Talk:Éric Zemmour/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Views of Pétain, Vichy France and Jews

Are Zemmours claims that Vichy France protected Jews relevant to cover in this article? They have received some recent coverage, like in this recent article in The Guardian. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably, although I have no view at the moment the extent it should take. I've already written something at The French Suicide § Vichy France. This is a very brief summary, and the French article on Le Suicide Français#Période de Vichy, critique de l'historien Robert Paxton illustrates the sheer amount of material on the topic. JBchrch talk 05:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think he thrives on shock waves and attention, even of the negative type, and enjoys throwing little verbal grenades that he knows will garner him some press attention; I think he takes delight in it. I don't think an article about his life needs to include every little minor shockwave he's ever uttered. Naturally, if enough of the press gets shocked enough and generates press coverage enough, then yes; but otherwise, no need.

Also, let's keep in mind that the Vichy-protected-Jews theory was the standard line and accepted wisdom in France, not only among the public but also was the mainstream of historiographical thought (e.g. Aron) at least until the Paxtonian revolution, which turned that apple cart upside down. But pretty much everybody believed it once upon a time; post-Paxton, the center of gravity on that shifted greatly (including the large majority of historians), but some people never changed their opinion, especially those who were further right to begin with. Mathglot (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes that's certainly true, but it's also true that the public discourse around Zemmour (i.e. the secondary sources) bring up the Vichy issue a lot (to the point where Zemmour complained that it was very secondary in The French Suicide, which is true [although I would argue that all of the The French Suicide's themes are secondary, as the book has a very loose central theme, but I digress]). If we want to avoid the pitfall of including every little minor shockwave—and the Vichy discussion is a bigger than this, in my view—we could probably remove the section on "Race and anti-racism issues", an old Zemmourian theme that has lost its relevance in the last few years, in order to "make room" for this topic. JBchrch talk 06:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not realize it was covered that much; if that's the case, then certainly it should be mentioned. Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I think pretty clearly so. In the French article it gets a rather chunky multi-paragraph subsection, though that article's probably already over-long, and more detailed coverage would best be reserved for the article on the book. I'd suggest adding to the #Positions section, possibly immediately before #Social_issues, so those read essentially chronologically. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Grammatical error in "immigration and assimilation" section

"Zemmour has strongly opposed mass immigration, and the current model of integrating immigrants which he considers has been too lenient"; should say "considers to have been" or "considers to be" Darth Watto (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Darth Watto: I've just fixed it with to have been, I think he was speaking in the past tense. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Right-wing

Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lede should describe Zemmour as right-wing, as he clearly isn't "far right". Far right and fascist have been overused so much by the media that they have lost their original meaning. (86.150.124.75 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)) So please, enlighten us all, what do you undestand as "far-right"? Shumkichi (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Agreed - or perhaps "right wing to far-right" as there are an abundance of primary and reliable sources describing him as both. To simply decide one is worth reporting and one isn't seems like cherry picking with an agenda rather than documenting as is the purpose of wikipedia. 19:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC) hfrbasp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfrbasp (talk • contribs) This description expresses the consensus from a previous RfC. A new RfC can be launched at any moment if editors believe that its outcome was misguided, but it would be expected that they provide new information or sources that we didn't have access to at the time. JBchrch talk 19:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Should Zemmour should be described as Jewish in the lead?

