Talk:2007 French presidential election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

France High‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

For the June 2005 deletion debate on this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/French presidential election, 2007.

Confusing sentence

In the section on "urban votes" it twice refers to Royal getting more votes "popular" areas. In English this does not quite make sense. Is this a mis-translation ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eregli bob (talk • contribs) 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Vandalism

I took some out of the general article, fyi. 70.226.105.9 03:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name

UMP does not mean "Union pour un mouvement populaire" but "Union pour la Majorité Présidentielle", as it was specifically created to win the former elections.

the name was changed officially in 2002, keeping the initials.Thermaland 11:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought every WikipediA article with a year in the name, had the year in (these things). So... Frenc presidential election (2007) would have been standard, right? Fvdham 19:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence

What does this sentence mean?

It may also mark the first presidential election in which President Jacques Chirac may decline to run for a third term in office.

Um, isn't this the first opportunity Chirac has to decline to run for a third term? Does it mean that this is the first time he's turned down the chance to run for re-election? Does it mean this is the first time anyone has declined to run for a third term? Help me out here. --Jfruh 21:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't find that exact sentence in the article, any longer: it must have been amended. But the answer to your second question, "Does it mean that this is the first time he's turned down the chance to run for re-election?", is yes, I believe. Sure, Chirac could have said he won't run before this time, but I don't remember him doing so. And I would guess that there have been other three-term presidents in France before, although I don't really know: not under the current constitution, it looks like -- the term formerly was 7 years, and the 5th Republic's De Gaulle, Pompidou, Giscard, and Mitterrand all served less than 14, per Presidents_of_France -- and the list on that page of other presidents & terms back to the 2d Republic doesn't appear to indicate any 3-termer. So I suppose the implication of your 3rd question may be correct. The political point in France now, though, is that Chirac is declining "under pressure": that's the real significance of his decision not to run.

--Kessler 17:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm you that never in France history a president tried to run for a third term. Concerning the Fifth republic, De Gaulle was elected twice and resigned before the end of his second term. Mitterrand was elected twice and then retired at the end of the second term. Pompidou died during his first term and Giscard d'Estaing was beaten at the end of his first term. During the Third republic, Grévy and Lebrun were elected twice but had to resign before the end of the second term. All the other presidents of France history just did one term. About Chirac, he was candidate and beaten in 1981 and 1988 and elected in 1995 and 2002. If he doesn't run in 2007, which is almost sure, it will be the first election without Chirac for 26 years.

Among the potential candidates of the Socialist Party, I whithdrawed Bertrand Delanoë, mayor of Paris, who officially announced he wouldn't run in 2007.

According to my lecturer last-term the French constitution actually bars anyone from being President of France for more than two terms. So why can Chirac run for a third term? Because in 2000 he changed the constitution so that Presidential terms were shortened from 7 to 5 years, and the new amendment specifies that no one can be President for more than two FIVE YEAR terms, so in effect Chirac had had a seven year term and then could, theoretically, run for another two five year terms, and he wonders why no one wants him to be President for another term, both on the left and the right! --CTerry 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to my lecturer last-term the French constitution actually bars anyone from being President of France for more than two terms.

Your lecturer is wrong, as can be checked by reading the Constitution, where no term limit appears. David.Monniaux 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Could you please provide the source for the dates of the election. As far as I know, they have not been decided yet. Hektor 06:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are fixed by article 7 of the Constitution of France, which states that elections should take place between 20 and 35 days before the end of the term of the previous president". The term ending in 2007 will end on the 16th of May 2007, at 24 o'clock.

Since elections take place on Sunday, this leaves the 15 April and the 22 April for the first round, and the 29 April or 6 May for the possible (and likely...) second round. Rama 11:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basic questions

How do the parties pick their candidates? Who has actually said they are running? The Secretary of Funk 00:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The candidates of the two major parties - Socialist Party for the left and Union for a Popular movement for the right - will be chosen through an internal vote of all the members of the parties - a kind of caucus. The other conservaties parties - Movement for France, Union for French Democracy and National Front - are one-man parties so the selection will be easier for them.

