text:
Talk:About–Picard law

Untitled
''Note: text was moved "as-is" from Cult. A summary was created there and wikilink to here.''--Zappaz 18:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perspective on the measures wrt China
I think that indeed we should let the facts speak for themselves. We can of course let the reader make his or her deduction from this point. But I do not think that it is neutral to cite allegations while not providing factual context.
 * There is, one the one hand, the cited point of view that the French government repressed unduly the expression of Falun Gong and Tibetan demonstrators, and that this shows that the French government is an accomplice of the repression that China wages on Falun Gong and Tibet.
 * On the other hand, it is also a demonstrable fact that the same kind of security measures was implemented against anti-Bush demonstrators, while France was at odds with the US.

Similarly, it was alleged that the French government cracks down on Falun Gong. On the other hand, it is a fact that Falun Gong freely demonstrates in Paris in all places where there is a Chinese community. David.Monniaux 16:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Externals links
Two of the 4 critical external links given quote fictitious content in the law:
 * "Under Suspicion: Faith in France" by George Thomas "CBN News," July 25, 2003 (contains counter-factual affirmations on the content of the law)
 * Section I of the anti-cult law makes "mental manipulation" a crime. Anyone found guilty of causing "a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from serious and repeated pressures or techniques designed to alter judgement" faces five years imprisonment.

The actual text of the law is available on the Internet, and neither section I, nor any other section, say anything like that.

 * "No sects, please - we're French" by Prof. Susan Palmer ( Dawson College and Concordia University) (contains counter-factual affirmations on the content of the law)

In May, France passed the About/Picard law that criminalizes missionary activity Missionary activity is not discussed at any place in the law.

I wonder the interest of including "critiques" of a law from people who obviously haven't even read the law. How are they relevant? David.Monniaux 17:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, to give the devil his due, Cult indicates that there was a provision involving "mental manipulation" in early drafts of the law that was later removed. If this is true, the story may be based on those early drafts rather than the final result.  I agree with your point, though, that  critiques of the law which get the law wrong are unlikely to do much good. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That is why I inserted a caveat that the articles contained counter-factual information on the law, but some other user thought that this was inappropriate. I'm not inclined, though, to completely remove the links: even if those authors did not read the final, officially published text of the law, they may have some interesting point of view. What do you think? David.Monniaux 18:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I presume you mean this edit? The edit summary reads "Critique - comments to talk page please. Avoid pre-empting critique".

 * I cannot see how it is "pre-empting critique" to point out the factual information that said critiques are addressing aspects of their target that do not exist. To remove any warning that the critique may be based on false facts is not protecting the critique from "pre-emption", it's protecting the critique from critique.  I'm restoring the warnings.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You have an issue with a critical statement? Then substantiate your point on an edit. Othwerwise, by placing these "disclaimers" on the external links you are tainting the neutrality of this article. --38.119.107.72 03:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The point is substantiated. If you have a phrasing you would prefer that we use to say "Hey, these external links which say they're illuminating the flaws of the law?  Be aware that some of the things they're criticizing in the law do not actually exist" then we would all consider using that phrasing.  But the idea that we shouldn't mention a single word about those external links telling untruths about the very content of the law, because that would "taint the neutrality" of the article, is frankly ridiculous.  If that kind of critique can be "pre-empted" by pointing out that not everything it claims is in the law is in the law, it's the kind of critique that is better pre-empted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * We should then probably removed those links. Again, how can criticism of a law written by un-notorious people who apparently haven't even read the law be relevant? I wanted to keep the links because there was some content apart from the criticism of inexistant articles in the law, but since you insist, we may as well remove them. David.Monniaux 09:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I note that there is no external link to any group belonging to the "anti-cult movement", or other groups who support the law. Of course, it is very easy to get some by Googling. Should we include some? David.Monniaux 09:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Broad opinion
I removed:

''This is not so different from most other democratic governments, but the French took it a step further, insisting that citizens have no officially sanctioned ethnic or religious identity. Such a viewpoint is arguably non-discriminatory or, more precisely, equi-discriminatory. Yet societal stress on forced homogeneity, coupled with the exclusion of religious symbols and practices from all public places and discourse, led to feelings of oppression by people of faith within France.''

Sounds like an extract from a social science essay. This is clearly opinion, at least to some significant extent. As such, it should be attributed. David.Monniaux 20:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which critics?
''Critics requested the dissolution of the MILS as its very purpose, "to fight against sects," is an affront to the French Constitution which guarantees the religious neutrality of the State and the principle of separation of Church and State. They also argued that there is a need to repeal of any discriminatory law containing the word "cult," "sect," "cultic," or "sectarian" as laws should not specify groups as "sectarian" or "cultic" as, in a democracy, all individuals and groups should be treated equally and in the same manner.''

