This is an archive of past discussions about Éric Zemmour. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Request for comment on the description of Eric Zemmour's ideology
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to call Zemmour "far right" in the lead section. There was some disagreement about whether it should be "right wing" instead or additionally, but a consensus emerged against the use of it. The consensus is to call Zemmour only "far right." ––FormalDude talk14:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
As I have mentioned here [1][2] and edited here [3], the main ideology he is described as having is 'far right' and the article should reflect that. Emigré55 disagrees and appears to consider simple 'right wing' to be equal as a description. Munci (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Munci: You insist on your presentation, which is your own POV, unbalanced (against WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV).
The first sentence of the lead in the French article, which ends this way "..., généralement classé à l'extrême droite de l’échiquier politique français" (translation: "..., generally classified on the extreme right of the French political spectrum") is immediately followed by the clear label "pertinence contestée" (translation: "disputed relevance"), which means clearly that the relevance of this information and hence presentation in the French article is questioned by other French editors.
As can be seen on the talk page of the French article, the question is not so much the use of term 'far right' as the sole use of it. To clarify, I accept the use of other terms also - which should be as specific as the sources themselves indicate, but 'far right' really seems to be the most common and should therefore come first. Thank you for your contribution, Santacruz. Munci (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Emigré55 your formatting does not work. In any case, if NYT, Bloomberg, FT, Guardian, and ElPais all use far-right I think it is best to use that term. It is also important to remember that if forced to choose between French and International sources, choosing the terms used by the international ones is much more appropriate to an English Wikipedia, as the global understanding of right-wing and far-right might be different than what the French internally understand as right-wing and far-right (see USA for example, where their politics are skewed more to the right than most of the Western world). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk06:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a workable structure here might be to say that the broad consensus is that he's on the far right, but that a minority of sources -- notably, himself! -- deem him to be part of a "broad right", a Gaulist, etc. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I used that term as it appears to be the gist of his own position, which has a rather 'unite the right' flavour to it. I believe someone had a quote from him (or from an interviewer he concur with) saying he wanted to 'eliminate the distinction between the gaulist right and the far-right' or something along those lines. But I'm not proposing it as an actual wording. Essentially I'm saying, sum up the sources describing him as "Gaulist", "right-wing", or some other more moderate-sounding thing than "far-right", as concisely and accurately as possible, but don't give them more weight than they're due. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Far right is clearly correct, since it shows up frequently in sources. "Right wing" is too vague for this subject, who is clearly not center-right. Be specific, since the sources are. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Far right - More than enough RSs referring to him as such. I have no problem with other descriptions, such as "Gaullist" etc., appearing in the lede. PraiseVivec (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Euronews qualifies it as "on the extremes of France's right-wing". Independant says "a choice between him [Macron] and the candidate of the far-right, whether Le Pen or Macron". Reuters says "he may pull votes from Le Pen, his less radical rival on the far right." Seattle Times says "Zemmour — whose hard-line views on immigration, Islam’s place in France and national identity are regarded as being to the right of Le Pen". US News "French far-right commentator Eric Zemmour". Irish Times "extreme right-wing author and commentator Eric Zemmour". Statesman "Zemmour, 61, is a polemicist with close links to the traditional far right". American Conservative would not be NPOV. Brussels Morning "far-right candidate of choice". Indian Express "Zemmour — whose hard-line views on immigration, Islam’s place in France and national identity are regarded as being to the right of Le Pen". Express "Mr Zemmour, a French far-right writer". Jana News has copied from other sites you've listed. The Week "Eric Zemmour, who has outflanked Le Pen on the right." Rest are paywalled, except for Hungary Today which I have doubts as to RS. Emigré55 your sources don't support your opinion on this matter from what I can tell. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk23:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Doing the same with "far right" would result in sources that qualify him as far-right. I don't think your phrase above is proper reasoning but I can't figure out exactly what fallacy it falls into. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk10:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
2/ If some sources also include some other qualifications, such as also far right, this perfectly illustrates the fact that sources use qualifications from right wing to far right, as stated in the first sentence of the lead in the article [22]: "Mainstream news organisations characterise Zemmour as right-wing to far right"--Emigré55 (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
See my reply to point 3 as to why I don't agree with this. Additionally, mentioning the sentence of the lead which this RfC means to address is redundant. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk10:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
3/ « Emigré55 your sources don't support your opinion on this matter from what I can tell », and also on your previous edit to this one [23]
3.1/WP:AVOIDYOU: « As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people "
Please also don’t try to tell me, or others, what my opinion is, as I never gave my personal opinion on him. I just tried to balance the article, which was heavily biased in that regard until late September. This is neither about me, nor about my opinion. This is about the article and its content. I am just giving numerous sources here, which use the word “right wing” to qualify Zemmour.
3.2/WP:NPA: “Personal attacks are disruptive. On article talk pages they tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together. »:--Emigré55 (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for my previous response Emigré55, I realized later I had acted wrongly in the heat of the moment and replaced the text. My comments were completely uncalled for. I still believe, however, that your sources don't support your opinion that he should be labeled "right wing to far right". If your sources describe him as "extreme right", more radical far right than Le Pen, etc, qualifying him as right wing to far right would indicate a wider spectrum than what he is characterized as. Far right is a subset of right wing, and therefore if an overwhelming majority of sources (as cited both by you, me, and others in this discussion) label him far right then he should be labelled exclusively as far right. Your sources do mention "right wing" but that doesn't mean that is their characterization if they go on to detail why he is more radical, more extreme, or has more appeal to far-right voters than other right-wing candidates. Seeing how all other editors support labelling him as far-right, I think if you want to continue making your case for including "right wing to far right" you must show evidence of more nuance in how he is characterized in the media. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk10:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
In essence, saying that just because sources use the word "right wing" as well as "far right" means that they characterize him as "right wing to far right" while not acknowledging the content within the sources that qualify his position as far right is Quoting out of context. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk10:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Far right per others. Most sources describe Zemmour's position as more extreme than Le Pen and National Rally, which are commonly considered far right. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
On the right or Radical conservative right per internationally recognised expert: Jean-Yves Camus,[c] a researcher at the Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques (IRIS) since 2006 and president of the Observatoire des radicalités politiques at the centre-left think tank Fondation Jean-Jaurès since 2014, who is a worldwide recognised specialist of this political field in France,[7] states that Zemmour cannot be qualified as belonging to the far-right. He explains why: "Far-right, we must not exaggerate. The far-right inevitably refers to the fascist, Nazi experiences, to collaboration. Éric Zemmour may have had extremely hazardous historical analyses, in particular on Marshal Pétain and the fate of the Jews during the Second World War. But that he is not fascist, that seems absolutely obvious to me".[8]
Asked in October 2021 on the positioning of Eric Zemmour in relation to Marine Le Pen, Camus ranks him "on the right", more precisely in the family of the "radical conservative right", believing that he cannot be considered as a far-right man because of his background and potential electorate for the 2022 presidential election.[9][10]--Emigré55 (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The term 'far right' is most common so it should be given priority in the description. Camus is an expert in the field, but he is not the only one. We may therefore take his view (radical conservative right) into consideration, but not only his. Munci (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I think clearly here Camus is not simply saying he's a figure of the Right, as others do (for example) of the LR field. So "on the right" without qualification is not accurately presenting his view, and "Radical conservative right" is giving too much weight to a single source in what's supposed to be a brisk summary for lede purposes. We certainly could and should use that in the body, where we get into the weeds of the whole 57 varieties of hardline right-wing in detail. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Far-right, not Extreme-right. The French "extreme-droit" translates as "far-right", not as "extreme right", and in English usage "extreme" is associated to violence which is not the case here. "Far-right" has much more weight by simple Google count over right-wing (308 thousand to 34 thousand, and appears more prominent when I looked at it by RS such as BBC.com. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
"Far right" or "Right wing": The present definition of the lead corresponds exactly to the state of use by mainstream organizations, as reminded by the attached footnotes, citing numerous mainstream outlets NOT using the term far right (which is also against Z. calls himself) : "Mainstream news organisations characterise Zemmour as far right or right wing[d][e][f] while Zemmour politically self-identifies as a Gaullist and a Bonapartist.[23]"
If lead to be changed to mention Zemmour as only "far right", is not only denying reality of other qualifications used by other numerous mainstream media, it is also pure POV PUSHING, against Zemmour, taking into consideration the often negative connotation of the word, and the fact it it is often used in this way and/or for that purpose: I.e., a clear breach of wikipedia rules, against WP:NPOV.--Emigré55 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC).
