Talk:Viviane Reding

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

European Union Mid‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Luxembourg

	Luxembourg portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Luxembourg, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LuxembourgWikipedia:WikiProject LuxembourgTemplate:WikiProject LuxembourgLuxembourg
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Reding assaulted

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

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]

Facebook group

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]

Note that I just self-reverted my last reversion since it was my third and I don't wish to get any closer to 3RR than necessary. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:14, 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]