Which critics said so? Which laws specify which groups as sectarian? David.Monniaux 20:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Critiques: origins
A number of links to groups critical of the policies outlined in the article were added (many of them by anonymous users). While I think that it is very interesting to hear the point of view of people opposed to the law, I think that these additions would be of greater interest if one attributed to specific, identifiable, groups.

Anybody can found a group (or even be a group, all by himself or herself) and have a web site. The same group can run several web sites. In accordance to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, we must To quote:
 * clearly identify the sources of opinion
 * assert the representativeness of sources of opinions.
 * We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views.

The opinion of major, identifiable groups such as the International Federation for Human Rights, Amnesty International, or of institutions such as the European Court of Human Rights, is obviously more relevant to the discussion than the opinions of a unknown groups.

I note that many of the recent additions do not carry much meaningful factual information, apart from the information that a certain group disliked the About-Picard law. David.Monniaux 20:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In applying your quote from NPOV, France is clearly isolated in the pursuit of these policies and legislations. If at all, the majority view is that the origin of the anti-secte legislation in France can be misused by the public and lower officials to harass people because of what they believe. --38.119.107.72 03:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * "Clearly isolated"? It does not seem clear to me, at least with respect to legislation. What does the About-Picard law essentially say? That, under some circumstances, you can prosecute an organization, even a religious one, for crimes committed by its management during the course of activity of the association. Now, let's look. There have been a number of well-publicized cases in the United States where people who had (at least allegedly) been raped or sexually abused by Roman Catholic priest have successfully sued the organizations of the Roman Catholic Church, to the extent that some of these organizations are now experience dire financial problems.
 * So, it seems to me that if we stick to facts, the United States already has similar legislation. I'd be happy to hear more about those US Catholic cases.

 * But, still, I think you skirt the issue. Who of relevance, exactly, criticizes the French legislation? David.Monniaux 08:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just a little remark: when you insert claims about court cases, etc., could you insert a link to the original site from which you copied or translated the case? Could you also, if possible, insert wiki links in the text? Thank you. David.Monniaux 08:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Controversy with an anonymous user
Content moved from Peer review/French legislation on cult abuses.

Interestingly, David, you have reverted my edits and immediately after that you blocked me from editing that article (on a different IP I have used for years), for the only reason that the edits where challenging the position you hold in this subject. In my opinion this should be considered a misuse of your sysop powers. You do not even have an email address available to forward a complaint. I have complained to the stewards about your behaviour.

 * First, you are inadequately representing my position. I blocked IP address 168.143.113.125 (vortex.anonymizer.com) for the reason that there is a standing policy that anonymizing proxies should be blocked. I quote:
 * Administrators are permitted and encouraged to IP-block anonymous proxies indefinitely. [...] Such blocks are routine and uncontroversial.'
 * I first discussed the matter on IRC with other sysops. Nobody raised any objection. I then applied a "routine and uncontroversial" standing policy.
 * Second, a valid email address is registered in my user preferences (but maybe there's a glitch in the software that prevents it from being used). Furthermore, I edit under my real name, and my user page has links to my "official" work home page, which explains how to contact me. A Google search would have given you the same.
 * Thus, I consider your complaints unwarranted, and libellous. Please complaint to stewards that you were blocked for using an anonymizing proxy, against the normal Wikipedia terms of usage. David.Monniaux 08:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Your attempt to coverup your blatant abuse of sysop privileges is appalling. Case in point, the only reason you blocked my IP was because the edits I made were not of your linking. This is the sequence of events
 * I added numerous, substantial and well researched material to the article;
 * You were unhappy about these edits, so you popped-up your console and did a WHOIS on my IP;
 * Upon discovering it was an anon proxy, you found an easy way to silence me: revert, delete my edits, block;
 * Your blocking was warranted by WP policy, but the manner and the motives for the block were not.
 * Note that your act was futile, as you have not silenced me. On the contrary.

I intend to pursue this all the way up to the arbCom if necessary And please do not change the link from the peer review. Let other editors know of this dispute as it is at the core of the peer review request. ::--38.119.107.72 16:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You are cordially invited to go to the ArbCom if necessary. Let me point out to you that I discussed the matter with some members of the ArbCom on IRC prior to blocking the whole anonymizer.com range that I noticed because of you.
 * Furthermore, I did not delete your edits, which were largely copies and pastes from sites belonging to various pressure groups, except in cases when they were opinion pieces that could not be attributed to a precise group. I actually even did a part of your "research", by adding the name and URL of some of the text that you copied.
 * So, please avoid weasel words, and attribute criticism to whom uttered it. Then, we will be able to discuss the relevance of it. Just because Web pages talking about a topic and fitting your POV appear when you use Google does not make them worthy references... David.Monniaux 17:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I am sure you discussed with arbCom members the sequence of events that led you to block my IP. Everything will come out in the wash... --38.119.107.72 17:31, 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?