Comment: In the similar RC about American politician Dinesh D'Souza, I supported the option of having his ideology be denoted as "far right," on the basis of numerous sources. However, on account of the fact that, as Scorpions13256 did point out, many of the sources invoked did not use the exact term "far right" but terms equivalent to it, those sources were discounted and the decision was to stay with the term "right-wing" for D-Souza. There is a lesson there for this RfC about Zemmour: Any source that does not denote Zemmour's politics and/or ideology as "far right" cannot be used to support having that description here. (I'll now ping the initiator of that discussion.) -The Gnome (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The thing is, is that many sources have described him as "far right" in English explicity, as has been pointed out numerous times on this talk page, so this is irrelevant. Apart from Emigré55 nobody disagrees that Eric Zemmour should be described as a far-right, and therefore this appears to be the consensus, and Emigre55 should stop continuing to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
My comment is rather far from being "irrelevant." It is meant to remind everyone that the whole discussion should be based on the foundational principle of Wikipedia: We must, and can only, use sources that are reliable to support whatever we're suggesting. I've seen here suggestions to the tune of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Or worse. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCONTENT also states that "When an editor introduces new information to Wikipedia, it may be necessary to consider whether the inclusion and organization of such material is compliant with core policies such as neutral point of view(...) ". Eliminating the other qualifications used by other numerous media, as duly cited in refs, would clearly be a breach of neutrality.
Maybe it is also useful to remember here @Munci:'s statement, here above, : "(...) the question is not so much the use of term 'far right' as the sole use of it. To clarify, I accept the use of other terms also - which should be as specific as the sources themselves indicate, but 'far right' really seems to be the most common and should therefore come first."? I also accept this presentation, which is neutral with respect to all sources, and the requirements of WP:BLP.--Emigré55 (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, I consider a simple 'right wing' term for Zemmour 1° misleading (it gives the impression that he would be as Gaullist as he sometimes purports to be, it would give the impression that he would be politically close to someone like Xavier Bertrand, which is not the case 2° the other terms worth including as secondary terms (far right is clearly the most common as far as I can tell) are not a simple 'right wing' but some other qualifier. Going through the list referenced above, "extremes of France's right-wing" [24] "Trump-like right-wing" [25] "far right" [26][27][28][29]. Many of these articles compare to Donald Trump [30][31] (this last one appears to be a copy though) so that may be something worth mentioning in the article. And he is in these sources sometimes called polemicist. Even the Telegraph calls him 'firebrand' among other words. Munci (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The term “right wing” is often and widely used by sources (as shown by the many sources cited in the refs), and as such should be reported. Together with the other term “far right”, also often and widely used. It should not be excluded because of your opinion (or anyone’s) about the fact that it is misleading. All the more since other opinions, including Zemmour’s would/could lead to a totally different conclusion.
Otherwise the article would breach neutrality and balance. It is all about sources, and the article should be neutrally based on sources, not on your or my, or anyone’s opinion about which widely used term by sources is more appropriate or not to Zemmour for the article in general or the lead in particular.
Hence the present description, “far right or right wing” is the closest to all main sources.
One way though to encompass all other nuances in between would be to write “far right to right-wing”.
On the other hand, I agree with Munci that the comparison with Trump, made in several recent articles (but only since the presidential campaign started) could be the subject of a development, but in a few sentences in the article (referring to sources).--Emigré55 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
My thoughts:
Far right is a political orientation, not an ideology.
The far qualifier is a WP:LOADED term used by people to discredit their political opponents as extremist, i.e. unreasonable, unconscionable, insane. Proof of this is that while mostly all WP:NOTABLE political leaders and commentators are happy to identify themselves as right or left wing, barely any of them qualifies themselves as far right or far left.
AFAIK, Eric Zemmour is a libertarian conservative, very much like Ben Shapiro, whose article only says he's a conservative political commentator.
^Many English or American media outlets also present him as “far right”, but also “conservative” or “right-wing”[1][2][3][4][5][6]
^Jean-Yves Camus is a Senior Fellow at the Center for the Analysis of the Radical Right (CARR) and the Director of the Observatory of Political Radicalism at Foundation Jean Jaures. He also sits on the Scientific Board of the Délégation interministérielle pour la lutte contre le racisme, l’antisémitisme et la lutte contre l’homophobie (DILCRAH). Prior to this, he was the research director at the European Center for Research on Racism and Anti-Semitism (CERA) in Paris. He is the author of seven books in French about the Front National and the Radical Right in France, including "Les droites nationales et radicales en France" (1992, with René Monzat); "Le Front national, histoire et analyse" (Éditions Olivier Laurens, 1996), "Le Front national" (Éditions Milan), and "Extrémismes en France : faut-il en avoir peur ?" (Éditions Milan, 2006). He has edited "Les Extrémismes en Europe" (La Tour d’Aigues, éditions de l’Aube, 1998). Additionally, Camus has published scholarly articles and opinion pieces on the Front National, the Radical Right, anti-Semitism, and racism in France and has contributed to many edited volumes in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and other languages. With Nicolas Lebourg, he recently co-authored "The Extremes Rights in Europe" (Harvard University Press, 2017).
^Cite error: The named reference farpolem was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Alexis, Chapelan. ""Swallowing the red pill": the coronavirus pandemic and the political imaginary of stigmatized knowledge in the discourse of the far-right". Journal of Transatlantic Studies. doi:10.1057/s42738-021-00073-2.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2021
This edit request to Éric Zemmour has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Note: The initial comment was previously posted at User_talk:Hemiauchenia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I don't believe that precising that his parents are Jewish Berbers is appropriate in the introduction. Just because something is well sourced doesn't mean it should be in the introduction, has it doesn't have anything to do with his political views or his biography in general.
It's in his early life section. The fact that Zemmour is jewish is a noteworthy piece of background context, especially for his views on muslims. I don't think it's undue to mention it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Maybe his self-description as Berber is misleading. I cite from the article in the French Wikipedia:
"D'après la journaliste Ariane Chemin, qui s'appuie sur l'historien Benjamin Stora, Éric Zemmour est « juif arabe », mais il préfère se présenter comme « juif berbère »
and: "Selon l'historien Benjamin Stora, l'expression « juif berbère » permet à Éric Zemmour « de se distinguer de l’arabité mal vue." Right or wrong, that is the question. --Cabanero42 (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Cabanero42: Hello, I had seen this, but, unless I am wrong, neither Chemin, nor Stora give sources to explain and/or prove that he is a "juif arabe". As he claims he is a "juif berbère", and as it can be duly sourced,I do not think this should be changed in the presentation.
Having said that, we could maybe add a footnote on what seems to be a side small controversy, on which he has not even answered, as far as I know. And specifically mentioning what I just wrote above, then, in order to be prudent, together with Chemin's and Stora's statements. But, right or wrong, the question is also, and probably first: does it comply with WP:BLP and precisely with WP:BLPGOSSIP? cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Emigré55. The source says Eric Zemmour est un juif arabe – lui préfère dire « juif berbère », une expression « qui permet de se distinguer de l’arabité mal vue », sourit Benjamin Stora, auteur de Trois exils. Juifs d’Algérie (Stock, 2006). Le Monde and Benjamin Stora are serious sources, so a footnote is probably appropriate. JBchrchtalk16:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@JBchrch:,@Cabanero42: Thank you for your comment. I would then write the footnote as follows:
"According to historian Benjamen Stora, quoted by Le Monde, Eric Zemmour is an Arab Jew - he prefers to say "Berber Jew", an expression "which makes it possible to distinguish oneself from the frowned upon Arab", - smiles Benjamin Stora, author of "Three exiles. Jews from Algeria "(Stock, 2006). He, however, does not mention any source.
I agree, too. This sounds well. (I have no real "opinion" in this matter. Before I read this article, I read the articles in the German and in the French Wikipedia and was astonished about this article here, which took the self-description as a fact you can rely on.) Thanks for listening to me. --Cabanero42 (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Archived RFC
I would like to alert to the fact that the section "Request for comment on the description of Eric Zemmour's trials and the categorisation thereof" was archived withou a closure. Munci (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Direct link to archive. The RfC tag was removed by admin Vanamonde93here with the rationale there doesn't seem to be a single question that you are soliciting external input on, and as such an RfC is somewhat out of process at this time, which is correct in my view. In any case, the section mainly involved two editors talking to each other without reaching consensus, so a tentative closure would probably be "no consensus". Maybe a different approach to this dispute, for instance through bold edits or a more precise RfC, might lead to a different. JBchrchtalk17:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for indicating the removal point and the rationale therefor. I shall consider a more precise wording for another RFC. Munci (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Decluttering the lead with LDRs
I've been attempting to declutter the wikicode of the lead, by moving long explanatory notes into the #References section as list defined references. For a reader, this doesn't change anything on the rendered page, but for the editor, it refactors the wikicode to remove long notes from the lead, making it easier to see and modify the actual lead text. This has been working fine for normal references and notes, and the lead is a bit shorter (in code) now. However, there is a Wikimedia software bug that prevents explanatory notes that contain embedded <ref> tags from being move to the References section as list-defined references; if you try, it will generate a false "The named reference $1 was invoked but never defined" error. There is currently no workaround for this. You can read about it at Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes#5. List-defined references, or track it at phab:T22707. If & when this bug is fixed, it would improve maintainability of the article to move remaining notes (such as {{efn|name="moved in 2010"}}) to the #References section. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I've decluttered paragraphs one and two of the lead; paragraph three in coming days, hopefully, or if someone wants to jump in, be my guest. Hopefully this will make everything clearer and easier when it's done. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
After reducing the clutter of the lead recently, it became apparent that this article has a massive WP:OVERCITE problem. I'll just illustrate it with this example, which is the third sentence of the lead, and which surely must be the worst example of it:
Most mainstream news organisations label Zemmour as far-right,[a][b][c] he politically self-identifies as Gaullist and Bonapartist.[4]
If you follow the tree of embedded citations starting with [a],[b], and [c] above, there are a total of 51 citations on the term far-right.