Should Zemmour should be described as Jewish in the lead? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• No being Jewish is not directly relevant to his career, it should be mentioned in the body only. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Depends. I don't totally agree with the notion that it's irrelevant to his career: it's a big thing in his discourse and image. But I would reserve my judgement for a concrete proposal on how to introduce it. For instance, I don't think that it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. JBchrch talk 07:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. I am able to readily find reliable sources which confirm that Zemmour is Jewish, several of which point that out as a particularly notable fact about him given his positions: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Given this, I believe it is a significant enough fact about him to merit mention in the lead section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• To your credit you build your arguments using sources, but your sourcing is NY Times x 2, The Guardian x 1 and Jerusalem Post x 1 - in my opinion the WP:BESTSOURCES are likely published in France or written in French. This is not the United Kingdom Wikipedia or the American Wikipedia after all even if for instance The Guardian is frequently used as a source because its articles aren't behind a paywall. For instance, doing as you suggest would risk completely ignoring German scholarship/expertise and they should also be taken into account. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable sources are reliable. Where they are based, and what language they are in, is irrelevant. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable sources are reliable only in the eyes of the beholder. Something that is reliable in America may not be as trustworthy in Mexico or Canada. A French-language source would be immeasurably more useful than an English-language source as the French language source provides a domestic perspective. TheTrainCrazyMan (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Only the first article of the NYT and the article of the Jerusalem Post do describe him as Jewish in the lead. He is genuinely never described in the press as a Jewish political figure, except in Jewish press ( or Israeli) or in the case of articles putting an emphasis on his origin because the article is also about controversial political positions he expressed on Jews.--Vanlister (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Depends. I agree with JBchrch and his reasoning.--Emigré55 (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Certainly not in the lede per se. We shouldn't be saying "French Jewish political journalist" or such like. Somewhere in the rather long lead section? Maybe, but I'd want to see the proposed edit and context. It's mentioned in the early life section right after at present, which seems to me on balance likely best. For example the above-cited Guardian article mentions it... in paragraph ten. After a polling graph, more than halfway through their article. Not exactly a strong argument the it's "particularly notable" and thus should be given much greater prominence here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "lead per se"? Do you mean the opening sentence, or maybe the opening paragraph? Anything that comes before the first section heading, including infoboxes, are technically in the lead. So in other words, this RfC asks whether the information should be mentioned at any point before the first section heading. JBchrch talk 00:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, that'd be the "lead section", not the "lede", technically and otherwise. But admittedly it's somewhat ambiguous as to "sentence" or "paragraph", and my precise position would be extremely strongly against lead sentence, fairly strongly against lead paragraph, and as to the entire introduction, just as I stated above. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not clear on the terminology that you're using. See also MOS:LEAD: The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading, the beginning of which are technically referred to as the "opening paragraph" and the "first sentence". @Hemiauchenia: How should the term "lead" be understood in your RfC? JBchrch talk 23:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The lead section, the whole section prior to table of contents. I don't think anyone was advocating for Zemmour to be described as jewish in the opening sentence. A potential placement of Zemmour's jewishness somewhere in the lead is of course a possible outcome of this RfC, provided that the appropriate context be supplied. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, because he describes himself as French and not as Jewish, and use the form 'French people of Jewish faith', since he is critical of communitarianism and in favor of "assimilation". French media do not take much care of his Jewish origin since he is considered a French polemicist and not a Jewish polemicist. Jewish identity is not part of his political views, and he has even expressed criticism of Judaism, Jewish individuals and the Jewish community. In the French context, only antisemitic political opponents would use his Jewish origin to discredit him as not a "français de souche". Secondly in contrast, none of the French political figures of Jewish origin are described as such in the lead, and it is also difficult to describe Jewish identity as it can be a cultural, religious, ethnic or national affiliation. His Jewish identity should not be put forward in the lead, but rather in the section about his early life and his family background.