 * Right. There is a difference between, for example, criticism by OSCE, and criticism from Church of Scientology officials invited at an OSCE-sponsored meeting. (See earlier edits of Zappaz). David.Monniaux 09:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * 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)

ECHR
I looked up the ECHR case database and added references to the relevant cases. David.Monniaux 15:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article name
Previous title was inherently POV. New title, based on the full title of the About-Picaard law "French legislation for the prevention and repression of cultic groups" is more appropriate and NPOV. --Zappaz 04:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * an even more NPOV name would be "French legislation for the prevention and repression of cultic groups that break human rights and fundamental rights" Andries 18:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Better delete the article than having this truncated and manipulative title courtesy of Zappaz. --Pgreenfinch 23:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've also been wondering about the title. There are several options I can see: My vote goes to no. 3, French legislation concerning cults. Anybody else? SeventyThree(Talk) 04:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) French legislation for the prevention and repression of cultic groups that break human rights and fundamental rights
 * 2) About-Picard law (currently a redirect to here)
 * 3) French legislation concerning cults or similar
 * 4) French law number 2001-504 (does there exist a convention for this sort of article?)

I moved the article to About-Picard law - this is short and uncontestably neutral. French legislation concerning cults and French law number 2001-504 I made into redirects. Irmgard 07:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's short and neutral, but (1) somewhat obscure, and (2) the article covers vastly more than just Law 2001-504. I think #3 above is more accurate and useful. --MCB 06:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The content besides About-Picard law is not about legislation but other activities and their critique, so that title isn't really accurate either. --Irmgard 09:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Article needs attention
From the first look, the article gave the impression that there had been many parties very concerned about entering their specific POV without any regard for the article as a whole. Also the part about government and religion was very much written from an US view without considering history and present of France. I rewrote this part almost completely and moved some texts which belong further down.

I also added quite some points on the government activities - Vivien report, contents of Gest-Guyard report (yes, it has some contents besides the cult list in the appendix).

There is something more needed about the MILS except that Vivien was criticized.

I will also go over the critique part, and condense it to specific points criticized and relevant parties. In the end a summary para of who else has "been against it" without specifics.

And I'll add some positive views from France and abroad as well. Irmgard 07:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Background
The Background section contains this text:
 * These organisations were perceived to isolate recruits from their families and friends, and to exploit them, which caused complaints from many families.

The text needs to be attributed to someone. (Perceived by whom?). Also, "Problems with new reigions" is POV. We need a better section name. --ZappaZ 19:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Perceived by the families. --Irmgard 22:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Good try, Irmagard, but not good enough. Deleted. Also deleted the text that is unattributed. If it is in the references, please provide a link to whcich reference. Deleted as well. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 18:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

About-Picard Law
Section added to and partially rewritten according to the actual text of the law.

All critique and third party comments moved to reactions.

Several in-text references deleted, because they did not say anything relevant about the point in question. (e.g. mentioning one leftist politician in connection with the law is no evidence for the claim that the law was made by leftists). I did put instead the actual government at the time into the paragraph. --Irmgard 22:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"OSCE Conference"
I removed this para, because the official report of the OSCE Meeting mentioned does not even mention any critique of France regarding religious freedom or human rights violation. The correct name of the meeting is Implementation Meeting on Human Dimension Issues, it is held not by OSCE but by ODIHR Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. The conference was also not part of the official meeting but "the contact group of the ODIHR Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief convened in the margins of the Implementation Meeting". The only source that gives details on that margin meeting is a partisan site, so we have no reliable source on what happened. 18:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * In October 23, 2003 the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) held a conference on Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion in where the foremost critics of France and the About-Picard law were the representative of the US government, a representative from the Church of Scientology and a representative from the Raelian religion.

Reaction section
Just finished a copyedit of the article. Of course if you disagree with the edits I made feel free, it is a free encyclopedia after all, I have no pride in ownership. I edited for spelling, grammar, word usage, sentence structure, etc. but not for content. Although I was tempted when I got to the reactions section. That whole section seems POV to me. How do NGO and U.S. government reactions contribute to an encyclopedic article about a French law? I can't see that they do. Is there someone out there that can put up a persuasive argument why this section is NPOV as well as how it contributes to the broader understanding of the law itself? --Easter Monkey 09:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Stick to facts
The first thing when discussing a legal text is to read it. There is little question of interpretation about what this law discusses and does not discuss. There is no point, on such issues, on "leaving interpretation to the reader" or in citing the opinions of people on the topic.

(Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood: we can discuss possible aims or goals of the law that are not apparent in the text. Discussion of these is, by nature, conjectural, and we can validly reflect the various opinions on the issue.)

