Jump to content

Talk:Jean Monnet

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

NPOV Noncompliance

[edit]

The section "The Monnet Plan, an European superstate" reads like Eurosceptic propagandism. "Right from the beginning the EU was not intended to be about sharing or cooperation..." is a grand assessment of the EU that is out of the scope of this article, as well as a wholly negative assessment to which no counter-points are made. The sentence ""a whole series of concessions in regard to their sovereign rights until, having been finally stripped, they committed hara-kiri by accepting the merger."" is not attributed to any source. "there is only a new, supranational form of government beyond all democratic control. Governments and parliaments are left in place, but are subordinated to the EU. " Whether this is accurate or not, this is not a sentiment shared by all those who study the EU and follow its developments. It does not reflect the public position of any European government. "Beyond all democratic control" is a sweeping statement with rhetorical, motivational overtones, not an assessment of whatever democratic deficits may or may not be present in the EU. The contrast drawn in the sentence between "where there are vetoes, there is still inter-governmentalism, still independent, sovereign nations;" and "where there are none... beyond all democratic control" is also apparently a rhetorical statement, not a structure used to convey facts or third-party opinions. The sin of this section is that it takes the views of one side of the debate over European integration and presents them as certainty and the only views, in an encyclopedia which is supposed to present all sides of a debate. Hasta luego --TParis23 05:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with Tparis23. The text in this section is uneven and unsourced and while I'm not surprised that the edit is anonymous, I am somewhat surprised that it emanated from Holland. Unless anybody has any objections over the next few days, I'll remove these biassed and unpleasant anon edits -- they are worthless. Robindch 03:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was no secret that many supporters of the early EEC envisioned a move to a federal state, and the academic literature was filled with discussions of neo-functionalism. When intergovernmentalism emerged dominate in the 70s, that created a lot of protest from those wanting a federal Europe. Bottom line: during the whole process those wanting a confederal "Europe des patries" knew that there were many who wanted a European state. It makes it sound like a group of "insiders" had a "scheme" that was secret to others. That's clearly not true.Scott Erb 16:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TParis and Robindch. Monnet was a federalist but in relation to the issues which had served to cause both world wars. His idea of linking the economies of the Member States was as far as he was thinking and in any case the Superstate issue only came to the fore during the negotiations for the Maastricht Treaty and by that time Monnet had sadly died. Federalism certainly means closer union but on the German lines. Eurosceptics seem to live in a world in which fact and fiction merge. (PDF)

That is incorrect. Monnet was a founder of the Action Committee for a United States of Europe. He was fairly open in his commitment to a European superstate (a federal superstate is still a superstate, so I don't understand that counterpoint - a Eurosceptic Briton would hardly be placated by being told Britain shall be like Texas and not Hampshire in the Europe being built). This article greatly downplays or ignores his federalism, and speaks only vaguely of European Unity. It reads now at least more like Europhile propaganda. I would like to edit it, with reputable sources.120.17.38.112 (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Jean Monnet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

Quoting from the lead:

"He was a European executive body, as President of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, and thus he is known as the "Father of Europe"."

What does this mean? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the strangely worded sentence with a direct quote from the referenced article. Cunningpal (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jean Monnet. 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) 13:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jean Monnet. 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) 23:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jean Monnet. 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) 14:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

[edit]