Are officially candidates:

Ségolène Royal, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Laurent Fabius and Jack Lang for the Socialist Party

Arlette Laguiller for Workers Struggle (far-left)

Jean-Marie Le Pen for the National Front

Bruno Mégret for the Republican National Movement (far-right, minor)

Philippe de Villiers for the Movement for France

Nicolas Dupont-Aignan for the Union for a Popular Movement (minor candidate)

Dominique Voynet, Yves Cochet, Jean Desassard, Cecile Duflot and Alain Uguen for the Green

Merci Beacoup

Thanks a lot for this article, good work, I've learned a lot. 2007 will be France's last chance to shine once more. If DeGaule or Napoleon would see un now...they would be so ashamed.

unruly youth from poor suburbs

Huh? Shouldn't Wikipedia be a little more detailed into the cause of the riots, the persons involved and the location of the riots?

- yep - can't.. use.. M-word... and immigration just not an issue in France, oh-no-no-no...

There is a whole article about that. Follow the link from the article! Thermaland 21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of the campaign

I guess that this article hasn't been modified for a long time, since there are far more confirmed candidacies [and it shows only two ; those parties may be the most important, but there are others]... has to be updated (but how ?) ! Transcendency 13:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other candidacies are not sure to get the 500 required endorsements. When one of the two French main parties announces a candidate, he/she is sure to get the endorsement. When small party so-and-so says they have a candidate, the validation by the Constitutional Council on the basis of 500 valid endorsements is far from granted.Hektor 06:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January polls

I know there's been many new opinion polls released this month, but they haven't been put on the article yet. Would anyone be able to? Jamandell (d69) 22:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now I ask...are there any polls available for February? Jamandell (d69) 17:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in article

"* Radical Islam-- Since 2005, France has been in a state of open civil war against "unruly youth" who are overwhelmingly Muslim. As of November, 2006, there were 751 specifically defined areas which had fallen under the control of these Muslim forces [3][4]. There have been over 3000 attacks against the police[5], and thousands of cars, along with a number of buses[6], have been firebombed or otherwise burned. France is just one of many fronts in the global war of radical Islam against non-Islamic civilization (Thailand, Nigeria, Somalia, Sweden, Belgium, Lebanon, numerous others[7])."

If you check the sources you will see that they source anti-Islam websites such as "Militant Islam Watch." Also the language used is blatently discriminatory, and seems to suggest that Muslems and the French are literally in a civil war. Considering the fact that they are holding elections this is obviously not the case and that leads me to believe that there are some factual errors as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garet43 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Likeliness to get the signatures

"Confirmed candidates are those that have declared their intention to run and are very likely to obtain the necessary 500 signatures from elected officials to endorse their candidacy."

Most of these candidates are NOT likely at all to get the signatures. Bayrou, Sarkozy, Royal, Buffet and Voynet will get them for sure. Besancenot, Lepage, Laguiller, De Villiers and Le Pen are likely/very likely to get them. I'm not sure about Dupont-Aignan, Bové, Cheminade, Nihous, Schivardi, Waechter, but the others can IMO be considered unlikely to obtain these signatures. El pitareio 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Question on Polls

US political polls generally have a choice for each major candidate, a choice for "other" and a choice for "Undecided". I understand that the French polls are meant to replicate a theoretical run off between Royal and Sarkozy. However, (i) are there any polls on the first round and (ii) do any of the polls indicate the undecideds? --Amcalabrese 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the polls on this page only show the run-off scenarios, not the first round scenarios. For a numebr of polls on the upcoming election, check the Angus Reid Global Monitor.

Thanks. I did see somewhere that the number of undecideds are also quite high. However, it seems that in European political polls the undecideds are not listed separately so you usually have to look inside the associated articles. --Amcalabrese 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of candidates

Why are they not listed alphabetically? Would this not be a violation of NPOV? CKSCIII 01:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main candidates thing is also highly POV it seems to me. Hektor 16:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is based on how well the candidates fare in the polls and whether they have a chance of making it to the second round. David.Monniaux 17:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As "leading candidates" is already about how they fare in the polls, I changed the list order to comply strictly with latest polls. Hervegirod 15:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The listing of results should be consistent with other post-polling results tables - by order by votes received. Ronnotel 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of Opinion Polling

It is but a little thing but at present there are some opinion polls dated in the European style (day/month) and then some dated in the American style (month/day). This is not really confusing in that the opinion polls are in a month by month hierarchy already. Additionally there are some dates where the month is known that are listed as for instance "10 et 11". Should the date styling be consistent? --Francis Burdett 19:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How should "far right" be used in French context?

The terms "far right" or "far left" are often used as insulta rather than as proper descriptions of a political viewpoint. Le Pen, for example, appears to be more of a nationalist and racist anti-Semite -- but the former Soviet Union was also nationalist, racist, and anti-Semitic. Is he also a monarchist? That would be far right, unless of course he supported the Orleanist dynasty, who could be very moderate.