A similar phenomenon occured on French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools: people were saying that the law was an amendment on the "loi sur la laïcité" — no such "loi sur la laïcité" exists, and the first sentence on the law discussed in the article said that it amended the code of education... David.Monniaux 20:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Stay on topic
This article is about the About-Picard law. General issues regarding religious liberty in France belong into the article Status of religious freedom in France, not here. I removed one section re relations to China and one re visit of Chinese president which are both not directly related to the About-Picard law. Both points are taken up in the religious freedom article. --Irmgard 19:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Where is the text about MILS?
Why was the whole text on the chronology of the anti-cult report by the MILS gone? Why it was deleted? Irmgard? --ZappaZ 15:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not delete it but moved it to Status of religious freedom in France because it refers to the general actions of France and not specifically to this law. --Irmgard 07:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Article split
Since we now have this article and another on religious freedom in France, matters not directly related to the About-Picard law (such as allegations about MILS) should go to the other article. Otherwise, we'll end up having two copies of the same article! David.Monniaux 22:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. But in that case, do not delete the text, move it instead. Thanks. --ZappaZ 22:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It was in the original move but it got changed somewhere during the edits. --Irmgard 17:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Positive voices
It is interesting to witness that the only place you find the new left and the Catholic Church hand by hand are when discussing new religions. A stragely political coalition, IMO. --ZappaZ 23:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * How does the new left come in? Just look at all the parties involved (Chirac center-right, About center-right, Picard center-left, Jospin socialist. The only major political force not involved was the nationalist far right.
 * Anyway this is no strange coalition in Europe. European Christians generally don't share the US idea that real Christians must be on the right wing in politics or else they are no real Christians: in Switzerland there is a center-right Catholic party and a center-left Catholic party (and the bishops conference agrees at times with one and at times with the other and at times with both), a center-left Evangelical party and a conservative-right Evangelical party (and minority Evangelicals play a role in both). Generally, European Christians agree more with the socialists regarding human rights, environment questions, and social relief and more with the conservatives regarding family values or life ethics (the parties they least agree with are liberals and right-wing nationalists). --Irmgard 07:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Note: Whether Jospin is a socialist is a whole question in itself. He famously declared that "the State cannot do everything" about some socioeconomic issue.
 * Irmgard is right: the About-Picard bill was passed with broad bipartisan support, and Nicolas About is center-right (UDF). It is thus very misleading to attribute the French policies regarding "cults" to "left-wing" governments. David.Monniaux 21:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"incorporation" false cognate
I just finished a full copyedit which dealt with minor matters mostly but also eliminated "incorporation", which I believe is a legal "fausse amie" in this context.

US "incorporation" is a very narrow thing, even legally and certainly in the non-legal public imagination: in the US a corporation is, only, a commercial business enterprise, or at least this is the non-legal popular view -- we have a great deal of corporate law, but tax law really is what defines our corporations -- i.e. even a 501c3 taxfree corporation often is considered something different from a C corporation, in the popular press.

The French idea is more broad, I believe, and is associated with ideas of public accountability -- workers' control and the rest -- which are not present in US law. I don't know that US churches, for instance, are in fact incorporated in the US: or if they are, they are so for very limited purposes having to do more with tax and other business activities than they are with limited liability. And limited liability is your issue here.

So I believe the French situation is better described as involving "organizations": too-general of a term, I realize, but in the French context as read by an American restricting all of this to only "incorporated organizations" would be too narrow. A lot of the outfits being chased by / interfered with by About-Picard are not formally-incorporated in the sense that IBM Corp. is -- and Americans think nearly exclusively of the latter, I believe, when they think of "corporations". So I eliminated the hard legal language which appeared to restrict About-Picard to only those, here, and called the target simply "organizations".

--Kessler 00:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * "Incorporation" does not exist in French in that meaning. Furthermore, only major companies have anything like "public accountability" or "workers' control".
 * The thing is, if you run a church or anything with several people, it is much easier if a formal legal entity owns the buildings etc. French legal entities can take several forms — civil societies; corporations; 1901-law associations; 1905-law associations cultuelles... David.Monniaux 08:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine in francs ... in 2004?
In the "Application of the law" section is a reference to a fine denominated in French francs. But the fine was imposed in 2004, after France's adoption of the euro in place of the franc. LeoO3 15:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This article has a POV problem
I assert this article has a bias. It seems excessively long and almost like a promotion of the Law. I intend to do work to clean it up. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have done some work, but the sections on the reaction to the law are too long. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on About-Picard law. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051219055614/http://assembly.coe.int:80/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc05/EDOC10470.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc05/EDOC10470.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050504010205/http://www.ihf-hr.org:80/viewbinary/viewhtml.php?doc_id=1797 to http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewhtml.php?doc_id=1797