Following some of the conflictual discussions here about how to describe Zemmour's politics, I can see how this rather ridiculous situation may have come about, but nevertheless, that doesn't excuse it, and it needs to be fixed. When the dust settles, one or two solid references on the term far-right are sufficient. If there is disagreement on whether or not the term is an accurate description of his politics, then per WP:TALK that needs to be talked out on this page, and discussions should attempt to achieve a WP:CONSENSUS that observes WP:DUEWEIGHT in how the text in the lead is written. To the extent that reliable sources disagree, the lead should cover that, for example, one could say "Most sources say Zemmour prefers chocolate,[3][4] but a significant minority claim he prefers vanilla.[5] Zemmour himself says he likes tutti-frutti.[14]" However, having a pile-on citation-war with 72 references that say "X" and 91 references that say "Y", is both a type of edit-warring by proxy, as well as WP:DISRUPTIVE to the good order of the article, and relations between editors, and cannot remain like this.
This is not an excuse to muddy waters that are now placid or an invitation to reignite battles that have already been waged; the goal here, if "far-right" was the term resolved on by consensus already, is just to pick two, highly reliable sources out of the list of 51 already there and keep those in the article, and remove the rest, in order to resolve the untenable situation we have in the lead currently. I don't think this needs attention urgently, as there are other problems with the article as well, but at some point, it needs to be fixed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Note that many of the same sources are being used on the French version of this article here to support him being a far right polemicist (polémiste d'extrême droite): [32] I added this material into the English version of the article for the first time on the 12th of September [33]. The polemicist discussion above is related to that, and is still not yet finished. Someone replaced the word 'polemicist' with 'pundit' arguing that that it was a better translation for 'polémist' in contradiction to the dictionary.
I also note the section WP:CITEMERGE on the link above, which is to be used in case of possible edit war has been done from the introduction of the sources from the French version. Munci (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Do not use goodwordnews.com
Please do not use goodwordnews.com for anything in this article. This site is complete crap, and they use absurdly bad machine translations and create incorrect content. For example, this edit, quoting from this page at GWN. This site needs to be deprecated, and nobody should use it for anything. More details at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#goodwordnews.com.
When the RSN discussion concludes with deprecation, as I assume it shall, I will go through the article and remove all content sourced to goodwordnews.com. In the meantime, please don't add anything else sourced to GWN. Adding Emigré55. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The line "to put them on planes to hunt them?" in the section 2014: Remarks on Muslims, comes from, according to the footnote, an article entitled "La polémique Zemmour en six actes". The French says "pour les chasser". This would be better translated as "to chase them away". I wonder if an anonymous translation, isn't original research.--142.163.195.114 (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
IP 142, yes, good catch, and your translation is better. There are numerous translations mistakes in this article, many of them based on false friends, or as in this case, choosing the wrong meaning of a word, probably due to WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. This problem is endemic in this article, and it needs a thorough review, top to bottom. I'm going to flag it at the top of the article, because it is a serious problem in this article, and as Zemmour's profile gets more attention in the Anglosphere, readers are going to come here to learn about him, and currently we are misinforming them.
If you don't object, IP 142, I'd like to change the section title of this section to "Shoddy translation" or similar; are you okay with that?Never mind; it's okay this way. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC) redacted by Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I doubt its machine translation, it probably just Emigré55's gallicisms, given that they have done signficant expansion on this article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Could be; the actual reason doesn't matter; the important thing, is that we get the wording to match the sources and hunt clearly does not. IP's suggestion was a good one, but I checked the original context in French, and to get rid of them was better here, so I've changed it to that. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Article needs more critical analysis of Zemmour's views
I don't wish to spend much time on this, but just thought I'd mention that the article is in dire need of adding more contextual and critical analysis by RS on his views -- as it stands right now we are just listing his views and his justifications for them without any criticisms (e.g. if a policy would have negative effects on the economy or goes against international agreements). Thus, the article might be veering into POV advocacy of his positions. Santacruz⁂Please ping me!12:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Opposing views ought to be taken from political scientists, newspapers of record and notable politicans. It is likely that some of these have similar opinions on Zemmour's ideas. Munci (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and I don't see anything about Zemmour carefully plotting a course (not really a middle course, more a zigzagging surf ride, with one eye on the polls and the press) between Marine Le Pen's "National Front Lite" (her Rassemblement national) which is Marine's "undemonized" version (dédiabolisê) of her father's hard-right FN on the one hand, and the extreme-right on the other hand, which has reappropriated the harsher features of J-M Le Pen's far-right politics that his daughter more or less abandoned or at least tried to soften. This zigzagging surf ride, or middle course, or whatever you want to call it, is actually key, imho, to Zemmour's politics and actions right now. Search dédiabolisation in the French press to learn more about this. It's not a word, but what Z is doing, is a kind of a dé-dédiabolisation (un-undemonization) of the far right, trying to reappropriate the reappropriators, without quite getting tarred with the extremist label. Mathglot (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed a specific example of this: The section "Overview of political positions" currently quotes Zemmour "In an interview with Zemmour in August 2021, a journalist asked him how it is still possible to classify him on the extreme right[clarify] Zemmour brushed aside the criticisms: "It is an old Stalinist method of the 1930s, which consists in calling all your opponents 'fascists'."" but does not quote the journalist themself, who says "Mais comment peut-on encore classer Éric Zemmour à l'extrême droite après ces prises de position toutes plus modérées les unes que les autres ?" i.e. "But how can we still classify Eric Zemmour as far right after all these pronouncements, each of which is more moderate than the last?" clearly implying ironically that Zemmour is in fact far right. Munci (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
This is true, but I encourage anyone to do the legwork and find the sources. Because it's not easy to find sources talking at length about his political opinions, let alone examining them critically. JBchrchtalk20:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Relationship with Sarah Knafo
Recently, Closer ran a story suggesting that Zemmour is expecting a child with Sarah Knafo, his political adviser, after a previous story in Paris Match suggested that they were having an affair. Zemmour has sued both magazines about these allegations. This has gained widepread coverage, including in Politico and The Times, the latter of which asserts the pregnancy allegations as true. Is this worth including, or is this just tabloid gossip? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Politico and The Times are good starts for sure, but per WP:PUBLICFIGURE I would wait for one or two additional articles in high-quality sources. For instance, I see that none of the three French newspapers of record have not covered it yet, even though they have already run articles on his middle finger in Marseille. JBchrchtalk03:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I think we can still write something about the claim and the lawsuit. Won't have the time today but will try tomorrow if no one has done it. JBchrchtalk20:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Huffpost potential trial
This is likely going to develop further but HuffPost has announced they intend to pursue Zemmour for video footage used in his official declaration video: [34] How should we include this? Munci (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, it's a primary-source press release. If reliable sources that aren't directly involved deem it to be of significance, include those. Impossible to judge whether this will be a huge bombshell in tomorrow's papers, or big yawn, let's see if the case is actually ever heard. 109.255.211.6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Request for comment on use of the word 'polemicist' in the intro
In keeping with the comments above that my previous RFC was insufficiently, I am opening a new one to replace it.
As I have mentioned here [41][42][43] and edited here [44][45], I consider it appropriate for the term 'polemicist' to appear from the first paragraph, as it cited by tens of different reliable sources. As far I am concerned, it's the main thing he is known for. It is also uncontested on the French version of the page.
As I mentioned here [46], the word 'pundit' was added to replace the word 'polemicist'. The editor argued that 'pundit' would be a better translation for 'polémiste' than polemicist', which is contrary to Robert Collins French-English English-French dictionary and contrary to what is found on wikt:polémiste. As I mentioned here [47], some of the many sources which support the word 'polemicist' are still in the article, it's just the description associated has been changed.