Is Sarkozy right-wing at all? He may be nothing more than a plain-talking centrist reacting to a specific issue. Some French socialists also appear to be centrists, while Chirac appears to be more of a crook than a true conservative.

It's all rather confusing. Help! Scott Adler 06:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know nothing of the USSR. Go read a book, and don't have children.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.143.172 (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Given that Le Pen is consistently referred to as far-right by the English- and French-language media, it is certainly appropriate to use the term to describe him. Rightism and leftism have nothing to do with monarchism and republicanism in the modern day, and to conflate them is to commit a far more egregious error than to use far-right or far-left. The terms are not strictly derisive, though they are sometimes used in common parlance as such, and I believe both Le Pen and some of the far-left candidates such as Besancenot pride themselves on using those very terms. (It's only an insult if you'd rather not be associated with the far-right or far-left.) Given that Le Pen identifies strongly with earlier far-right leaders such as Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco, it is perfectly acceptable to refer to him as such. Similarly, labeling Sarkozy a conservative (which he, in monetary matters, is not) and Royal a socialist (which she is not; the Parti Socialiste is actually social democratic, not socialist) are far more problematic than the term right-wing and left-wing. I've reverted your edit. —Cuiviénen 00:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't defined rightwing. It is all too often more of an insult than a useful description of political views. During my student days I was called "rightwing fascist pig" more times than I could count, mainly by Stalinists and other revolutionary types, although I am a Clinton Democrat. Le Pen's views, however, do appear to be more specifically nationalist and racist than Libertarian, all three of which are labeled "rightwing." So, I consider your blanket use of the term somewhat non-specific and POV. By the way, Mussolini and Franco had little in common ideologically -- Franco was a reactionary monarchist, Mussolini was militaristic socialism. The three things they had in common were the stiff-arm salute, anti-communism and authoritarianism. Scott Adler 06:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right is still an accurate description for Mussolini, Franco and Le Pen; and mind that in European politics, Clinton Democrats are at least as far to the right as the EPP... ;) —Nightst a llion (?) 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the topic discussed here is French politics, it seems correct that the words "left-wing", "right-wing", "centrist", "far-left" and "far-right", translating gauche, droite, centriste, extrême-gauche et extrême-droite should be used with the customary meaning that they have in the vast majority of the French press.

I understand that some groups that almost everybody would call far-left contend that other groups generally considered to be far-left, such as the Revolutionary Communist League, really are center-right; however, for the sake of clarity, we should stick to the common meaning that the words that we use have in the context of current French politics. David.Monniaux 17:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blog link

I just removed the link [1] from external links, which was added by 83.202.60.74 on March 23. I readily admit that I have somewhat a conflict of interest doing this, as I have my own site on the election [2], but the site added to external links was no different than many other professionally written sites on the election, and considering it was the only edit by an anonymous user, likely link spam. Joshdboz 11:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm why exactly? jk2exp 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article on the french electoral system?

I can't find an article on how the election works. Is there one? If so, can it be put somewhere more prominent. I event looked at other articles related to French elections but couldn't find a link. The pieces of information I was looking for are: can only 2 candidates qualify for the second round? and what are the criteria for their being a secnod round? I'm not posting those questions here because I want answers, instead I'm just showing what type of information I couldn't find. Gronky 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information you want is at President_of_the_French_Republic#Election. In brief, if no candidate has over 50% of votes, then the top two candidates have a 2nd round. Thermaland 15:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, this section is not complete (better answer is one part of article 7 from the french constitution).

It doesnot explain what happen if one candidate is killed (cf french constitution, art 7)
It doesnot tell that blue-white-red colors are forbidden (cf code electoral)
Other rules are not explained.

some other informations are available here after (in french):

* http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/texteconsolide/PPEAG.htm

* http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/constitution/constitution2.htm#titre2

http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/sections/a_votre_service/lois_decrets_et_circulaires/2007/inta0700018c/downloadFile/file/INTA0700018C.pdf?nocache=1172063554.55

Have fun ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.89.44.229 (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Confusion in key issues section

I just read this: "Already, right-wing candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has proposed measures to change criminal procedure for youngsters, while left-wing candidate Ségolène Royal has proposed to send unruly youths to centers under military discipline." It seems like the opposite would be the case. Was this a typo or mistake? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly - and confusingly - this is accurate. Thermaland 07:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is very accurate. Yes, French politics are complex. David.Monniaux 10:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute majority?