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on About-Picard law. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc05/EDOC10470.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewhtml.php?doc_id=1797
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/cgi-bin/brp/telestats.cgi?brp_ref=044000121&brp_file=0000.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050829002758/http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cuse/analysis/relfreedom.htm to http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cuse/analysis/relfreedom.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050408113321/http://www.miviludes.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Introduction_rapport_MIVILUDES_2003.pdf to http://www.miviludes.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Introduction_rapport_MIVILUDES_2003.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050317074845/http://www.miviludes.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Report_MIVILUDES_2003.pdf to http://www.miviludes.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Report_MIVILUDES_2003.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029012222/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta99%2FEREC1412.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2FTA99%2FEREC1412.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060118091117/http://www.ihf-hr.org/documents/index.php?s_topic=10&s_countries%5B%5D=75&s_doctype=0&sec_id=3&submit=1&s_year=&s_keyword=&x=0&y=0 to http://www.ihf-hr.org/documents/index.php?s_topic=10&s_countries%5B%5D=75&s_doctype=0&sec_id=3&submit=1&s_year=&s_keyword=&x=0&y=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on About-Picard law. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.religionandpolicy.org/show.php?p=1.1.105
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050208022636/http://www.assemblee-nat.fr/rapports/r2472.asp to http://www.assemblee-nat.fr/rapports/r2472.asp
 * Added tag to http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/cgi-bin/brp/telestats.cgi?brp_ref=054000210&brp_file=0000.pdf
 * Added tag to http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/cgi-bin/brp/telestats.cgi?brp_ref=054000210&brp_file=0000.rtf
 * Added tag to http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/cgi-bin/brp/telestats.cgi?brp_ref=044000035&brp_file=0000.pdf
 * Added tag to http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/cgi-bin/brp/telestats.cgi?brp_ref=024000086&brp_file=0000.pdf
 * Added tag to http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/cgi-bin/brp/telestats.cgi?brp_ref=024000086&brp_file=0000.rtf
 * Added tag to http://www.religionandpolicy.org/show.php?p=1.1.105
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029012222/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta99%2FEREC1412.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2FTA99%2FEREC1412.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050220032441/http://www.ldh-france.org/actu_nationale.cfm?idactu=253 to http://www.ldh-france.org/actu_nationale.cfm?idactu=253
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050320105410/http://www.humanrightsandtolerance.org/francereport.html to http://www.humanrightsandtolerance.org/francereport.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on About-Picard law. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303193106/http://www.antisectes.net/monde-usa.htm to http://www.antisectes.net/monde-usa.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029012222/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta99%2FEREC1412.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2FTA99%2FEREC1412.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:About–Picard law


text:
Structured program theorem

The structured program theorem, also called the Böhm–Jacopini theorem, is a result in programming language theory. It states that a class of control-flow graphs (historically called flowcharts in this context) can compute any computable function if it combines subprograms in only three specific ways (control structures). These are
 * 1) Executing one subprogram, and then another subprogram (sequence)
 * 2) Executing one of two subprograms according to the value of a boolean expression (selection)
 * 3) Repeatedly executing a subprogram as long as a boolean expression is true (iteration)

The structured chart subject to these constraints, particularly the loop constraint implying a single exit (as described later in this article), may however use additional variables in the form of bits (stored in an extra integer variable in the original proof) in order to keep track of information that the original program represents by the program location. The construction was based on Böhm's programming language P′′.

The theorem forms the basis of structured programming, a programming paradigm which eschews goto commands and exclusively uses subroutines, sequences, selection and iteration.

Origin and variants
The theorem is typically credited to a 1966 paper by Corrado Böhm and Giuseppe Jacopini. David Harel wrote in 1980 that the Böhm–Jacopini paper enjoyed "universal popularity", particularly with proponents of structured programming. Harel also noted that "due to its rather technical style [the 1966 Böhm–Jacopini paper] is apparently more often cited than read in detail" and, after reviewing a large number of papers published up to 1980, Harel argued that the contents of the Böhm–Jacopini proof were usually misrepresented as a folk theorem that essentially contains a simpler result, a result which itself can be traced to the inception of modern computing theory in the papers of von Neumann and Kleene.

Harel also writes that the more generic name was proposed by H.D. Mills as "The Structure Theorem" in the early 1970s.

Single-while-loop, folk version of the theorem
This version of the theorem replaces all the original program's control flow with a single global  loop that simulates a program counter going over all possible labels (flowchart boxes) in the original non-structured program. Harel traced the origin of this folk theorem to two papers marking the beginning of computing. One is the 1946 description of the von Neumann architecture, which explains how a program counter operates in terms of a while loop. Harel notes that the single loop used by the folk version of the structured programming theorem basically just provides operational semantics for the execution of a flowchart on a von Neumann computer. Another, even older source that Harel traced the folk version of the theorem is Stephen Kleene's normal form theorem from 1936.

