions, perhaps we should mention a few of them. But basically I think there should be at least one pro and one con to every issue. 85.54.239.176 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I´m going to try to do an all encompassing statement, if any of you can improve it, that would be great! 85.54.239.176 (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may have found common ground. I hope all sides agree! Hurray for diplomacy! Napoleonic (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that links to facebook pages are not permitted, see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #10. --Triwbe (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Albertino1212, 26 September 2010

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} [I am resubmitting this request, as uncertain whether it went through the first time. A red message from wikipedia suggested otherwise.]


I have three points for which to suggest required edits.

First edit point:

I would like a necessary addendum to be made to the following section:

"He also pointed out that 80% of the camps removed during August 2010 were of "gens du voyage", i.e. less than 20% were Roma camps".

To read thus:

"He also pointed out that 80% of the camps removed during August 2010 were of "gens du voyage"(French Roma), intended, ironically, to mean that less than 20% were Romani camps". (or better alternative manner of inserting the information described as follows).

As I have stated in the "discussion" section on this page; "Gens du voyage" (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gens_du_voyage) is an official French euphemism for French Roma, or Manouches, making the government statement seriously self-incriminating, rather than satisfactorily explanatory. (Or is there any question about that?).

I have also corrected "Roma camps" to "Romani camps" because the existing adjective for "Rom"/"Roma" etc. in English is not the plural noun "Roma" -as currently misused by a number of journalists, but either "Romani" or "Romany" (the older spelling dating from 1812: http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/romani).

Second edit point:

I also have a suggested modification for the following section:

"This mention could be explained by the fact that Roma account for the overwhelming majority of foreign migrants setting up camps in France, and that "most Roma from the two countries [Bulgaria and Romania] are thought to be in France illegally".[12] French President Nicolas Sarkozy pointed out that the directive in question was canceled as soon as his government became aware of it."

After careful consideration, I argue for the full deletion of the first half of this section up to the reference link [12]. The grounds for this are as follows:

The claim made that the mention "en priorite ceux des roms" "could be explained"(no reference)as above is lacking in both facts and logic, as I will demonstrate:

1)If the French government's priority was in fact to dismantle all "illegal camps" regardless of the ethnic origin of the occupants, it does not logically follow that the ethnic group which "is thought" to make up most of the "foreign migrants" in such camps should be targeted "as a priority". Rather, what this does logically entail is that statistically this group would turn out to have been the most affected BY DEPORTATION ORDERS(capitals for emphasis,as the official French circular went into much detail about closing down camps using every possible legal basis, of which unfulfilled visa requirements among "foreign migrants" was just one.)These are two very different propositions.

2)"En priorite ceux des roms" could in fact also cover French Roma (see also my first suggested edit, above), of whom it is currently much harder to say they are "thought to be in France illegally".

3)The erasing of French Roma from the above equation turns a convenient blind eye to the elephant in the room: That, as the BBC article quoted in support of the section in question opens:

[From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11027288]:

"What prompted the latest government action?

In July, dozens of FRENCH ROMA [my emphasis] armed with hatchets and iron bars attacked a police station, hacked down trees and burned cars in the small Loire Valley town of Saint Aignan."

-Indeed, Sarkozy's emphatic statements and actions from July 2010 against camps either "thought to be" lived in by numerous Romanian and Bulgarian Roma or by people who are merely "gens du voyage"(French Roma)came as a response to events concerning a specific group of individuals of French Romani ethnicity. The only connecting thread between the two events is the ethnic origin of the people involved, thereby unmistakably associating said ethnic group with criminality, which the Sarkozy government claims to be fighting, rather than perpetrating (i.e. in the Woerth scandal).

Third and final edit point:

Finally, I suggest a needed edit to the second part of the aforementioned last section which, as pointed out by someone in the discussion, could easily have been written by a French minister, since it unquestioningly takes an official statement at face value:

"French President Nicolas Sarkozy pointed out that the directive in question was canceled as soon as his government became aware of it."

Here I contend that the terms "pointed out" and "his government became aware of it" could easily and more honestly (unless indeed written by someone with intimate knowledge of the French government's day-to-day workings at ministerial level) be replaced as follows:

"French President Nicolas Sarkozy sought to bolster his case by referring to the fact that the directive in question was canceled as soon as it became public, stating that his government had previously been unaware of its contents."

I am of course open to any stylistic improvements to my versions and would be very interested indeed to hear of any defensible objection to any part of suggested edits' contents.

Many thanks,

Albertino1212 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Please try to reach consensus here before making these changes. That will have the side benefit of allowing you to complete seven more edits so that you will become autoconfirmed and can edit the article directly. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading of the Gens du Voyage entry is wrong, Albertino1212. I am not sure how fluent your French is, but for the benefit of all I will translate. The entry plainly says of Romas that "among the itinerant population of France [i.e., legally, les gens du voyage], they constitute but a minority". The BBC faq is wrong in stating that gens du voyage is a euphemism for Roma, at least in the French case. The error may be understandable as the terminology and demographic situation are different in Great Britain, especially since British media may wrongly equate Irish travelers with Romas too. Not only is "Gens du Voyage" not a euphemism for French or foreign Roma, but instead it was specifically introduced to replace a previous categorization that could have lent itself to ethnic interpretation (see the French entry, again). I am not aware of an ethnic link being drawn by Sarkozy in his speeches either, let alone being accurate given the demographic facts; but of course, I may have missed something on that. It follow that your proposed edit is more misleading. Besides, it introduce POV matter in what is a report of what Sarkozy said.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bilderberg conference

[edit]

There were rumors in the Hungarian press,suggesting that she promised action against the Fidesz-government of Hungary. I am not sure, that these were true, it is highly doubtful, that a EU-Commissioner made such remarks. Could someone provide reliable sources?--Ltbuni (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facelift

[edit]

Has she had a MACS facelift?79.74.101.164 (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)twl79.74.101.164 (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viviane Reding proposes United States of Europe

[edit]

Finally, Europe has a vision! As one country it will be much stronger. Winston Churchill, a prominent European statesman said: "If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance there would be no limit to the happiness, the prosperity, and the glory which its 300,000,000 or 400,000,000 people would enjoy." and "Why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent? And why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings and help to shape the onward destinies of men?"

Can we mention that proposal in the article?--89.128.236.143 (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revolving door paragraph

[edit]
Should the last paragraph on 'revolving door' issues be specified, receive a spell check and better formatting? Irseer (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Viviane Reding. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Viviane Reding. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Viviane Reding. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Viviane Reding. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Viviane_Reding&oldid=1206962107"