--Vanlister (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• No I agree with Vanlister's comment above. I would also like to add that few people place importance on his Jewishness, except another condemned far-right hate figure, Alain Soral. [5] Even an Israeli source such as this one, while mentioning Jewishness, put more emphasis on his hate condemnations, his far-right ideology, his lies and other comparisons with Trump. [6] Munci (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The fact that zemmour is of North African Jewish origin is important in his argument. He has repeatedly used his North African Jewish origins as an argument to attack North African Muslims. He regularly accuses Muslims of not wanting to integrate into French society when he, a Berber Jewish, has succeeded. He constantly compares the integration of Jews in France, which he considers successful and voluntary, to that of Muslims, whom he says deliberately do not want to integrate because, according to him, they have a vengeful and colonialist attitude. His comparison between his career and that of Muslim migrants is at the heart of his argument on the Great Replacement. On the set of the show "On est pas couché", he also opposed the attitude and his Jewish family who practiced, according to him, a Judaism compatible with the French notion of secularism and opposed to proselytizing and the aggressiveness he attributes to Muslims. He still recently used his own Jewishness to refute accusations of anti-Semitism against a family of bomb victims who had buried their children in Israel (He said that the "real French" must be buried in France). He spends his time criticizing new migrants, comparing their situation to his, which he considers exemplary, and playing on the nostalgia for the 1950's assimilation policies when his family arrived in France.Jean-Marie Le Pen, who supported him, also asserts that Zemmour, because of his Jewishness, can express far-right ideas in a more brutal way because he is less likely to be accused of anti-Semitism by the various anti-racist associations (Which is false because Zemmour was condemned by the French justice.). Look at that https://theconversation.com/eric-zemmour-jewish-heritage-is-a-useful-tool-for-the-french-far-right-170838 Monsieur Fou (talk)
  • I think you have made many assumptions focusing on his Jewish roots that are your personal way of understanding his political views. For my part, I didn't see Zemmour using "repeatedly his North African Jewish origins" for political purpose, and in fact he has expressed repeatedly his support for assimilation and against communitarianism. I also don't believe that somebody who would brand himself as Jewish would taste a pork sausage at a festival last week. --Vanlister (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Zemmour's ethnic and religious background of being raised in a family of Algerian Jewish immigrants is notable and relevant enough to be included in a biographical lede. This New York Times article explicitly references Zemmour's being Jewish in its article headline and lede material: "A Jewish Far-Right Pundit Splits the French Jewish Community as He Rises."[7] And, per this Times of Israel article, in which Zemmour is described as "a Jewish journalist and far-right provocateur," he is actually being accused of antisemitism by France’s chief rabbi.[8] So Zemmour's Jewish background is a very important and relevant biographical fact to mention. KJS ml343x (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. There has been much discussion over Zemmour's comments about Petain and Vichy France's treatment of French Jews, as well as of his attitude to religion and immigration in France. His own religious background and his family's immigration are both of importance in this discussion (esp. with regards to his comments on Petain, which lead to his being labelled an anti-semite, somewhat paradoxically). Hfrbasp (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC) hfrbasp
• Yes. It is an established fact in French sources, for example in Le Monde ([9]), Marianne ([10]), Libération ([11]), La Dépêche du Midi ([12]). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, what's the point. Religion/ethnicity isn't usually noted in the lead, and isn't central to his policies.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Vanlister:, who has previously expressed an opinion on this topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Seraphimblade is on the right track using sources to determine what the article should say. It seems likely the WP:BESTSOURCES to determine a good description are likely written in French. In this case I don't think exclusively relying on English-lanugage sources will suffice. Imho sources in French, Italian, Spanish and/or German should be taken into account - these are large countries and a lot of good texts are published there. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree there's a clear need to take French sources into account, given their greater attention to this subject than English-language ones. The "other large countries are available" point seems much vaguer. If I may quote from WP:NONENG, "However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." What superior sources in Italian, etc, are being overlooked, and to what significance here? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yet another removal