It would be helpful on this article to include a precise definition of what an absolute majority is for a French presidential election. Although there is an article it is somewhat confusing talking about US v. rest of the world definitions. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it simply more than 50%? Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 06:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The French "majorité absolue" is majority of voting people. It is a Simple majority. Rama 07:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought... ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 10:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could mean 50% of people voting, or 50% of people registered to vote. 58.28.143.17 09:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results in/Ethical to post early projections?

The results are in on the Swiss TV site -- an incredible 86.5% participation -- Sarkozy/Royal through -- I'm somehow hesitating to put these on main page out of respect for electoral process (it's illegal in France). Is that wrong-headed?

N. Sarkozy: 29,15% S. Royal: 26,2

F. Bayrou: 18,6 J.-M. Le Pen: 10,8 O. Besancenot: 4,7%

Discuss and do with them as you will. The source

is:

http://tsr.blogs.com/info/

It is illegal in France not anywhere else. Wikipedia's servers are in the USA. So we can post them. My source is: letemps.ch. It gives similar results to yours. Anyway official estimates are in in 5 mins. --RajivShah 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Le Monde summary of exit polls

- It's after 20:00 UTC+2 and http://www.lemonde.fr/ has released exit poll estimates based on 4 opinion poll institutes: Sarkozy 29,9 % - Ségolène Royal est deuxième à 25,8 % - François Bayrou est à 18,5 % - Jean-Marie Le Pen, à 11 %. Sources : IFOP, Ipsos, CSA, TNS-Sofres. Boud 18:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- permalink to lemonde report Boud 18:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

official results - when?

Discussion on fr:Discuter:Élection présidentielle française de 2007 suggests the really official results will be announced Wednesday and published in print on Friday, but i presume that semi-official results should come out sooner. Boud 19:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Final results come after possible contests, which should not change the ordering of candidates. (It is possible, for instance, that certain votes with voting machines will be cancelled.) David.Monniaux 20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the BBC have some offical looking results, which they say are from the French Interior Ministry. If those are considered official, maybe the main page should be updated too, it just talks about exit polls. (this isnt my usual IP, editing at school) 213.222.30.35 07:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this are official results. However they are not final; the only final results are those published by the Constitutional Council, after recourses. (I don't think that the recourses should change the results substantially from the Ministry's results.) David.Monniaux 10:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News Special

Have you noted a BBC News Special on this on BBC News 24 right now. I think it will be on BBC World too. But im not sure. Philip1992 18:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Philip1992[reply]

Why so many candidates on the left?

I counted 7 candidates on the left out of twelve. Wouldn't some kind of coordination to reduce the number of candidates help them win? 58.28.143.17 09:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PCF, LCR, LO, Bové tried to present an "anti-liberal" candidate (against free markets) but the attempt didn't succeed, and each went its way to present its own candidate.

Well this is not quite accurate. LO never wanted aunited candidate. LCR got involved in the campaign for a united candidate then pulle dout half way. PCF also. Bové stood as a candidate for unity - that is to denounce the division. Bové's campaignw as rather unusual in that it was supportde by significant numbers of dissident greens, dissident LCR, dissident PCF and a lot of non-party people. National spokespeople for the campaign included members of the LCr of the Greens and of the PCF. Johncmullen1960 14:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David.Monniaux 10:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should write to them... Thermaland 10:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rounds

Is there an article explaining the 'round' system? Njál 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. But it's simple: there is not really any primaries like the United States presidential primary system (mainly because political life is not organized following bipartism lines, and that they are mainly different parties in France, although the Socialist Party (social-democrat) and the Union for a Popular Movement (right-wing) are the main parties). Thus, at the first round, any candidate that got more than 500 signatures from mayors (they are about 30 000 mayors in France) is allowed to present himself. If none of them has got the absolute majority (more than 50% of the votes), than a second round is organized between the two first candidates (Sarkozy and Royal in this case). The one who gets the relative majority (more votes than the other) is elected President. The end! Tazmaniacs 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See President of France#Election. David.Monniaux 08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is. Two-round system MeekSaffron 04:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poster Image

The first image http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:French_presidential_elections_2007_Paris_Place_dItalie_12_candidates.jpg is not great. Over half of the posters have in some way been defaced by either ripping or graffiti. It doesn't really serve any propose in its current state. (Mrutter 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

4 is over half of 12 ? Rama 10:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a realistic picture of what electoral posters look like for real in French cities. Posters for controversial candidates always tend to be ripped or covered by graffiti. David.Monniaux 15:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image is really useful. Is like passing by a square in a French town. BTW, mention in the image's page where and when exactly this photo was taken.--Michkalas 15:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to that one, it's not vandalized at all. Beside, Monniaux and Michkalas are correct. Tazmaniacs 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aimé Césaire

The article states that Aimé Césaire refused to meet Sarkozy. In many public speeches, Sarkozy refers to the meeting he had with Aimé Césaire. Could someone explain ? Hektor 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkozy, immigrants, dubious?