An IP address above has suggested the option of putting in the third - the second, as I mistakenly stated above - sentence instead of the first. This may be a compromise option, but the word 'polémiste' is the word most used to describe Eric Zemmour that it would be inappropriate not to have it. Munci (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Munci: You write in this RFC: "It is also uncontested on the French version of the page".
The first sentence of the lead in the French article, which ends this way "... polémiste français, généralement classé à l'extrême droite de l’échiquier politique français" (translation: "... French polemicist, generally classified on the extreme right of the French political spectrum") is immediately followed by the clear label "pertinence contestée" (translation: "disputed relevance"), which means clearly that the relevance of this information in the French article is questioned by other French editors.
The relevance is questioned for the term 'far right', especially for only using the term 'far right' and not others. This can be corroborated on the talk page. The use of the term 'polémiste' is not in question. Munci (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Where are the sources. Munci, I have already mentioned to you that claiming that sources exist, without providing hyperlinks to the relevant pieces that you have read, is not the proper way to work with other editors. The lexicographical research is WP:OR. JBchrchtalk14:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Of the sources already in this part of the article alone, at a minimum (I didn't check them all), the Marianne, Europe 1, the LCI, france bleu, La Provence, Liberation, Mediapart, L'Obs, Numerama, Charlie Hebdo, Acrimed, Arrêt sur images, Juri Guide, Le Courrier de L'Atlas, The Huffington Post, Le Parisien, lavoixdunord and the Courrier picard all directly use the exact term "polémiste". If that's not sufficient, not sure what else you're looking for. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Well first, thanks a lot for pointing out where the sources are, which is all I've been asking. Second:
I see that Google 13.8k results for "Eric Zemmour polemicist" but 73.1k results for "Eric Zemmour pundit".
Restricted to the website of the NYT, we have 308 results for "Eric Zemmour pundit" and a measly 6 results for "Eric Zemmour polemicist".
Restricted to the website of France24, I have 29 results for "Eric Zemmour pundit" and 8 for "Eric Zemmour polemicist".
Restricted to the website of the Times of London, I get 53 results with "Eric Zemmour pundit" and 25 results for "Eric Zemmour polemicist".
So I'm sure anyone can assemble a number of sources calling him a "polemicist", but the main designation seems to be pundit. Maybe we could have the best of both worlds and say that he is a "pundit", with a footnote adding that he's also been called a polemicist. JBchrchtalk01:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@JBchrch:, Thank you for a thorough, serious and unbiased research. I fully agree with you. As well with the footnote proposition on "polemicist", for which I suggest that it should be added to his TV activities description (not in the first line) as it is clearly related to it and not his main activities as a journalist or a book writer (not to mention his probably soon to be announced candidacy to the presidency of France).--Emigré55 (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
OK. 'Pundit' certainly seems more common than I thought in English language sources. I am unsure about the Google hits approach though, which is no more OR than looking words up in a dictionary. The problem with the Ghits approach is that it can just be the two words included in the same source, without any indication of how the two words are linked. At least looking words up in a dictionary clarifies unambiguously the link between two words. Especially considering 'pundit' may be translated as 'expert' or 'pontife' which are never used to describe Eric Zemmour. I thought that there may be Wikipedia policy on translation and found this which says that faithful translations are not considered OR: Wikipedia:No original research § Translations and transcriptions. Contrary to my argument, however, is that WP:RSUE states that English languages are preferable where possible and equivalent. Munci (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Although this method is not perfect, it is sometimes used to determine the WP:COMMONNAME of a subject (which, admittedly, is not exactly what we are trying to do here). But dictionaries are not perfect either, because they lack context and have no systematic rules for determine the order in which words are listed (see Lee, Thomas R.; Mouritsen, Stephen C. (2018). "Judging Ordinary Meaning". Yale Law Journal. 127: 818 ff.) so I would disagree with the argument that they are unambiguous. Dictionaries also do not solve the main problem that we are facing, which is determining what we are supposed to translate. I think what this exercise at least shows with a certain degree of certainty is that if we have to make a determination between pundit and polemicist, the term pundit seems to be what shows up the most in sources that mention Eric Zemmour. JBchrchtalk12:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I would say it's partly a question of are the best sources for the page. Is it the French language sources, as it is a French subject, in which case we use 'polemicist' which is the translation for 'polémiste'? Or is it the English language sources, as it is the English language Wikipedia, in which case we use 'pundit' before 'polemicist'? Or both, in which case both descriptions are included equally? Munci (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
We can (and IMO should) do both, but shouldn't do them "equally" or indeed in one breath. "Pundit" is a straightforward objective description of his job (or parts of this job). "Polemicist" is a somewhat more subjective characterisation of the manner he conducts that job, and of the content of his output in that capacity (and others). The later should appear in the third sentence, "Mainstream news organisations characterise Zemmour [...]", which is robustly sourced and verifiable, and indeed is something of a glaring omission from what it says at present. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
That can be a solution indeed. Certainly including both is the way to a balance between the most common description in French language and English language sources. I note, however, that, while English sources do use 'polemicist' (just more rarely than 'pundit'), French sources never use the equivalents to 'pundit'. Munci (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Irrelevant to the discussion. This is English Wikipedia; we don't care what French Wikipedia uses, as French uses French vocabulary, and English uses English vocabulary. There is no policy or guideline that implies we should take foreign usage into consideration and translate it; on the contrary, we use the terms that are predominant in English-language sources. Mathglot (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Munci wrote,
I would say it's partly a question of [what] are the best sources for the page
Yes, that is the question. You then asked,
Is it the French language sources, as it is a French subject, in which case we use 'polemicist' which is the translation for 'polémiste'? Or is it the English language sources, as it is the English language Wikipedia
Answer: English language sources. This is a matter of settled policy on English Wikipedia, and the answer is, we use the English language sources because they are abundantly available and of high quality. If Eric Zemmour were unknown in English sources, we could use French sources, but that is not the case here. Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy at English Wikipedia (you already linked it below), and it says: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones". Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This section's tag has been removed by a bot before resolution. Can I just add it back in until a solution is found? Munci (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I have re-added the tag. I note that this discussion has not been advancing though. And that the article currently states that "Éric Zemmour is commonly presented as a far-right pundit by:" which is a modification of what I had originally copied and translated from the French version of the page. 'Polémiste' translates 'polemicist', not as 'pundit' and it is not OR to look words up in a bilingual dictionary. The current version of the statement with 'pundit' where I had originally put 'polemicist' to correspond with the French sources does not properly represent the sources. Munci (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your justified response. What do you think about the possibility of including 'polemicist' in another part of the article? Munci (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
That's an impossible question to answer, without a specific context. We don't add words to articles because we think a particular word should fit somewhere in the article, but because it is a good word choice based on what reliable sources say about the subtopic being discussed at that particular point in the article. If you have a question about a sentence or paragraph in the article where you think it would fit better than some other wording, you could raise an issue about that as a topic of discussion.
But this seems a bit like a cart before the horse situation. It feels to me like you're saying something like, "I have this word here; now, where can we best insert it into the article?" But that is backwards; we should be asking, "We have this subtopic to address in the article, and these reliable sources that address it; now, what are the best words to use in the article to summarize these sources?" The word you like might, or might not, be one of them. The word choice doesn't come first, it comes last. Do you see what I mean? Mathglot (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I suppose I see what you mean about the horse and cart principle, but the section entitled 'Overview of political positions' currently states "Since 2014, Éric Zemmour has been commonly presented as a "far-right pundit" in French media." This is false, as far as I am concerned, because the correct statement would be "Éric Zemmour has been commonly presented as a "far-right polemicist" in French media and as far-right pundit in English-language media". Munci (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with that in principle, however I seriously question whether it's necessary to get into a discussion about what words the French press uses. If you were going to include content in this article about the word choice in the French press (which I feel is non-encyclopedic minutiae) then you'd have to quote the actual words somewhere, i.e., "un polémiste de l'extrême droite" and then give the translation, or vice versa, possibly relegating the French to an explanatory note. But there's no reason I can think of to go into this level of detail in the article about one word, unless the word itself has been the subject of some press attention, either in France, or in the English press, about whether Zemmour is more of a polémiste, or more of a pundit, or both, or neither. Have you seen such discussion in the press about this word-use topic? If not, I don't think the article should discuss it either, because then it would be original research; that is, it's something Wikipedia editors wish to write about, even though the French and English press do not. Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Mathglot's reasoning above. I also think that there are better (and more pressing) ways to deal with neutrality issues in the article than dealing with the semantics involved here. This might be a good discussion (might) to have once the article is more or less stable and neutral, but for now I think either word does the job. Santacruz⁂Please ping me!09:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
My last word on this, and then I'm going to have to go do something else, is this: you might ask yourself, what words do French news media that publish in English use? I know five such media outlets: AFP, France 24, RFI, The Local, and Le Monde Diplomatique. You need to craft a query to make sure you elicit the unbiased results you want, so, zemmour, of course, and to get English results only, I've included the words French and right, neither of which are words in French. Somewhat to my surprise, Le Monde Diplomatique had nothing, but the other four did, and they all agree on what English word should be used.
