Wikipedia:Peer review/French legislation against cult abuses/archive1

French legislation on cult abuses

Some other editors seem to contend that the content of this article is too biased in favor of the point of view of the French government. I have made a large number of edits to this article, and as much as possible I tried to stick to facts and legal cases, and avoid quotations of opinions, suppositions, hypotheses and alarmism.

I am somewhat unhappy with the external link section. First, the section seems to be solidly biased in favor of the criticism of the law. Second, the relevance of the linked articles is not obvious to me. Some articles are written by self-described human rights groups, but I wonder whether they have any kind of wide recognition. Some of the articles discuss paragraphs of the law... that do not exist (or only existed in early drafts); presumably, the authors of such "references" did not know what they wrote about. Etc. David.Monniaux 21:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Complaint of abuse of sysop privileges by David Monniaux moved to Talk:French legislation against cult abuses#Controversy with an anonymous user. Note: Anon user believes this complaint to be at the core of this Peer Review. --38.119.107.72 16:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look at that, the first anon ever to be a sysop candidate. Who is For ? Against ? Neutral ? ;-))) --Pgreenfinch 17:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Regarding his request for peer review, the external link is just a small sample of the criticism by European nations, US and human rights organizations against what they consider a degradation of freedom of religion in France.

Do you call these "Self-described" human rights advocacy groups?

• The Council of Europe
• The International Federation for Human Rights
• The European Court of Human Rights
• The Helsinki International Federation for Human Rights

--38.119.107.72 03:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Council of Europe has expressed concerns on the legislation, but has refrained from considering it to be an infringement on human rights. The European Court of Human Rights has not expressed itself on the topic. The International Federation for Human Rights, this one is notorious. The Helsinki International Federation for Human Rights, I had never heard about it, it seems to be less notorious than the preceding. The remarks of the US government have ceased with the Bush administration, giving credence to the thesis that they were motivated by financial support of the Clinton administration by financial groups. Where are the remarks from European nations?

The external links that I disagree especially with are two from un-notorious sources (a Canadian professor and some organization) that criticize non-existant disposition of the law. One of them, for instance, quotes some disposition in "section 1" of the law... and if you read the actual law, there's no such disposition, in section 1 or anywhere. How relevant is "criticism" of a law from un-notorious people who haven't even read it?

Who is the Coordination des Associations & Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience? Who is the International Foundation for Human Rights and Tolerance? David.Monniaux 08:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aren't you confusing the interventions of some advocates of a position in some mmeting of those organizations or some reports presented to it, with an official positions from those organizations?

You can cover biased statement by using such official-looking attributions. There is a craze by some to find attributions for every line of every article. Not only it makes for confusing articles, unaccessible to the common reader, as playgrounds for specialists only, but also it smacks of lawyers' ploys. Attributions, playing on the notoriety of the attributtee, and presented to support a thesis, sometimes stink as just maneuvers.

I suggest that all quotations and attributions should be kept out of the main texts, and become footnotes, for the specialists to play and have their solitary pleasures. This is my theory, "always isolate the side mess from the main mess". You are welcome to quote it and attribute it to me, or to the International Organization and Court of Greenfinch Rights on Attributions and Quotations;-)) --Pgreenfinch 08:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't see what the problem is here. As far as I can see the ongoing debate between Pgreenfinch, Mr. Monniaux, anons and myself, has led to a substatially better and more comprehensive article (check the history!). This energy is what fuels WP. Let it be, rather than quash it. Let the critics make their point, let the pro About-Piccard make theirs. All will contribute to a better article and more informed readers. --Zappaz 17:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I researched what the European Court of Human Rights had to say on the matter, and it seems that, on two occasions, they rejected recourses against the main matters discussed of the article (the parliamentary reports, and the About-Picard law).

I contend that many of the "references" and quotations added by our anonymous (and anonymized?) friend are not that relevant. Criteria for relevance include: 1) being from a notorious, identifiable source on the topic being discussed 2) being well-researched and documented. This is especially true about criticism.

If, for instance, somebody went to George W. Bush and added any criticism about Bush's policies that he could find worlwide in the word of any, however minor, left-wing group, the size of the article would explode, and other editors would remove the irrelevant material.

On aspect 2), I do not think that it helps much to include criticisms from unknown sources that, for instance, criticize inexistent sections of a law. I mean, it's not rocket science to get the text of a French law, there are free Web services for it; it's not rocket science either to use Google translate or Babelfish. If somebody cannot do those two simple things, then I wonder what kind of criticism he or she can write.

On aspect 1), it must be pointed out that, nowadays, (almost) anybody can found an association of protection of the rights of anything, open a Web site, and post "reports" and opinion pieces on it. But, seriously, how is that relevant to quote such opinions in an Encyclopedia?

Institutions such as the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights are certainly notable (plus, in the case of the ECHR, they may issue legal rulings on the matter). Associations such as Amnesty International or the French League of Human Rights have a long history and are well-respected. The French Protestant Federation is an association of note. But, seriously, should we include the rants of any random association, just because they show up on Google when one types certain phrases and they show the POV that the editor wishes?

I have strived to, as much as possible, include references from well-identifiable, reputed sources. If there was discussion of legal aspects, I strived to obtain the legal texts – of laws, of rulings –, in preference to posting what somebody (who may not even have read the text, or knows about it from hearsay) commented upon it.

(Note for Zappaz: I'm not a big fan of some of the actions of my government with respect to "cults". Still, I think that they should not be mis-represented, especially when authoritative documentation is available.) David.Monniaux 17:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore I think, like Pgreenfinch, that we should be careful not to represent the position of somebody intervening at a meeting organized by an institution as the position of that institution. In all cases, precise attributions should help dispel any doubt or misunderstanding. As an example, I replaced vague wording about some criticism from an OSCE meeting to those who uttered it during that meeting (representatives from the Church of Scientology and other groups). David.Monniaux 19:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)