Donald Knuth criticized this form of the proof, which results in pseudocode like the one below, by pointing out that the structure of the original program is completely lost in this transformation. Similarly, Bruce Ian Mills wrote about this approach that "The spirit of block structure is a style, not a language. By simulating a Von Neumann machine, we can produce the behavior of any spaghetti code within the confines of a block-structured language. This does not prevent it from being spaghetti."

Böhm and Jacopini's proof
The proof in Böhm and Jacopini's paper proceeds by induction on the structure of the flow chart. Because it employed pattern matching in graphs, the proof of Böhm and Jacopini's was not really practical as a program transformation algorithm, and thus opened the door for additional research in this direction.

Reversible version
The Reversible Structured Program Theorem is an important concept in the field of reversible computing. It posits that any computation achievable by a reversible program can also be accomplished through a reversible program using only a structured combination of control flow constructs such as sequences, selections, and iterations. Any computation achievable by a traditional, irreversible program can also be accomplished through a reversible program, but with the additional constraint that each step must be reversible and some extra output. Furthermore, any reversible unstructured program can also be accomplished through a structured reversible program with only one iteration without any extra output. This theorem lays the foundational principles for constructing reversible algorithms within a structured programming framework.

For the Structured Program Theorem, both local and global methods of proof are known. However, for its reversible version, while a global method of proof is recognized, a local approach similar to that undertaken by Böhm and Jacopini is not yet known. This distinction is an example that underscores the challenges and nuances in establishing the foundations of reversible computing compared to traditional computing paradigms.

Implications and refinements
The Böhm–Jacopini proof did not settle the question of whether to adopt structured programming for software development, partly because the construction was more likely to obscure a program than to improve it. On the contrary, it signalled the beginning of the debate. Edsger Dijkstra's famous letter, "Go To Statement Considered Harmful," followed in 1968.

Some academics took a purist approach to the Böhm–Jacopini result and argued that even instructions like  and   from the middle of loops are bad practice as they are not needed in the Böhm–Jacopini proof, and thus they advocated that all loops should have a single exit point. This purist approach is embodied in the Pascal programming language (designed in 1968–1969), which up to the mid-1990s was the preferred tool for teaching introductory programming classes in academia.

Edward Yourdon notes that in the 1970s there was even philosophical opposition to transforming unstructured programs into structured ones by automated means, based on the argument that one needed to think in structured programming fashion from the get go. The pragmatic counterpoint was that such transformations benefited a large body of existing programs. Among the first proposals for an automated transformation was a 1971 paper by Edward Ashcroft and Zohar Manna.

The direct application of the Böhm–Jacopini theorem may result in additional local variables being introduced in the structured chart, and may also result in some code duplication. The latter issue is called the loop and a half problem in this context. Pascal is affected by both of these problems and according to empirical studies cited by Eric S. Roberts, student programmers had difficulty formulating correct solutions in Pascal for several simple problems, including writing a function for searching an element in an array. A 1980 study by Henry Shapiro cited by Roberts found that using only the Pascal-provided control structures, the correct solution was given by only 20% of the subjects, while no subject wrote incorrect code for this problem if allowed to write a return from the middle of a loop.

In 1973, S. Rao Kosaraju proved that it's possible to avoid adding additional variables in structured programming, as long as arbitrary-depth, multi-level breaks from loops are allowed. Furthermore, Kosaraju proved that a strict hierarchy of programs exists, nowadays called the Kosaraju hierarchy, in that for every integer n, there exists a program containing a multi-level break of depth n that cannot be rewritten as program with multi-level breaks of depth less than n (without introducing additional variables). Kosaraju cites the multi-level break construct to the BLISS programming language. The multi-level breaks, in the form a  keyword were actually introduced in the BLISS-11 version of that language; the original BLISS only had single-level breaks. The BLISS family of languages didn't provide an unrestricted goto. The Java programming language would later follow this approach as well.

A simpler result from Kosaraju's paper is that a program is reducible to a structured program (without adding variables) if and only if it does not contain a loop with two distinct exits. Reducibility was defined by Kosaraju, loosely speaking, as computing the same function and using the same "primitive actions" and predicates as the original program, but possibly using different control flow structures. (This is a narrower notion of reducibility than what Böhm–Jacopini used.) Inspired by this result, in section VI of his highly-cited paper that introduced the notion of cyclomatic complexity, Thomas J. McCabe described an analogue of Kuratowski's theorem for the control-flow graphs (CFG) of non-structured programs, which is to say, the minimal subgraphs that make the CFG of a program non-structured. These subgraphs have a very good description in natural language. They are: McCabe actually found that these four graphs are not independent when appearing as subgraphs, meaning that a necessary and sufficient condition for a program to be non-structured is for its CFG to have as subgraph one of any subset of three of these four graphs. He also found that if a non-structured program contains one of these four sub-graphs, it must contain another distinct one from the set of four. This latter result helps explain how the control flow of non-structured program becomes entangled in what is popularly called "spaghetti code". McCabe also devised a numerical measure that, given an arbitrary program, quantifies how far off it is from the ideal of being a structured program; McCabe called his measure essential complexity.
 * 1) branching out of a loop (other than from the loop cycle test)
 * 2) branching into a loop
 * 3) branching into a decision (i.e. into an if "branch")
 * 4) branching out of a decision