Someone has added a "dubious" tag for the second time, without taking the pain to leave a note here. So, what's the use of such a tag?

In one occurence (Sarkozy & immigration), it was replaced by sources, promptly deleted as if they were POV. In fact, we can discuss the formulation, but it would be very POV saying "Sarkozy is so sweety with immigrants", when they are litterally thousands of sources demonstrating the effects of his "politique du chiffre" (is the person who put that tag aware that even tourists who bypassed their VISA for several days have been arrested? that Romanians have been massively expelled weeks and days before the entrance of Romania in Europe? that some raids have been made in schools, and one recently in Aubervilliers where a baby died? That Sarkozy made several news laws restricting immigration, in November 2003, in July 2006 ([3])? That he made the wish of a "Minister of Immigration and National Identity"?)

I could go on & on, but clearly if one wants to erase this statement, he has some discussion to do here.

The other point concerns the Ariege region, where the same person has put two dubious tags. In particular, he finds it "dubious" to say this region is atypical, although Laguiller obtained more than 10% there, and that the whole of the lefts made a very high score. I think this warrants some explanations, as obviously Ariege has voted in an atypical way concerning the rest of France. Tazmaniacs 10:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tazmaniacs seem to think the aim of this article is make election propaganda; it's not. He's fully entitled to hold whatever view he want on M. Sarkozy and to use the Internet to attack him, but should not use Wikipedia to do so. Claiming that Sarkozy's policies are repressive, without even saying according to whom, is nothing but POV, and it doesn't get more credible by inserting sources that don't support the claim. The article from Le Monde didn't say anything like it, neither did the other article although it used the word in the title. Does the user speak French?

Even if we'd have articles claiming M. Sarkozy is repressive, that's not enough to claim that he really is - just that one journalist thinks so. There are French newspapers ranging from the far-right to the far-left, and you can easily find all sorts of statements on the presidential candidates. I've read a fair share of articles claiming that Mme Royal knows nothing of foreign policy. Using the same logic, should we insert a statement saying "Royal is incompetent when it comes to foreign policy" as if it were an established fact? Surely not, but fully in line with Tazmaniacs actions here. If he wants to claim that one newspaper find Sarkozy's policies repressive, he should write that and insert the source. But stop writing that his policies are repressive as if it was a commonly accepted fact. It's not, and the user is making himself guilty of POV. Dusis 19:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information without justification. We obviously disagree: please do not accuse me of making myself "guilty of POV" because I refuse to accept your removal of a sentence concerning Sarkozy's policies about immigration. As if you didn't have a POV... The point is in finding some middle-ground. Finally, if you think it is "using Internet to attack him" by editing on his policies, well, can you tell me what's the point of enacting policies if you are not proud of them afterwards? Tazmaniacs 15:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please do improve the article with developments on the campaign & its issues. Don't forget to add criticisms of Royal making her appear as "not to the height" to govern France — whereas a man like Sarko surely is — as well as articles which point out how mistakes from Royal makes headlines, while Sarkozy's displayed ignorance is quickly overlooked. Such as him not knowing if Al Qaeda is sunni or shia (Sarkozy cale sur Al-Qaeda et les sous-marins, L'Express)... One wonder how his ignorance of the most basic facts of religion may concord with his being Minister of the Interior and of the Cults... Tazmaniacs 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinvidication

Can anybody translate "reinvidication", in "classic reinvidication of the left-wing", used in the article?--Grahamec 01:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claim? Where is it? Tazmaniacs 15:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was in Electoral issues: immigration, but it has been fixed.--Grahamec 07:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

In a year of editing, this must be one of the most weighted articles I've ever come across. Every paragraph seems to be designed to contain at least one jab at Sarkozy. I know he's friends with Le Lay, but that doesn't mean we have to compensate. Even Bush's page is less negative than this one! I haven't got much editing time right now, but I'll try and do my best, and if anyone else agrees, please pitch in. Opinions? yandman 09:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. You should like the Nicolas Sarkozy entry as well. Hektor 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also more of a list than an article. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 05:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Some users may be interested in taking part in the debate in Template talk:French elections concerning the inclusion of the elections of presidents during the Third Republic, or not, in the template. Tazmaniacs 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

35 heures

Sarkozy proposed to the contrary to repeal the 35-hour workweek previously established by PS minister Martine Aubry during Lionel Jospin's government.