A number of publications have labeled his positions as misogynistic.

Why does his opinions have to be reviewed by Wikipedia. Do we not trust the readers to draw their own opinions without letting his political enemies define them? In Political positions of Joe Biden there are no criticism of the President's views. Creuzbourg (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

What is your point exactly, Creuzbourg? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't label them. The reliable sources label them. When 6 separate publications labelling his position as misogynistic. That's what the article needs to say. JBchrch talk 22:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

JBchrch My point is that the reader can label his opinions, we do not need to tell them what to think. Its clearly stated in the first paragraph, that he opposes abortion, thinks some women are unsuited for political positions, and doesn't like birth control, women's rights and gender studies. Isn't that enough for the reader to draw his own conclusions? Creuzbourg (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I honestly cannot give you a straight answer to your question. All I know is that when I wrote the section, I noticed that a lot of sources mentioned the fact that his positions are characterized as misogynistic. I can assure you that I did not go out of my way to find sources that specifically said that. Accordingly, it seemed well-documented enough to warrant inclusion in the article. JBchrch talk 22:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

JBchrch Its not about the reliability of the sources; I would trust these papers to give me non-biased facts about the guy. But labeling him 'misogynist' is not; its done by journalists expressing their personal and political opinions in op-ed pieces. If the statement came from a professor of the history of ideas, hower, I would reconsider. As it stands now, its the very opposite of NPOV. They are not really claiming he is a 'misogyn', they are just saying that they don't like his ideas. Creuzbourg (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how "op-ed" is verifiable in the sources, but if that allows us to reach consensus then so be it. JBchrch talk 13:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Having conceded that, isn't it time to consider Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Avoid stating opinions as facts? Creuzbourg (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Creuzbourg the sentence doesn't state it as fact. To do so would be to say "he is a misogynist." Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A breach of this rule would be to say that "Zemmour's views are misogynistic". It is not a breach to say that publications or critics have stated this. JBchrch talk 13:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

References

My two cents is that noting they are misogynistic is not required. Seems more of an opinion than a fact of some writers.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ortizesp Saying that something is misogynistic is an opinion by definition. If you take a look at the sources, you will see that most of them report the label as WP:SECONDARY sources on such labeling. We cannot ignore what an overwhelming number of reliable sources are trying to tell us. JBchrch talk 21:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022

This man isn't Far right at all but more like a republican Orthodox 2601:644:4300:DCF0:0:0:0:6478 (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiZédia

Information from this article [13] could be included at our article. It is due weight. Cinadon36 15:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Apparently this is the main source: [14]. JBchrch talk 15:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cinadon36 and JBchrch: That is part of an organized operation. See next section. Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

COI tag (February 2022)

see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#WikiZedia:_an_organized_influence_operation_at_Wikipedia_by_the_campaign_of_a_candidate_for_French_President AFreshStart (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the tag because this article does not have COI issues. I think that there is a better case for the COI tag on Reconquête, which has been extensively edited by Cheep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is associated with the campaign. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just thinking that there may have been issues with the version of this article on the French Wikipedia before it was translated onto the English Wikipedia, and that these may have been carried over. But I understand the reasoning for removing the COI tag. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Organized interference with this article by the Zemmour campaign

This article is being edited by members of a task force attached to the Zemmour campaign. Please see WP:VPM#WikiZedia: an organized influence operation at Wikipedia by the campaign of a candidate for French President. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this campaign was largely focused on FrWiki, which his voting population is more likely to read. There has been comparatively relatively little disruption here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur with @Hemiauchenia. I took a look at this some weeks ago when I attempted a clean-up of the article, and I did not notice any suspicious activity. JBchrch talk 23:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Manipulation of wikipedia by a French presidential candidate team. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about my broken English. I tried to sum up the story here on meta: m:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#Clandestine task force actively promoting Eric Zemmour's presidential campaign at Wikipedia. Best regards, - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 16:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

With a book and over two dozen articles in the French press about it, this has become a notable topic on its own. I've added a section about the online influence campaign to the Reconquête article. Ideally, that would fit best in an article about the campaign committee, because that's where it all happened, but given that we don't have that article (yet?) it's not entirely clear whether it fits better at Reconquête, or here. I would argue that the article about the political party is a better fit, but as long as it is included somewhere, I don't feel strongly about which article should host it. I do think that the "non-hosting" article should include a sentence or two about it, and point to the other one for more detail. Mathglot (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Éric Zemmour meeting Villepinte 12-2021.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Need to add a reference to Zemmour supporting Putin. Ref. to the "Z" letter on Putin's troops and armoured vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachary3080 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Zachary3060, there is no evidence that the Z is a reference to Zemmour. Additionally, content describing Zemmour's position on a closer partnership with Russia is already on the article. Hope that helps :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

91.169.150.7 (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

New picture

Éric Zemmour Toulon 03-2022.jpg

 Not done for now: You may want to check out Wikipedia:Image use policy first and 1see if the image you're trying to link meets it. The page will also lead you to instructions on how to properly upload the image you have in mind Cannolis (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)