Well, I suspect there is mistranslation (note that https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/pundit claims a pejorative element to the word 'pundit' that wikt:pundit does not. However, that would be OR so I'm willing to just accept 'pundit' and leave this discussion as it stands and remove the RFC tag manually if that's fine with you. Munci (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no pejorative sense to pundit in English; Wiktionnaire is wrong about this. While Wiktionary can be illustrative, it's also an unreliable source as it is self-published. I use Wiktionary myself on occasion, but only on a Talk page, never in an article, and always with the recognition that it can be just, plain, wrong, as it was in this case . I've removed that definition from French Wiktionary; thanks for mentioning it. Going forward, please never rely on something you find at Wiktionary (English or French). And I have no objection to removing the Rfc tag. Mathglot (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for removing that definition from Wiktionnaire. To clarify, I was not relying on Wiktionnaire but suspecting that journalists translating 'polémiste' might have. Or that they both come from the same mistaken source. I see that somebody below indicated interest in this discussion so I'll wait another day or two to remove the RFC tag. Munci (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
After thinking it over, I think the main problem is the incoherence between sources: The statement "Éric Zemmour has been commonly presented as a "far-rightpundit" in French media." is cited to sources which state that Zemmour is "polémiste d'extrême-droite. I would consider this to be 'not in source' so we ought to either change the text or the sources used. Given your previous statements, I expect that you would opt for replacing the sources with the English language ones you have provided above. Would I be correct in thinking this? Munci (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Munci, partly, but not really, and it depends what you want to source: what he is (in Wikipedia's voice), or what French source call him. When you say 'not in source' I would argue that it is in the source. It all comes back to the fact that you don't really accept the English word as a valid translation. For example, if the French sources described Jacques Vergès as un avocat, and then we wanted to say in the English article, "French sources describe Vergès as a 'lawyer'", would you accept that in the English Wikipedia article? Or would you say, "No, the French sources don't say that, they say he is an 'advocate'" (which looks like avocat because it is of course the cognate of avocat in English)? I hope you wouldn't say that; because in English, we don't say advocate (even though it is a real word, and even though a lawyer is an advocate), we say lawyer (or attorney). The situation here is kind of the same thing, and the problem is, you don't accept the word that English sources feel is the best description of him in English, even when those English sources are French publications like AFP, RFI, France 24, and so on, and you prefer the rare cognate polemicist which is barely used in English. When you say, 'not in source', of course pundit cannot *literally* be in a French source, because the word doesn't exist in French and there is no cognate, just like lawyer could not literally be in a French source. But just as it is valid to say "Vergès is described as a 'lawyer' in French sources", so it is equally valid to say that "Zemmour is described as a 'pundit' in French sources". But if we just want to concentrate on what he is (from all sources) without worrying about what French sources say specifically, then, yes, you could add some English sources (or French sources publishing in English). Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
In Wikipedia's voice, I would consider it acceptable to use 'pundit', because it can be cited to English language sources. <the biggest problem is the citing 'pundit' is as what French sources say, and then citing French-language French sources which 'polémiste'.
Of course, I would accept 'lawyer' as a translation for 'avocat'. That is a translation found in any French-English English-French dictionary. I shall leave aside the question of different legal systems notably the Scots law system, where advocate is used (That is more equivalent to barrister or sollicitor than attorney anyway). Certainly, some mistranslations result from false friends. They may also result from trying to translate the same semantic distinction.
This case, on the other hand, appears to me to be a mistranslation which does not result from a false friend. In this case, it would appear that the mistranslation is due to a misunderstanding by some French people that 'pundit' would have the pejorative connotation that 'polémiste' and 'polemicist' have (as we have noticed on Wiktionnaire and which you have appropriately corrected). But I suppose there is the problem of OR and actually proving my suspicion. While 'polemicist' is perhaps a rarer word than the French equivalent, it is nonetheless closer semantically to 'polémiste' than 'pundit' is, as confirmed by any published dictionary which I have consulted.
In any case, it would appear that we have the solution: changing the sources to English language ones so that they fit with the statement. Munci (talk) 07:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
It's normal that when Zemmour was relatively unknown outside France, almost all of the sources about him were in French, and that is reflected in the citations in this article. But that time is past, and there are many English sources about him now. Per WP:RSUE, we should be using English sources whenever they are available and of equivalent quality to the French source. It's still the case that French sources are much more numerous, so they tend to drown out the English sources in search engine result pages, so either set your search engine setting to "English language results", or use the minus sign as an exclusion operator to exclude a couple of French terms commonly seen in articles about him (such as -droite -parti), to get results mostly in English. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The English language sources are almost entirely about his current candidacy and do not cover other aspects of his career in substantial detail. Using French sources is integral to writing a comprehensive article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Wording of section headers, for charges he was acquitted of
How should we word the subsection headers listed under section #Acquittals? In this edit, Moonraker changed the subsection title from 2016: Defamation of Cécile Duflot to 2016: Criticism of Cécile Duflot, with the summary Corrected header as court said not defamatory. I understand their point, and in running text, we could *not* say in the article, "Eric Zemmour defamed Cécile Duflot in 2016", because he was indeed found innocent of that.
However, the level four subsection headers under #Acquittals aren't saying what he did, but what he was charged with; i.e., what the trials were about, and as they are listed under a section "Acquittals" that should be clear both in the ToC, as well as reading the section, which goes into more detail about his acquittal in that particular case. I believe that changing the header to "Criticism of..." is misleading, as one no longer sees what he was actually found innocent of. As an example (the best I could find on short notice), the O.J. Simpson article has a subsection entitled, "Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman murders and trials". Simpson was found innocent, but there's no question he was charged with murder, so there is no problem having a section header like that in the article. It would be weird to remove "Murder" from that section header and replace it with "Injury" or "Assault" or some other word, just because Simpson was found innocent; there was a murder trial, and we should identify it as such.
Similarly in this article. There is no question Zemmour was charged with defamation, and likewise no question that he was acquitted. But the case and the charge was about "defamation". It seems to me that the original header, including the word "defamation" which is what he was charged with and acquitted of, is appropriate to define the content of this subsection. Accordingly, I've put it back to the way it was for now. I won't revert if someone changes it again, but I thought we should have a discussion about how this section header, and other section headers under the "#Acquittals" section, should be worded. The same thing applies to charges of incitement to hatred, discrimination, and so on, anything that he was acquitted of. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Personally I feel that naming the headers with the crime if he was acquitted would be somewhat wrong. In my perspective, it assumes guilt rather than innocence. I'm struggling to think of an appropriate way to name the header (perhaps if the court cases have names a la Eric Zemmour vs. Cecile Duflot or some non-numeric title that would be appropriate). The section "Remarks about Muslims" might provide a good example, as well. Something like "Remarks about Cecile Duflot" could work. Santacruz⁂Please ping me!21:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand the proposals people are making, and why. If there were *accusations* of defamation that never reached a court, that should not (imho) be reflected in the section header, and possibly not covered in the article at all, unless it met the threshold of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. But that's not this case; there were accusations, but also charges filed, and detention, followed by an acquittal; all amply covered in sources.
I guess at some level it comes down to whether we want to know what Zemmour was being charged with in the section headers (and therefore, in the ToC) or we don't, and whether we think mentioning a charge he was found innocent of is BLP-compliant or not at that level. When scanning a table of contents or skimming the bold headers in an article page, I prefer to know, and I make allowances for the fact that he may not be guilty of any of them, especially when they are found under a higher section level called "#Acquittals", but I guess that's my personal preference. That said, WP:BLP policy seems to be okay with including them, so under what policy or guideline should they be removed? Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Those are interesting and illuminating examples. I would personally favor a non-legally charged language because that's my understanding of how WP:BLPCRIME works — but given what you have presented, I would say that it's not a particularly strong view, so I wouldn't want to impede a contrary consensus. JBchrchtalk23:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment this was changed again during this discussion. For those arriving at this discussion and wondering what it's about, it's about the subsection headers under section #Acquittals in revision 1059117451 (in particular, this one, before it was changed). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC) updated to add diff link. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Mathglot, now it has been edited again to “Comments regarding…”, which is neutral. I take your point that it comes down to whether we want to know what Zemmour was being charged with in the section headers. Still, they should surely not mislead the casual reader, and most readers are casual. I wouldn’t see a problem with “Charge of defamation”, it’s a header that seems to state guilt which I objected to. Moonraker (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Translating 'délit'
I think it's OK to translate 'délit' as 'crime' but @Emigré55: considers it important to distinguish between 'délit' and 'crime' and wants to translate 'délit' as 'offense', for example in the quotation of Zemmour about his racial hatred condemnation where he claims "I was condemned for an offense or 'a crime') of opinion". The wording 'offense of opinion' was labelled unclear which was why I had modified it. As noted above, the section could be reworked to not just put his own words there. What do others think? Munci (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the whole quote should be removed, because it strips away the context for it in Marianne: "il rétorque par exemple avec beaucoup d'élégance, comme s'il s'inscrivait dans la droite ligne d'un Jean Moulin : « J'ai été condamné pour délit d'opinion. (...) Je ne suis pas un délinquant, je suis un dissident. »". Translation: "he answers with much elegance, as if he were following in the footsteps of a Jean Moulin...", which is obviously mocking. JBchrchtalk20:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
'Offense of opinion' sounds bizarre in English, we can't use that. In my opinion, Zemmour actually did mean 'crime' not 'offense', and I think as JBchrch said, he's being ironic or mocking, here. In addition, I think Zemmour is thinking of the expression thought crime and intentionally making a pointed (ironic) reference to George Orwell's 1984 (novel) here. That seems clear to me, however, what I (or any editor) *believes* Zemmour's intention was, or what he may or may not have been alluding to, is of course completely off-limits in the article.