Is this true? during the Royal-Sarkozy televized debate, Sarkozy told he will not set 39 hours as a legal workweek. I understood he just wanna cut social welfare cost (chargs sociales/cotisations sociales) of hours between 35 and 39.

cut taxes by four percent: which one

Sarkozy promised to cut taxes by four percent, increase the exemption for inheritance tax to 95% and grant a "right to work for more than 35 hours." [39]. Which taxes will be cut by 4%?Is this one of the VAT rate?

VAT? Sarkozy? No ! Sarkozy will cut inheritance tax and fiscality on supplementary hours, certainly not VAT taxes which affect all of the people. Tazmaniacs 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contrary: Sarkozy proposed to the contrary to repeal the 35-hour workweek

I understand that contrary is used to mark an opposition betwwen Mme Royal and Mr Sarkozy. However I did not see clearly the opposition in the text.

I assume tou want to mean: Mme Royal does not wish the state choose worweekhours, when, at the contrary, Mr Sarkozy wishes to increase worweekhours.

I ve changed the word Repeal, because it s inexact. None of them want to repeal the 35 h but for Sarkozy he wants to favor the overtime work by decreasing taxes on them.--Dionysostom 16:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some curious math

Arlette Laguiller obtained 11.15%, nearly ten times her national percentage, in the mountainous department of Ariège, which traditionally supports left-wing candidates. There, Sarkozy received just 21.9% of the vote, Bayrou 15.7% and Le Pen 9.7%. Meanwhile, Royal received 35% of the votes to Royal, 1.5% to Voynet (national average), 3% to Buffet (national average 1.94%), 2.7% to Bové (twice his national average), 5.1% to Besancenot and 0.7% to Schivardi. Altogether, the department gave 59.1% of its vote to left-wing candidates, and only 47.3% for the right-wing (including the right-of-centre Bayrou, who recently positioned himself more to the center)

There must be a mistake in here somewhere. It's not possible for the left to have gotten 59.1% and the right 47.3%. That adds up to 106.4%. Funnyhat 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the left got 53.7% not 59.1% by adding up the candidates votes. I have amended the article. Davewild 20:50, 5 May

2007 (UTC)

11,5%? You must be joking. She got 1,15% actually. Med 05:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. There was a mistake in the edition of Libération, which did write 11,5% (sic). That result was indeed rather surprising! Tazmaniacs 17:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Pierre and Miquelon?

What were the election results for the first round in Saint Pierre and Miquelon? When the second round results come in for Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, please add that to the article as well. Many thanks. Diamantina 22:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary Second Round Results

Who keeps erasing them? And why?

Spoilt / null votes

Is 4.4% "spoil/null" votes a high % for France? Is there a hanging chad issue? PedEye1 18:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) yes it is relatively high but has been higher in the past (5.97% in 1995 for instance) 2) no, we don't use chads but papers with the name of the candidate on it. Med 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current event

The election is still a current event:

The final results have not been announced by the Constitutional council.
This is especially significant since there are complaints about voting machines. Even though they will not change the result, they generate controversy.
There is some rioting.
The new president is yet to take office, and has not announced his new government. David.Monniaux 22:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's the article on the election, not on the whole presidential mandate starting now! The new government is off topic. Thermaland 08:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re-evaluation of the euro???

What does it mean?--87.65.160.3 05:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means revaluing the euro. I have corrected it.Thermaland 08:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a big clean-up?

Is it just me or is this article extremely chaotic? In particular the internal order does not seem to make any sense. The section introducing the candidates is much too low in the article, coming as it does after a description of their policies. There is too much trivia accumulated "in real time": I think we could probably lose the list of all the people who were vaguely rumoured to perhaps intend to run and never made the slightest move, not to mention the 7 million opinion polls. (Is anyone ever going to read those poll results?) I also think there are too many main sections and the opening paragraph is ginormous. My suggestion: a short opening paragraph giving away the results, then a section on the candidates, then on policies, then on support, then on the campaign, then a detailed analysis of results. Thoughts? Thermaland 08:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are interesting. In five years, people will want to know if the polls were accurate or no. In 2002 they were not. The distinction between the proposed "policies" and the "campaign" might be a bit difficult to do (unless you intend to translate fr:Campagne présidentielle française de 2007. Tazmaniacs 09:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More math issues

From the "Second Round" section:

Although Jacques Chirac was successful among young electors in 1995, mostly due to his discourse on the "social rupture" (fracture sociale), Sarkozy's electorate is more traditionally right-wing and focused on older people: only those more than 50 years old gave him a majority (at 52%, against 37% for Royal) [16]. Sarkozy obtained only 40% among the 18-24 years old, while Chirac had obtained 55% in the same category in 1995 [16].