McCabe's characterization of the forbidden graphs for structured programming can be considered incomplete, at least if the Dijkstra's D structures are considered the building blocks.

Up to 1990 there were quite a few proposed methods for eliminating gotos from existing programs, while preserving most of their structure. The various approaches to this problem also proposed several notions of equivalence, which are stricter than simply Turing equivalence, in order to avoid output like the folk theorem discussed above. The strictness of the chosen notion of equivalence dictates the minimal set of control flow structures needed. The 1988 JACM paper by Lyle Ramshaw surveys the field up to that point, as well proposing its own method. Ramshaw's algorithm was used for example in some Java decompilers because the Java virtual machine code has branch instructions with targets expressed as offsets, but the high-level Java language only has multi-level  and   statements. Ammarguellat (1992) proposed a transformation method that goes back to enforcing single-exit.

Application to Cobol
In the 1980s IBM researcher Harlan Mills oversaw the development of the COBOL Structuring Facility, which applied a structuring algorithm to COBOL code. Mills's transformation involved the following steps for each procedure.

 * 1) Identify the basic blocks in the procedure.
 * 2) Assign a unique label to each block's entry path, and label each block's exit paths with the labels of the entry paths they connect to. Use 0 for return from the procedure and 1 for the procedure's entry path.
 * 3) Break the procedure into its basic blocks.
 * 4) For each block that is the destination of only one exit path, reconnect that block to that exit path.
 * 5) Declare a new variable in the procedure (called L for reference).
 * 6) On each remaining unconnected exit path, add a statement that sets L to the label value on that path.
 * 7) Combine the resulting programs into a selection statement that executes the program with the entry path label indicated by L
 * 8) Construct a loop that executes this selection statement as long as L is not 0.
 * 9) Construct a sequence that initializes L to 1 and executes the loop.

This construction can be improved by converting some cases of the selection statement into subprocedures.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Structured program theorem


text:
The Asiatic Society of Mumbai

The Asiatic Society of Mumbai (formerly Asiatic Society of Bombay) is a learned society in the field of Asian studies based in Mumbai, India. It can trace its origin to the Literary Society of Bombay which first met in Mumbai on 26 November 1804, and was founded by Sir James Mackintosh. It was formed with the intention of "promoting useful knowledge, particularly such as is now immediately connected with India". After the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland was established in London in 1823, the Literary Society of Bombay became affiliated with it and was known as the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (BBRAS) since 1830. The Bombay Geographical Society merged with it in 1873, followed by the Anthropological Society of Bombay in 1896. In 1954, it was separated from the Royal Asiatic Society and renamed the Asiatic Society of Bombay. In 2002, it acquired its present name. It is funded by an annual grant from the Central Government of India.

Aims and objectives
The aims and objectives of the Society when it was formed in the year 1804 were "to promote useful knowledge particularly such as is now immediately connected with India". Thereafter, on several occasions, some more aims and objectives were added such as encouraging the research studies in the language, philosophy, arts and natural and social sciences in relation to India and Asia, publishing journals, maintaining a library and museum, establishing institutes and centres which fulfill aims and objects of the Society.

Holdings
The library of the Society has over a hundred thousand books out of which 15,000 are classified as rare and valuable. It also has priceless artifacts and over 3,000 ancient manuscripts in Persian, Sanskrit and Prakrit, mostly on paper but some on palm leaf. The numismatic collection of 11,829 coins includes a gold coin of Kumaragupta I, a rare gold mohur of Akbar and coins issued by Shivaji maharaj. Its map collection comprises 1300 maps. The collection of the Society include:
 * 1) One of only two known original copies of Dante's Divine Comedy.
 * 2) The manuscript of Vasupujyacharita (1242), a Sanskrit text on the life of the Jain Tirthankara Vasupujya.
 * 3) The manuscript of Shahnama of Firdausi (1853), written in Persian.
 * 4) The Aranyakaparvan (16th century) manuscript contains illustrated text from the Mahabharat and is written in Sanskrit.
 * 5) Five Buddhist caskets excavated in the ancient port town of Sopara near the suburb of Nala Sopara.