It does make the translation more difficult, because intent really matters here, and we don't know his intent. Best just to leave it out, or as a poor second choice, maybe summarize in English *without* translation, accompanied by an explanatory note giving the original French, without translation. Normally, I would never include a passage in a foreign language without translation, even in a footnote, but because any translation here may betray Zemmour's intent, I think we simply cannot attempt it. Traduttore, traditore.Mathglot (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I briefly researched the "délit d'opinion"/"thoughtcrime" equivalence, and both expression do not seem to be translatable to one another, especially since "thoughtcrime" has a distinct Orwellian background which "délit d'opinion" hasn't. The European Union translators (as indexed by Linguee) seem to be always finding creative workarounds to translate "délit d'opinion" in English, and do not use "thoughtcrime". In any case I agree: best to leave it out. JBchrchtalk23:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not the usual translation of "thoughtcrime" in French, so if it's a reference it seems more obtuse than pointed. Like that quiz-show game where you run a phrase through a near-synonym generator. The word délit is fairly specifically less serious than crime, in a way that "offence" vs "crime" in English only vaguely reflects. I have to agree that "offence of opinion" is a clunking phrase in the extreme, and it's not at all clear how else to translate it without taking considerable artistic liberties that are unavailable to us. If there's no English-language secondary-source offering up an interpretation of quite what he might have been on about, maybe indeed best skipped. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, ommission of his quote would indeed be perhaps the best solution. It would cut the Gordian knot of how to translate it, and would at once settle any question of including Zemmour's POV without commentary. Munci (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
This is actually symptomatic of a bigger problem in translation of legal terms from French, specifically with respect to terms in civil or criminal law. Because of the many differences between the legal systems of different countries, and in particular between Napoleonic and Common law, legal terms in each language simply do not line up very well. This question about translation of délit is as good an example as any. Besides any differences between countries or legal systems, there are also differences within the same language (whether English on the one hand, or French on the other) between the domains of common usage by non-specialists, and usage in courts and legal codes. English terms like misdemeanorfelony or crime have different meanings in the U.S. and U.K. law, and the public in either country may view them differently than attorneys do.
In French law (CP, the penal code), infractions (the general term for any illegal act,) are divided into three levels, from most to least serious: crimes, délits, and contraventions. These three are well-defined terms in French law (CP art. 111-1) and punishments for the first two are handled by the legal system (Const. art. 34), and the last by regulatory authorities (art. 37). (This whole area is poorly handled by en-wiki, and we don't even have an article on French criminal law; there is an article on Code pénal (France), but that's not the same thing.) Crime in French is a well-defined term designating the most serious level of the tripartite division of infractions and codified in the CP, the English term "crime" is a vague term with no well-accepted definition in general use, and certainly without a specific definition in common law.
That brings us back to délit, and what to do about it. The distinction between délit and crime is that a délit is punishable by less than 3 years imprisonment, and a crimeby 3 years or more. A contravention is usually dealt with by fines (131-13), confiscation or removal of privileges (car/guns or their licenses, etc.) (14), or payment of damages to a victim (15). None of this lines up very well with the the dichotomy in common law between misdemeanor and felony (not to mention the US-UK variations); and the English crime is too vague to be useful here at all. So, simply translating délit as misdemeanor just won't do. The word offense was suggested, but this doesn't have a well-defined legal meaning in English, and sounds to me more like a speeding ticket.
I think there's a tension between wanting to keep the text simple and flowing for readers without overburdening it by trying to explain the entire French criminal justice system in a few words (an impossible task anyway) on the one hand, and on the other hand just using a single word like misdemeanorand ignoring how inadequate and inaccurate it is as a translation for délit. The best solution I can see, would be to keep the French word délit in place in the running text in English, and avoid use of misdemeanor to translate it, but instead accompany the French term with an explanatory note of a sentence or two, explaining délit as the middle of three levels of infraction defined in French penal law, and subject to less than 3 years imprisonment. This would allow those readers who just wanted the gist of it to read the running text and not bother with the details, while permitting those interested in a deeper dive to click on the superscript tag[a] to find out more about what a délit actually is. Mathglot (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much Mathglot for the thought you've put into this proposal and the article as a whole. I think this is about as good as we can do in en.wiki. Hopefully someone with deep knowledge of French legal process will write such an article, but as it seems like quite the Herculean task to get an article of that complexity up to good standards a superscript note is the best way to give readers a comprehensive understanding of Zemmour's legal history. Santacruz⁂Please ping me!23:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@A. C. Santacruz: Well, I'm no Héraclès and no French legal expert either, but it shouldn't be too hard to put together at least a stub about the French criminal legal system. We already have Law of France and Code pénal (France) in en-wiki, even French Penal Code of 1810 and French Penal Code of 1791; what's missing is French criminal law. While thinking about the comment above, I'd actually already determined to create a stub, and we can start with a translation of the lead of fr:Droit pénal en France, which is the French version of our missing article. I already have some good sources, which I had to find before composing the comment above, to support my presumptions about the tripartite division, which I'd seen before but wasn't 100% sure of, and also the dichotomy of responsibility by domain, with the law covering crimes and délits, while the regulatory authorities handle contraventions. You're welcome to help; lmk and I'll ping you from the Draft once it's created. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd be glad to help, Mathglot. Would be a great opportunity to work on some legal articles for once (haven't put it on my user page but I'm quite interested in law, I did a pre-uni law course and almost enrolled in an honors-track programme before I decided to do STEM). Santacruz⁂Please ping me!23:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Mathglot for this analysis. Where I have to disagree with you is that the term "délit" in "délit d'opinion" does not refer to the techncal meaning of the term (i.e. the meaning of the term in a legal setting) but its general meaning. While the legal meaning is indeed criminal acts leading to >3 years in prison, the general meaning is broadly any act that contradicts an established rule of law. See the Trésor: "Infraction à la loi, fait illicite punissable (sanctionné) par une peine" [48]; Littré: "Infraction quelconque de la loi" [49] ; Grand Robert: "I. Cour. [i.e. "courant", regular use] Action illicite. II. (Sens large). Délit ou délit pénal : toute infraction à la loi, punie par elle." (paywalled, no hyperlink). If anything, I think the translation should thus be the general term for criminal acts in english, i.e. "offense", which is the translation proposed by Oxford Business French Dictionary: French-English. JBchrchtalk23:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@JBchrch:, agreed, regarding délit in the expression délits d'opinion. I see what you're saying about "offense" in this one context, and have no objection to it.
I guess I just responded to a broader question, and expanded the topic under consideration, because I've been thinking a lot about how to translate a lot of the French terms in this article, not just this one case, and it's not always obvious. I faced a similar situation some years back in some articles related to Brazilian law in the Operation Car Wash suite. I was completely ignorant of most of the law/crime/governmental terms; I remember breaking my head on Condução coercitiva for a while. This evolved into a whole mini-project in its own right, including stubs like Condução coercitiva and others, and ended up with the creation of the WP:Brazil/Glossary. Not sure if I want to go that far again wrt French, but I think en-wiki would benefit from an article on French criminal law, and hopefully others will jump in and follow some red links or {{ill}}'s from that article and expand our whole coverage of this topic area on en-wiki. Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Am also thinking that the broader issue (of translation of French legal/govt terms) might be better served by discussion at a higher level, perhaps at WP:WikiProject France, or WP:Translation, because it keeps popping up, and isn't limited to a particular article or word. Mathglot (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Mathglot. I generally don’t edit law articles because it feels like work, but if you (or anyone else) need any help translating French legalese into English legalese, please don’t hesitate to let me know and I would be happy to help… before going back to greener pastures 😄. JBchrchtalk00:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@A. C. Santacruz and JBchrch:, I've created a skeleton Draft of this; see Draft:French criminal law. It's basically only a scaffold for adding an article; I simply dropped in the four paragraphs of the French article untranslated into an article skeleton for now. Part of the reason for this, is the very large number of wikilinks (45!) in the lead of the French article; it's pretty much impossible to translate the four paragraphs as is, because there are just too many links, and it would become a management headache. So I extracted them all and placed them as a bullet list on the Talk page, along with their en-wiki equivalents (where they exist) from Wikidata, and the rest as {{ill}}'s. And that's the state it's in now; please see the Talk page. Next step is extract the refs and reformat them for en-wiki, then substitute the links back into the text, then finally, translate the text. Btw, do describe the "greener pastures", now I'm curious! Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Lead discussion
Please discuss here all proposed changes in the lead, in order to build consensus, BEFORE making any change in the lead.