If Sarkozy received 53% of the overall vote, then there is no way that he could have received no more than 52% of the vote among any age group. The above paragraph can't possibly be accurate. Funnyhat 01:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whyever not? Thermaland 09:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it. If the highest percentage of the vote he received from any age group was 52%, how could his total be 53%? Funnyhat 18:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on yes of course. I had read that too quickly. What this paragraph actually tried to say (based on Le Figaro article) is that 52% of NS voters are over 50 and not 52% of over-50 voters voted for NS. I will amend the paragraph to make this less ambiguous. Thermaland 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Funnyhat 22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In France "popular" means from lower class people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.146.57 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Hi I am tired with "double standard policy" here I add an External link (Vote Results for this election by commune) and it is always deleted or I am blocked, off course, always with no explanations. If my external link is not a reference or official, there are some weird external links such as:

  1. Polarisation and crisis - the French elections and the radical Left (blog !!)
  2. AngusReid (French election polls in English)(??)
  3. Funny elections Database at RangeVoting.org (??)
  4. (English) Sarkozy speech after being elected (youtube !!)

These sites are nonely a reference or official such as the external link I proposed. So I removed them but the user Rama has reverted my modification, etc. Well, I feel very disappointed because I don't want a revert war. I feel that there is a double standard policy. When I propose an external link, it is not a reference, but when others propose blogs or personnal sites, it is ok. I read carefully Wikipedia policy regarding external links, if a rule applies, it applies for everybody ? Thank you to reply me --Blanchisserie 15:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that

you are linking to your own website, which is problematic with respect to our spam policy. You should carefully explain what you are doing to be granted exception
you seem very close to a WP:POINT when you remove existing external links
you seem to be exporting a problem of fr: to en:

I suggest that you confine your edits on the talk page until your idea is understood. Rama (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response:

No matter who is the owner of the website (ok, it is me). Wikipedia takes care on what is the content of the website and what does it bring as information. I mention my website because it gives Vote Results by commune which is important when talking about this election.
If you had read carefully, I do not export "problem of fr", this point has been closed: when a website is not a reference, it has to be deleted. So did I. Regarding the 4 websites above, if they are not deleted, mine should be added. Otherwise, we delete all non reference websites. Please stop double standard policy--Blanchisserie 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what we call a WP:POINT. I do not have any opinion on your website, and I do not intend to make further interventions regarding it, so I feel comfortable in teeling you that this attitude, while seemingly logical, is unlikely to gather you much sympathy. I suggest that you concentrate on arguing on the merits of your website alone, or of the opportunity of removing potentially unneeded external links. Rama (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Rama I get your point. To sum up, is anybody here think that there is no need to know Vote Results by Commune (here is the link Vote Results by Commune)