The Divine Comedy
The manuscript of the Divine Comedy, a poem composed by Dante Alighieri in the 14th century, was written in the second half of the 15th century. It is a beautiful codex on parchment and richly illustrated. It was given to the Society by Mountstuart Elphinstone, governor of Bombay and President of the Society from 1819–1827 and bears his signature. It is said that, in the 1930s, the Italian government under Benito Mussolini offered the society one million pounds, calling the book a national treasure. Mussolini believed that the offer could not be refused, but to his shock, the Society turned down his request stating that it was donated by an ex-member of the Society and hence it was their property.

Functions of the society
The adopt-a-book scheme was recently introduced by the Society which allows patrons to fund the upkeep of rare books. The Society is financially in the red with a loss of Rs 1 crore (10 million). Due to the availability of information from the internet, membership has dropped significantly in recent years.
 * Holding: Preserving, conserving, cataloguing and documenting holdings.
 * Research: Generating supporting and disseminating research in its chosen fields.
 * Public interface: Providing a forum for debate and discussions on topics of public interest.

Journal
Initially, the Literary Society of Bombay published its transactions under the title, Transactions of the Literary Society of Bombay. In 1841, the Asiatic Society of Bombay commenced publishing its journal titled, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. From 1955 to 2002, it published its journal under the name, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay and from 2002, its journal has been published under the name, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Mumbai.

Digitization of Collection
The Society has undertaken digitization of all its collection including books, newspapers, manuscripts, government publications, journals and maps and has made them available on the Society's digital platform ‘Granth Sanjeevani'.

==Awards ==

Campbell Memorial Gold Medal
The Campbell Memorial Gold Medal was established in 1907 and is awarded to recognize distinguished services on the subject of Oriental History, Folklore or Ethnology which further the investigation and encouragement of Oriental Arts, Sciences and Literature.

The first winner was archaeologist Aurel Stein in 1908.

MM.Dr. P.V.Kane Gold Medal
Established in 1946, the medal is awarded for valuable research work in Vedic Studies or in Classical Sanskrit with special reference to Dharma Shastra and Poetics.

Silver Medal
The Silver Medal is awarded to a member of the Society who has written a book adjudged as the best in the given 3-year period.

Town Hall

The Asiatic Society of Mumbai Town Hall or just Town Hall (colloquially Called "Tondal" in the 19th century) that houses the Asiatic Society of Mumbai was not built in 1804, the year in which the Literary Society of Bombay was formed. Though Sir James Mackintosh mooted the proposal for a grand edifice, it was not completed until the year 1 after many fits and starts, when the Government of Bombay agreed to make up for the shortfall in funds in return for office-space.

Apart from the Asiatic Society of Mumbai, the building also houses State Central Library and a museum, Maharashtra Women's Association, and the Additional Stamp Controller Office.

The edifice is in the prime Fort area of South Mumbai overlooking the Horniman Circle Gardens and the Reserve Bank of India.

Administration
The Managing Committee looks after the administration of the Society. The Managing Committee consists of a President, Four Vice Presidents, an Hon. Secretary, who is also the Chief Executive Officer of the Society, and Fifteen members who are elected from among the Resident members. In addition to the elected members, the Central Government and State Government have one representative each.

In September 2019, Vispi Balaporia became the first woman president of The Asiatic Society of Mumbai in its 215-year-old history.

Early Presidents

 * Literary Society of Bombay (1804)
 * 1804 Hon. Sir James Mackintosh
 * 1811 Dr R. Stewart
 * 1815 William Taylor Money
 * 1818 Olyett Woodhouse
 * 1819 Hon. Mountstuart Elphinstone (Governor of Bombay)
 * 1827 Sir John Malcolm (Governor of Bombay)
 * Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (1829)
 * 1830 John Romer (Acting Governor of Bombay)
 * 1831 Lt-Col Vans Kennedy
 * 1835 Rev. John Wilson, FRS
 * 1843 Hon. George William Anderson (Acting Governor of Bombay)
 * 1846 Hon. Lestock Robert Reid (Acting Governor of Bombay)
 * 1849 Hon. John Pollard Willoughby
 * 1853 Rev. John Stevenson
 * 1855 Hon. William Edward Frere
 * 1864 Hon. Justice Henry Newton
 * 1869 Hon. Henry Pendock St George Tucker
 * 1875 Hon. James J. Gibbs
 * 1881 Hon. Sir Raymond West
 * 1893 Hon. Justice Kashinath Trimbak Telang
 * 1894 Hon. Herbert Mills Birdwood (Acting Governor of Bombay)
 * 1895 Hon. Justice Sir John Jardine
 * 1897 Dr. Peter Peterson
 * 1900 Hon. Justice Edward Townshend Candy
 * 1903 Hon. E.M.H. Fulton

title: The Asiatic Society of Mumbai