--Emigré55 (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
It is in the lead, it's in the third paragraph Zemmour has been considered in news media as a possible right-wing anti-establishment candidate in the 2022 presidential election. Zemmour announced his candidacy for president on the 30 November 2021 Maybe it could be placed better, but it shouldn't be mentioned twice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't really have a strong opinion, as long as there is enough background context given. I think just adding "Zemmour has announced his candidacy" without the correct buildup is awkward. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I really don't think that just having his presidential candidacy as the second paragraph with no context works. It's really awkward for someone who isn't familiar with Zemmour. Take for example the lead of Barack Obama, it starts with his birth and then a brief history of his life, I think we should have that with Zemmour also. Hemiauchenia (talk)
The lead section indeed reads very awkwardly at present. I think what I'd do is to move the first sentence of para two ("Zemmour announced his candidacy [...]") into the first, and move the remainder later. It's a highly significant fact about him, but it doesn't need to be heavily front-loaded beyond that bare statement. The current fourth para ("Born in Montreuil [...]") would work better as a second, and proceeding chronologically from there. To continue the comparison with Obama, note that while paras 2-5 are indeed chronological, we don't need to wait until the fourth to learn that he was president. Much the same applies here (OK, not to quite the same degree): he's become hugely more prominent, especially internationally, given his possible, rumoured, and now actual candidacy. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the lead reads very awkward after massive undue changes which have not been discussed. Previous consensus unduly destroyed without discussion. Why?? How come?? Whereas long discussions have built the previous version. (1st paragraph only restored so far)
I also agree with IP 109 that "candidacy in the lead paragraph" should be treated differently, and put immediately after the first sentence, at least for the time being, as it is now THE major event in Zemmour bio, just after his professional qualifications .--Emigré55 (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
"associated with" rather than "is" far-right?
A recent change to the opening paragraph seems a clear disimprovement to me, as offers up a vague -- and not really reflective of the the sources -- characterisation of his political position as "associated with the far-right". What, the reader is left wondering, is the nature of this "association" -- occasional dinner parties, perhaps? It also interposes an unrelated sentence between that and his own (extremely iffy) self-description. I'd suggest we'd be much better off with something on the lines of "Generally described as far-right, he politically self-identifies as Gaullist," etc, as the final sentence of the lede. Or better still, "a far-right polemicist", which is a well-sourced -- in English, and not just French -- descriptor we seem to have lost in favour of "pundit". Which seems an entirely false dichotomy to me: they're describing different things. Many "pundits" are not remotely "polemicists", but he's (described as) both. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Yup, I did that. No strong feelings about it, just two thoughts. First, Generally described as far-right, he politically self-identifies as Gaullist seems to give WP:UNDUE weight to his self-description, especially given the outcome of the recent RfC. As for pundit/polemicist, we have an ongoing RfC about it, above. JBchrchtalk00:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hrm, we're deep into subjective reading territory, then, as I felt your wording put undue weight on, and removed from its context his self-description! I'm not unalterably wedded to my suggested wording, but I do feel that the two descriptions should be either juxtaposed in the same sentence, or at least consecutive ones, and should be saying "is far-right", rather than "associated with". What about swapping the second and third sentences, so that "He politically self-identifies [...]" immediately follows the first statement otherwise? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
While it would make sense stylistically, I believe it's giving to much WEIGHT to his own self-identification, especially since the self-identification is pretty poorly sourced (WP:PRIMARY). If the current construction is awkward, I would support moving the sentence down, maybe in the fourth paragraph, close to the NYT description of his views, to make sure we maintain the proper WP:SECONDARY context. JBchrchtalk16:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I (still) don't think moving it a sentence earlier is at all increasing its weight. OTOH I rather like the idea of moving it to para 4, where as you suggest there's a bit more "they say, he says" context for varying takes on his position. Maybe then we'll have "room" in the opening paragraph to mention his presidential candidacy -- we're really burying the lede on that one, people! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
And that's done for the self-identification. Since the mention of the candidacy in the opening paragraph has been slightly controversial, would you mind making a proposal as to how you think it should be handled? JBchrchtalk00:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, very nice. Just the bare fact, I think, as we have plenty of detail on that in the present para 4 that I don't see an urgent need to refactor. I'd suggest the addition of a further final sentence on the lines of "He is a candidate in the 2022 French presidential election." Or in the alternative, to add "and 2022 French presidential candidate" to the existing first sentence -- if that's not making it too much of a laundry list. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
What role exactly did Zemmour have on Face à l'Info? In english, "diarist" means "someone who writes a diary", and isn't usually used to describe people on television. Having had a look at some recent Face à l'Info episodes, panelist seems to be the best description. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you on this issue. But let's see what other editors think.
My point is that it not acceptable that changes can be made in the lead by individual editors without discussing them BEFORE. What what the case until these recent 12/24 hours last changes.
I hope you will agree with me that this article in general, and the lead in particular, have/are sensitive issues/topics. And that some contributors go against WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. We all therefore need to discuss to preserve a balanced and neutral lead . --Emigré55 (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Panelist. But I too am puzzled by the structure of the discussion. Are we attempting to get constitutional provisions for parts of the article so they can't ever be changed? Not really how Wikipedia works -- well, not unless and until ArbCom happens along and says "page sanctions, no 'boldness' allowed, get 24h of agreement before making any changes". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
New York Times description and citation
Should it be included in the lead? as previously cited and accepted in consensus, or changed? in the case, is the NYT reference still valid?--Emigré55 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Relevant diff I might come back to copyedit and expand this quick-and-dirty comment, but just wanted to make sure this was out there quickly. The self-description of Zemmour as someone who says the Big Truths that the Leftist Media don't want you to know about is a poor way of introducing the article from a WP:NPOV perspective. The NYT article makes it clear that this what Zemmour thinks of himself, not what he actually is. The very same article has a few factual sentences on what he actually thinks, which I argue is more important for our encyclopedic purpose. Another aspect is that the lead should serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents (MOS:LEAD). And the Big Truths/Leftist Media narrative is very secondary in the current article, which currently focuses on his right-wing politics ("hard-line... on immigration, Islam’s place in France and national identity") and legal problems. JBchrchtalk18:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with the original or revised NYTimes quote, I don't think the original quote was that promotional of Zemmour, it made it clear that it what he was "portraying" himself as, but I also don't object to the new quote, which is also accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Far-right ?