I think it is interesting, Rama and others ?Blanchisserie 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also made that suggestion. I like to see editors be successful, to get what they want *and* help build the project according to policy. This particular editor may or may not listen. Listening is a crucial skill! He's been edit warring, indeed, and, yes, the latest edits seem to be WP:POINT violations. I've seen this tit for tat before. "Remove my link, eh? Well, how about This! Fair is fair!" Blanchisserie, because we now know that you are COI, you will probably be treated as such even with regard to unrelated links. Do not edit war. Don't even make edits to the article unless you can reasonably believe that they won't be controversial. Don't try to be the enforcer of guidelines here. I can tell you that if any administrator were COI, as you appear to be, and used the administrative tools to control this page, that administrator would lose their tools, and might be blocked. You are not the police. If you think others are violating policies, you can report them, but I'd suggest you take some time, first, to learn what is and what is not truly policy. It is not a set of rigid rules, so, in fact, it can be uneven and apparently unfair. But it does work, more or less, the project is growing and some articles, at least, are being created or improved. --Abd (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And no, Blanchisserie did not "get" Rama's point. His summation isn't the point Rama was making. Bl., slow down. You don't understand most of what is happening. I'm telling you all this sincerely, I've tried to help you from the first moment of my intervention. Do you have the same saying in French, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink?" --Abd (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Abd. Even if I am COI, can I ask the Wikipedia community if my link is interesting for the page ? Judge by youself, does it deserve or not ? The work I did (Vote Results by Commune database) can help many people reading this article, and this is the point: gather information. To sum up: who is entitled to authorize my external link ? If anybody thinks my link is not fair, please reply. But if nobody replies ? Blanchisserie 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can ask the Wikipedia community, here on this Talk page, and if you are not satisfied with that, there are other ways to widen editor involvement, such as Request for comment. Even though you are COI, you can avail yourself of all this process, after you have exhausted due process here. My opinion on the link, at first sight, was that it would be useful, but I'm not involved with this article and I would not quickly substitute my opinion for that of the article's regular editors. When you have discussed the matter here, with them, civilly and showing that you really do intend to work cooperatively, instead of disruptively, and that discussion is at an impasse, then ask me again, through my Talk page. Don't do that for at least two weeks, and I will consider looking at it again. My opinion is also that you were rather rudely dismissed at first, but I highly recommend that you consider this "water under the bridge." Assume good faith for others and perhaps they will assume it for you. (And perhaps not, but don't fall into the trap of imitating bad behavior.) As to "who is entitled to 'authorize' your external link," it is anyone (who is not COI) and no one. There is no "authorization" process beyond consensus of the editors. Any other user could put it in, and any other user could take it out. This is Wikipedia. It's true that if there is an extended dispute, there are processes which can make some kind of relatively binding decision, all the way up to the arbitration committee which is about as binding as it gets. You don't want to go there, probably, especially not as a clueless newcomer, the process can be grueling even for highly experienced editors. But you can always ask for help. And, my advice, listen well to the responses you get. And, did I mention, leave edit warring to the foolhardy and the true experienced users who know exactly what they are doing? Even the latter get blocked sometimes. (By the way, sometimes because of how I write, users sometimes think I'm an administrator. I am not. I was nominated a few months ago, but was considered still too new a user, so I only got 50% support, whereas a higher level is considered necessary. And I don't want to be an administrator.) One more point: it might be tempting to create a sock puppet account to make the edits you want. Don't. It would not only be likely to get you and the sock permanently banned, but it could also result in your site being blacklisted, which would make it more difficult for anyone legitimate to insert the link. Just be patient and make your best arguments, politely, and leave it at that.--Abd (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking your time advising me. I hope that the article's regular editors will read this discussion because as an acaddemic my willing is to share information and not any kind of business even if I am COI. So people, thank you for giving your opinion about adding this external link (2007 Presidential Vote Results by Commune) -Blanchisserie 08:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchisserie (talk • contribs)

Blanchisserie here asserts that he is an academic. (1) Blanchisserie, please provide documentation of this, it will help. (2) Absent objection, I see no harm in adding this link, and it looks useful and neutral, meeting all qualifications. So if anyone does object -- and what happened on the French wikipedia is irrelevant -- please provide reasons here. --Abd (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be informed that I have added the external link as no objection seems to be existing - Blanchisserie 13:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchisserie (talk • contribs)

Technically, Blanchisserie, you should probably not have added it, since you are WP:COI for that web site, and there was previous controversy. Rather, you should have asked, here, for someone else to add it. And you could have asked me on my Talk page to do so, as well. However, given the lack of objection to my last comment, it could be reasonable for you to assume that adding the link was no longer controversial, so I'd defend you if someone charges you with impropriety based on this one edit. Be careful, though. Especially, do not edit war, if someone reverts it. Let others take care of it. Make sure that we have any necessary information, here. Thanks.--Abd (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkozy start campain in 2002

Actually but not officially, Sarkozy start his caimpain in 2002, as minister of the Interior. He was on television many many times and declare to think about french presidency "not only when he shave" (answering to french journalist Alain Duhamel who ask if he think about when he shave). It was a sort of cold war between him and Jacques Chirac in order to be the candidate of the right, Sarkozy oppose Chirac in many ways. He also oppose strongly with Dominique de Villepin who was first minister from 2005 to 2007. This elements can be added I suppose. I'm french, sorry for the bad english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.183.200.245 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on French presidential election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070420151327/http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/politiques/elections2007/ to http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/politiques/elections2007/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 38 external links on French presidential election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on French presidential election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on French presidential election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071020072703/http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/evenement/evenement1/234627.FR.php to http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/evenement/evenement1/234627.FR.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 57 external links on French presidential election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on French presidential election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on French presidential election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]