@NJA: Now that you have protected the page, can you please remove the content recently added by the IP user. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mélencron: and others: use this talk page to discuss the recent edits. Once there is consensus protection can be removed or otherwise temporary edits made by asking me or another admin. See the protection policy. NJA (t/c) 16:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NJA: I suggest that you seriously reexamine the edits by the IP, which are obvious trolling. This isn't a "content dispute"; I'm reverting them because it's blatant vandalism. Mélencron (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism constitutes expletives, or intentionally blanking pages. I done neither of these things. I realise my claim is extra-ordinary, which is why I've provided three sources, two of which academic. 86.80.168.128 (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the text added does not meet criteria. The sources are suspect and do not say what has been advanced. I will in this occasion revert to the prior text but I shall not be involved anymore to avoid any complaint of bias. NJA (t/c) 16:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I quite strongly disagree with your decision here and believe you've exercised bad judgment here, so I'll bring it up at AN/I instead. Mélencron (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to seek a review of my decision, although I am surprised as you have what appears to be your preferred text and full protection. You also avoided a potential 3RR. In any event in regard to a review of my decision I welcome another admin review, and I’ve said as such on my talk page. NJA (t/c) 16:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought this up at AN/I now, as while you've reverted the content in question, I don't believe you've exercised good judgment in deeming this as a content dispute rather than the repeated addition of clearly conspiratorial vandalism. Mélencron (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A very quick glance at the sources seem to suggest that he was one of a number of eminent politicians who received funding from a CIA program. That is not at all the same thing as being a CIA agent. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The edit did not say agent. The edit said operative. Benito Mussolini was also a MI5 operative and it is mentioned on his page, seemingly without much controversy. I don't see the issue. Much ado about nothing. 86.80.168.128 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely outrageous that you seek to escalate this. You have reverted my edits, while knowing they meet none of the WP:VANDALISM criteria. I have not inserted expletives or blanked the page. Your reversals are unacceptable. 86.80.168.128 (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement about allegations of vandalism: someone has alleged my edits of Jean Monnet construe vandalism. It is obvious that they do not. While my claim is extra-ordinary, I have also provided three sources, two of which are academic. I have kept to a NPOV. I have not used expletives. I have asked the edit war editor to WP:disengage on their talk page. I have also warned them to not engage in bad faith. They have promptly deleted both of my messages. Benito Mussolini's page also mentions he was a MI5 operative, I really do not see the problem. That fact is equally well sourced as my edit. I am in the right here. I hope we can reach a consensus about that on this talk page, and that other Wikipedia users will support my edits (rather than that I have to keep protecting them myself). 86.80.168.128 (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not convincing anyone. If you intend to edit in such a blatantly inappropriate fashion, inserting the same unsupported and obviously contentious content into an article 10 times within 24 hours, disregarding WP:3RR, WP:BRD, and a host of other site policies and guidelines in the process, there really isn't any point trying to cast yourself as "in the right" on the talk page. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What part of my edit constituted vandalism? Seems like it's already mentioned on ACUE that the CIA had other operatives working on a European political movement and that it was responsible for most of the bankrolling. This crusade seems more and more peculiar with every additional comment. 86.80.168.128 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were violating WP:DISPUTE rules. You did not disengage with a new user to give them the chance to keep editing the article. Therefore, I reverted your edits more than three times, and I was completely in the right to do so. 86.80.168.128 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Aldrich's scholarly article cited to support the allegation that Monnet was a CIA operative. It definitely does not support the edit in question. Aldrich never calls Monnet a CIA operative or agent or any such thing. He says all of Monnet's American money came from the Ford Foundation. page 209: "Monnet's strategy was not entirely welcomed by ACUE [a CIA operation], who complained that he had 'concentrated deliberately on labor and socialist elements'". Aldrich states: "The only precisely quantifiable American funds passed to Monnet during this period came through the Ford Foundation to support his immediate Secretariat. The case of Monnet and the Ford Foundation usefully highlights the extreme difficulties that confront any historian attempting to disentangle covert American government funding from the overt funding provided by those American private organizations and public foundations which worked closely with the US government". Furthermore the other two cited items never call him a CIA operative. One (the Telegraph ) does say "For British eurosceptics, Jean Monnet looms large in the federalist pantheon, the emminence grise of supranational villainy. " so what we have is conspiracy theory hyped up by Brexit anxiety. Rjensen (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An Intelligence Operative is someone who takes instructions from, or is on the payroll of an Intelligence Agency. It does not have to be a de jure employee, after all, intelligence agencies use various operatives that are not necessarily de jure employed with them. Some of them do not even receive financial support, but other kinds of support, such as covert operations support, diplomatic support, or military support. Think of other important intelligence operatives like Manuel Noriega, Augusto Pinochet, or Benito Mussolini. I am open to suggestions for alternative terms if editors feel that "operative" is not appropriate. Especially since English is not my first language, so I might be unaware of better descriptions. But it is without question that it needs to be mentioned that Monnet and his co-conspirators were bankrolled by the CIA, either directly or through indirect channels. Leaving out such important information is not compatible with WP:NPOV. 86.80.168.128 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user that edit warred my comments (against the rules and despite my request to disengage as per WP:DISPUTE) is moving the goalposts. At first, they were claiming I was violating WP:VANDALISM. Now, they complain I have violated WP:3RR instead of WP:VANDALISM. But, the editor was violating WP:3RR and WP:DISPUTE himself before I violated any rules. Hence, the user is moving the goalposts. I think the edit ban should be lifted and the other editor given a warning for edit warring and engaging in bad faith with new users. 86.80.168.128 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the sources cited by 86.80.168.128 esp Aldrich explicitly state that there is no evidence of any CIA money to Monnet. The Ford Foundation funded him publicly. (It owned 90% of Ford's stock & had a lot more $$$ than the CIA). Rjensen (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My source says: "The key CIA front was the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), chaired by Donovan. Another document shows that it provided 53.5 per cent of the European movement's funds in 1958. The board included Walter Bedell Smith and Allen Dulles, CIA directors in the Fifties, and a caste of ex-OSS officials who moved in and out of the CIA." ACUE was a CIA operation, and thus Jean Monnet, a CIA operative, was its founder and director. If the NRA was funded for 53.5% by GRU you would also say it's a Russian operation. 86.80.168.128 (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The false assumption is that Donovan who headed ACUE was part of the CIA, so that ACUE must be a CIA front. Nope--no RS says Donovan was ever part of the CIA--he wanted to be its director but President Truman was strongly opposed. Truman denounced Donovan for making contact with the CIA. (Douglas Waller, Wild Bill Donovan p 353 says "Truman was furious when he learned about Donovan's meddling in CIA affairs."] Donovan then attacked Truman publicly (Waller p 351) . Donovan supported Dewey in 1948 and Eisenhower in 1952 but Ike refused to give him a CIA position--instead he made Donovan ambassador to Thailand. Waller pp 360-63. Donovan also ridiculed Smith (Waller says Donovan thought "Smith had ruined the CIA" p 360) "and Allen Dulles (he believed Dulles had been "a poor administrator" Waller p 361. Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one violated WP:DISPUTE, what a desperately stupid thing to say. You do not, on Wikipedia, revert another user 10 times in the space of six hours. I strongly advise you to familiarise yourself with site policies and refrain from spuriously accusing other users of policy violations. Had you been a registered user, you would have been blocked for at least 24 hours for your behaviour here. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"You do not, on Wikipedia, revert another user 10 times in the space of six hours." - The other user did do that. Against the rules. After ignoring my request to disengage with a new user. 86.80.168.128 (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:BRD. You were at fault, when you were reverted, you were obligated to discuss the change and achieve consensus before restoring it. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "visionary" term