I'm french. I don't know why you say categorically that Éric Zemmour is far-right. All the newspapers you cite are leftist ("Libération", "Charlie Hebdo", "Le Monde", "Huffpost", "Mediapart", "l'Humanité" (communist newspaper), "L'Obs", "Les Inrocks" etc...). Please, read and cite newspapers like "Le Figaro" or "Valeurs actuelles" for example. In the french Wikipédia about Éric Zemmour, it's well written "généralement classé à l'extrême droite" ("GENERALLY classified to the far right"). In french "généralement" means "in majority". Please, can you specify this difference rather saying categorically that Zemmour is far-right ? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigaillem (talk • contribs) 00:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
So why quote French newspapers? I think it is more reasonable to quote these english newspapers rather than the French ones. The English have the right to believe that Zemmour is of the extreme right, but by knowing English sources and not French (google translation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigaillem (talk • contribs) 01:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
There are probably too many sources cited for the designation to begin with. This is because labelling Zemmour was extremely contentious prior to the discussion I linked, and it's just a holdover of that. If anybody wants to cut down the citations to just a handful that substantiate the "far-right" designation they are free to do so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Both English-speaking and French-speaking are relevant, and both overwhelmingly say that Zemmour is of the far-right. Naturally, Valeurs actuelles, which is a "droite dure" publication that veers to the far-right, will have a different opinion. This is expected, and it does not change the conclusion that Zemmour is of the far-right according to—not only to the majority—but the vast majority of sources. JBchrchtalk01:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I said that I am French; therefore I will not allow myself to make any changes to an article intended for the English. But I consider that everyone must be objective when writing and that a precision such as the one I am asking for seems to me to be sensible. I just think that, despite all your arguments and the sources cited, an article should not contain an approximation, especially concerning a politician in the middle of an electoral campaign followed all over the world. But it's up to you. Respectfully and sincerely. (Google translation) / J'ai dit que je suis français ; par conséquent je ne me permettrai pas d'apporter des modifications à un article destiné aux Anglais. Mais je considère que chacun doit faire preuve d'objectivité lors d'une rédaction et qu'une précision telle que celle que je sollicite me paraît sensée. Je pense simplement que, malgré tous vos arguments et les sources citées, un article ne doit pas comporter d'approximation, surtout concernant un homme politique en pleine campagne électorale suivie dans le monde entier. Mais c'est comme vous voulez. Respectueusement et sincèrement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigaillem (talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
P.S : The best thing would be to write: "According to the left-wing newspapers Zemmour is far-right; the right-wing papers consider him to be of the Republican right." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigaillem (talk • contribs) 01:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
They don't have nationalist or socially conservative tendencies, but their stance in favor of economic liberalism, free trade and free markets is generally (ah!) classified as right-wing (no?). JBchrchtalk02:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
It might not be all that matters, as one could argue that the FT might have a "right-wing family argument" with the likes of Zemmour, its stance being extremely pro-globalist and pro-European, but certainly it refutes the 'only "leftists"' claim made at the top of the section. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
That would certainly not be the best thing: that would be putting undue weight on a small minority of sources -- such as himself, notably -- that consider him "of the Republican right". Those should certainly be discussed in detail in the body of the article, but not in the manner of a false "arguments on both sides" even-handedness. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I believe that my problem here concerns the French / English language, despite Google translation. My goal was not to make a mess of the article, as it seems to be, and I should never have interfered with an English Wikipedia article. I'm a young Gaullist and I can say that de Gaulle was not on the far right and neither was I, so I don't agree when I read that Zemmour, who is a Gaullist, is on the far right. That's all I wish you had understood. But no one, if I understood correctly, can modify this article because it is locked (icon at the top right) and as if by chance until the date of the elections in France. Zemmour is a new politician. All the foreign newspapers that you cite know nothing about him and repeat what the French newspapers write. But maybe they are right, I don't know. There may be a Frenchman among you and that's why you seem to know Zemmour well. It is however delicate, in an article, to be so radical when speaking of the political position of a politician, especially if he is still alive! I think the role of a Wikipedia author who writes about a person is to just relate the life of that person without repeating what stupidly said newspapers whose opinions vary from one to another. The most reliable sources for a biography or monograph are from author's books. In the case of a politician, opinions come and go as they please and care must be taken not to stigmatize. I believe that it is preferable to close the discussion which I started and which leads nowhere; write whatever you want, I don't care! I am a new Wikipedia author and I will not continue to intervene. Just tell me, please, how to change the photo in an article. French Wikipedia is too vague in its explanations. If someone speaks French it would be good for me. Thank you from the heart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigaillem (talk • contribs) 09:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
This appears to assume that Zemmour actually is Gaullist as he claims. And that this identification, even if accurate, does not interact with other ideological influences.
Pigaillem we write according to the principles and guidelines set out by the project, not ideological line. For the use of sources in articled about living people (like Zemmour) I recommend you read WP:BLP. All that aside, I don't see a major issue with the infobox image. You are welcome to link an image from Commons here if you think it would be much better, though. Santacruz⁂Please ping me!14:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Your take on what makes for a reliable source is radically at variance from Wikipedia's, I'm afraid. If we were to go by "the author's books", that would leave us at the mercy of the self-promoting and otherwise self-serving. Or of original research if we sought to interpret WP:PRIMARY sources ourselves. So we use "reliable secondary sources" -- decent-quality newspapers, magazines, and academic journals. As for changing the photo, you can do it yourself once your account is auto-verified -- the article isn't in full protection, just proof against IPs (like me) or newbies (like you, I gather from your comment). Or you could make an edit-semi-protected request. But either way make sure you're not replacing it with a "less free" alternative in copyright terms. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
@Pigaillem:, you gave the answer to your own question in your original comment at the top of this section. You said,
"généralement classé à l'extrême droite" ("GENERALLY classified to the far right"). In french "généralement" means "in majority".
That is your answer to why we say he is "far-right" in Wikipedia's voice, namely, because that's what the majority of sources say. (Actually, we should, and do, rely on what the majority of reliable English sources say, but since they say the same thing as the French sources, that is not really a factor in responding to your original question.) By the way, I don't agree with your comment that just because you are French, you shouldn't edit the article. You are certainly welcome to edit the article; just be aware of the differences in policies and guidelines between fr-wiki and en-wiki, and make sure you are relying on en-wiki policies, and you will be fine. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Just to nuance that a little, what's key is that it's not simply a "bare" majority of sources (50%+1, let's say) this, it's a rather considerable one. As far as know "généralement" carries much the same sense in French as "generally" does in English: to wit a stronger one than simply "in majority". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) IP 109 is quite right, I should have made that clearer. Here's what I wrote before the edit conflict:
@Pigaillem:, you asked about French speakers here, and there are several; at a minimum, User:Munci and I speak French, and User:Emigré55 is French I believe, and I think there are other speakers here as well, so if there's something you really prefer to say in French, go ahead, although I think your English is perfectly understandable, so it's up to you, really. Mathglot (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
RFC on subcategorisation of trials
How should Eric Zemmour's trials be subcategorised in the trials section of the article about him? Should they be subcategorised by individual trial or not? And, if so, should the individual trials be subcategorised only for those which he has won, only for those which he has lost, or for both?
As mentioned in the above section, I wanted to create another RFC on this (link here [52]) but the question was insufficiently clear. Munci (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your intervention. Relevant news has come out: Zemmour has just been condemned to pay a 10,000€ fine or face jail time for hate speech, claiming that unaccomponied foreign minors would be nothing but thieves, murderers and rapists. [53]Munci (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Continued disruption will be met with being blocked from editing, or other sanctions. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Additional text
Your assertion is incorrect. He has not yet been convicted.
The article you bring as source says on the contrary that: "the prosecution requested a 10,000 euros fine". And also that the court will give its decision in January 2022: "Under advisement, the decision will be rendered on January 17th"
Please do not use sources to write fake news. This is contrary to WP:HOAX.
At most, I overstated it as I misunderstood the judicial technolect. But I am of course aware of Wikipedia's Five Pillars and of course had no intention to disrupt Wikipedia or create hoaxes. But the incident and trial itself are certainly relevant to the article. Munci (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Support current sub-categorization. I've been on the fence about this, but I think the current sub-categorization is warranted for a BLP. Since anybody can file a lawsuit against anyone, and because someone like Zemmour is likely to be on the receiving end of many such lawsuits, it would be giving undue weight to the unjustified/dropped lawsuits to lump them together with the lawsuits that have led to a conviction, under a broad and vague "Legal cases" section heading. Highlighting the lawsuits that were deemed justified, i.e. the case(s) in which Zemmour actually broke the law, is I think important in the case of a BLP, to clearly and quickly distinguish them from the unjustified lawsuits, i.e. the cases in which Zemmour did not break the law. JBchrchtalk00:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a justified argument. I have been thinking that what is missing the most is any detail about the Islamophobia trial (for which he has a condemnation which he has contested) and the current trial. Adding in detail on these two trials would be one way to balance things out I think. Munci (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I have removed a paragraph as inappropriate
I have removed this paragraph: In a review of The French Suicide in The New Yorker, Alexander Stille has argued that Zemmour significantly overstates the decline of France which, while it was not a great power anymore, "remains among the top twenty countries by virtually all measures of the World Bank’s Human Development Index."[1]
Why is the nationality of the critic relevant? In any case, the mention of one or several critics' view - Stille's was just a particularly good piece - is necessary in order to maintain WP:NPOV. JBchrchtalk22:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Reproducing the ideas defended in The French Suicide without explaining that they fit within a broader controversy is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. We need to describe the dispute, not just explain what one side of the debate thinks, especially when the side that we present is on one end of the political extreme and defends what are effectively WP:FRINGE views. We could take the easy way out and add the word "controversial" somewhere in the preceding paragraph, but we can really do better than this, since we have the necessary sources to explain why that is the case. JBchrchtalk13:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
References
^Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
minor spelling error "earliad"
just wanted to put it out there that there is a spelling error in the beginning section; "earlier" is written as "earliad" in the sentence..."considering opinion polling as recently as three months earliead had shown him on track to get less than 10% of the vote, trailing four other candidates."
Done. Super fast work by Cinadon36 to mark and remove these from the article; thanks! Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
