Talk:Jean Vanier

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

Untitled[edit]

DDDDDGUUY

With regard to the observation below, I should like to suggest that the rule against the expression of points of view can be taken too far. A statement such as, "Tony Blair is considered to be one of the greatest British statesmen of all time" needs a citation since it is such a controversial opinion and one probably held by very few people. A statement such as, "T.S. Eliot is thought to have been one of the most important poets in the English language during the twentieth century" is so widely accepted that it scarcely constitutes a point of view. The same goes for the description of Jean Vanier in the offending old text. Some people need to recognise the difference between abiding by the rules and becoming pettifogging about them.--AlexanderLondon 18:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Beside the fact that T.S. Elliot is NOT "...thought to have been one of the most important poets in the English language during the twentieth century...", except by accolytes and "King's new clothes" type of people---- Wikipedia authors cannot express their own view point. Each article has its own title, and each is about a particular thing. None of the articles have a title of "Alexander London's opinion about ___________, expressed as if it is a fact, rather than an opinion". These articles are not what you think about the Subject of an article, but rather what "reliable source[s]" have documented about that article Subject. 71.32.67.176 (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some NPOV issues. It almost seems like a press release in some parts. For example the old text "Considered as one of today’s greatest figures of compassion, Jean Vanier was born in Canada..." contains a Point Of View, but no attribution of who made this claim. Perhaps interested folks could add in some citations from some reliable sources. Eclipsed 00:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further down the page it lists the International awards he has received. But if you can find anyone who wants to say anything bad about him, please feel free to add the quote. Vanier himself would be the first to admit his own brokenness.Andycjp 6th August 2005

It's not about bad or good, it's about creating a better article by neutrality and citations, in accordance with established wikipedia policies. Eclipsed 01:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moose Jaw[edit]

Theres also a highschool named after him in Moose Jaw, Sask. I would edit it but im not as familliar with the suspefics of wikipedia as i could be. Danos 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points of view - school[edit]

This article is not being objective WRT points of view. There is no need, and it is not necessarily true to say "at Canada's most highly respected school at Upper Canada College in Toronto" as it has not been cited or confirmed that it is the most highly respected school. And under what category? What kind of school? I think it is a student who wrote this contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukechris (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty small thing to worry about - I would suggest that a way to fix the offending text would be to simply remove the word "most". Certainly UCC has a reputation for being highly respected (perhaps prestigious is a better word) because it has produced more members of government than any single college in canada: It has produced 3 Leftenant Governors, 11 Mayors and Premiers, 15 Members of Parliament, and 9 federal Ministers. And just so you know, I've never been there, nor was I a student. It's just a common point of cultural knowledge (though I admit I didn't already know the numbers of UCC alumni who were members of the government. See the citations on the UCC Wikipedia site for a list of sources who have listed it as the most prestigious school in canada. 64.38.183.220 (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biography[edit]

This page needs some more biographical information, for example it does not indicate that Jean Vanier was Canadian, though there are many hints throughout the text that he had significant interest in or connection to Canada. There is nothing here except for his connection with L'Arche and his ministery with Light. 64.38.183.220 (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also needs to be cited, who the original writer is, when it was published, where it was published.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jean Vanier. 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) 14:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

The text was vandalized. I removed the added book to restore damaged text; after the restoration, I added again the new book in order by publication date.--Riccardo Fangarezzi (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Abuse[edit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51596516

and

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/02/22/internal-report-finds-larche-founder-jean-vanier-engaged-decades-sexual-misconduct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.74.161 (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did they do? Put nuns hands on their willies or hard-core satanic BDSM?

Here is one testimony: https://www.avref.fr/testimonial-of-mary-donnelly-regarding-sex-abuse-by-thomas-philippe-o-p.html

- plain vanilla hormonal infatuation, methinks.

Zezen (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More perpetrators?

The community said last May that 27 other brothers had also committed abuse. It will further investigate the the founder’s role and decentralise its international network...

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/12199/brothers-of-saint-john-denounce-sexually-abusive-founder- 

Zezen (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "independent report" is clearly a hit job, designed to destroy any allegiance to Vanier. The allegations in the "report" may be true. But they also may not be true. The supposed acts that several women claim against Vanier -- are that Vanier, in his position of authority, smoozed his way into having them give hand-jobs, or blow-jobs to him (but not any penetrative sex). Hand-jobs, and blow-jobs. All of the accusers are fully grown adult women, with no physical or mental impairments. These women claimed that Vanier convinced them that the hand-jobs and blow-jobs were okay because (here is what they call the 'deviant' part), because Mary did these same acts to Jesus. The 'deviance' was not sexual, but instead it was doctrinal. As with all 'hit jobs', they waited until he was dead before they published this 'report'. Notwithstanding the derogatorial characterization of the accusations (e.g. sexual 'abuse'), none of what Vanier is alleged to have done with these women is illegal. Even if all the allegations were true, none of the activity is illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.67.176 (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


According to the introduction, they use the word “abuse” “in its sense of ‘unjust use of *power of a sexual nature* causing harm to the person who suffers it.’” But they are careful to note that *not all* of the women identified would define their relationships as abusive, and some wouldn’t identify as victims or survivors. They also write that they strongly *assume* there are more women who were abused by Vanier.

It's a report and he hasn't been found or judged or trialed, so it's unfair to claim it authoritatively, giving him a bad name just because he can't defend himself now. Jddcef (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have the schools changed their names to remove 'Vanier' from their name?[edit]

Now that Vanier's disgrace is known all over the world, have the schools listed in this article changed their names to remove 'Vanier' from their name? Mksword (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You think schools will have been renamed in the two days since the report came out and when you asked the question? The article states that some school boards are considering renaming schools. That's all we can say until (and if) we have sources to show that renames have happened. Meters (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean_Vanier&oldid=1211943401"