[edit]

We have some people reverting my edits to remove the "visionary" term WITHOUT commenting. They use a political newspaper as a source. I'd like them to get blocks or warnings, but i don't know how. I understand they like Mr. Monnet, personaly i don't, but this is not the point of an encyclopaedia. The point is to describe reality with terms that have accurate meaning, that describe categories of people. Monnet is EXACTLY a federalist activist who had significant political success in the past, but the usefulness of his views and legacy is a matter of debate today, especially in COVID times. Maybe the EU will entirely disappear, maybe not, but it has already lost a major country and damaged its reputation with Greece. At any rate, as Stalin is not a "visionary" in his article, Monnet who wasn't elected either shouldn't be. People who strongly believe in federalism are just people who believe in federalism, nothing more, nothing less. If they managed to create a federation that lasts a given length of time, very well, but it's not the equivalent of inventing electicity which will ALWAYS be used. They cannot have different adjectives, even clearly hagiographic ones, because they have more living supporters. People who have neutral attitudes towards the EU and federalism should take total control here. 77.131.39.197 (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC) PS: De Gaulle, to give an extreme counter-example with a reliable source, thought Monnet was an american agent because he took the ACUE money instead of trying to get elected. This is why the NYT cannot be used as a source, because NPOV cannot be guaranteed and qualified opinions differ. We have to stand the middle ground here! BTW the french article is much less hagiographic and politically classifies Monnet's ideas. It should be used to increase accuracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.131.39.197 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved this discussion down to the bottom of the talk page, where it will be seen. The NYT is considered by Wikipedia a reliable source. Given your vitriol, I don't choose to engage in further discussion, but note that you have been reverted by three separate editors. You have been warned about edit warring, which is what you are engaged in. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you finally decided to comment before reverting the edits.

"Three separate editors" ahahah, stop trying to self-aggrandize, clicking the button "undo" without giving any reason can be done by anybody, editing an encyclopaedia without proper source handling or in-depth thinking too, by the way. Having a masters degree in political science and experience in journalism, i'm probably more competent than you are in the matter, but i called for a debate before you. That should tell you everything you need to know about my intentions. The term "visionary" coming from a political newspaper is not "reliable", data or numbers from this newspaper can maybe be considered reliable, cause lying would damage their reputation, but "visionary" is an OPINION. Also, it doesn't mean anything inside an encyclopaedia which is, again, a way to describe things using categories. Does that mean he was right? How do you know that? Does that means he succeeded better than others? So why Napoleon is not a "Genius"? Or Marx just a "socialist revolutionary" instead of a "political visionary"? The federation founded by Georges Washington seems to be doing way better in terms of debate about leaving it = there is none to speak of. Should he be called a "federalist god"? In his article, he's just a "founding father". I'm guessing it's because the editing was done by competent people without biases. Of course i personally dislike Monnet, but the problem isn't here because contrarily to you, i state my opinions openly. A united europe was never Monnet's idea, it was formulatedby countless others before him and happened only because Europeans wanted peace, because Americans funded federalist organizations and because the USSR had already taken what it wanted. The accent put on Monnet and Schuman is the same as the accent put on Mao in China, it's a "myth of the origins". As a majority of americans and half of europeans have a strong bias towards federalism, it's no surprise that their newspapers reflect this reality, or that they try to pitch a story about a man with above-normal qualities. I don't think you understand clearly = federalism is not "the future", nobody know the future, it's just a modality of organization that has nothing special compared to others. It is more powerful than a state but frequently, an hyper-center is exploiting the periphery towards its own ends. But it's actually political science, from universities, that should decide if Monnet is an important person or just a mean for the great powers to implement a new diplomatic order after a world war. It's also the job of people who can handle sources properly and have no biases FOR or AGAINST, which is neither your case not mine, to decide how "visionary" he was and if this blatant hagiographic writing has its place inside an encyclopaedia. I'm requesting an in-depth analysis of Monnet compared to other equivalent thinkers, and i'm requesting an edit from competent people. By the way, your answer is in no way sufficient, and invoking policies you managed to use towards your opinions and those of a newspaper doesn't solve the debate in my eyes. Your answer is empty, and i'm inclined to think it's on purpose. 77.131.39.197 (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree,there is no criticism either or mention of his words, "Europe's nations should be guided towards a super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.212.142 (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean_Monnet&oldid=1209808168"