Talk:Dominique Venner

Recent major edit

I just completed a major edit of this article (based on the content of the more in-depth French wiki article on Venner written by others), although I think it could still be fleshed out a little. I would appreciate it if anyone with concerns uses the Talk forum to discuss any issues they have with my edit before undoing all or parts of it. I have tried to be objective but the fact remains that both Venner and his NRH are controversial as this has to be explored frankly. Far left groups are much more scathing of Venner and the NRH, for the time being I have left their criticism out of the article (quoting Trotskyites about a right-leaning publication hardly seems objective) but if others feel it would be appropriate I would be happy to track some of these criticisms down and will add them to the article (although I note that these critiques have been removed from the French Wiki entry for Venner, and it is this article that heavily influenced my edit).

Also - does anyone have any imput about how DV's political views should be characterised? See the long discussion on the French Wiki Talk page. Members of many of the groups to which DV belonged (and DV himself) seem to prefer "nationalist militant" (for obvious reasons), while many historians (but apparently not all) consider those movements to be negationist and clearly of the extreme right, especially in their overt xenophobia and anti-Semitism. I note that after a long debate, the French Wiki authors opted for something along the lines of "former militant of the ultra-right and later a European nationalist" but for the moment I have not made any explicit designation - I will do so if I don't get any feedback within a week or so. I think the racism of Europe-Action should also be included, and again, I will do so in a week or so unless there are solid objections. 99.240.139.189 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think his views should be characterised as Bigotry as applied to Historical Studies. 186.247.117.30 (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Suicide

The hot-topic news section currently reads:

"On 21 May 2013, at around four in the afternoon, Venner committed suicide by firearm in the cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris[18], which led to the evacuation of the cathedral. He had been a virulent opponent of the legalization of same-sex marriage in France. Only hours earlier, he had left a post on his blog calling for radical resistance to the new law.[19] He had written, "The demonstrators on 26 May will cry because of their impatience and their anger. An infamous law, once passed, can always be repealed."[20] He went on, "It will require new, spectacular, and symbolic actions to rouse people from their complacency [...] We enter into a time when words must be backed up by actions."[20] According to the rector of Notre Dame de Paris, Venner had also left behind a letter for investigators."

Yet a reading of the Google Translate version of his post clearly shows he is talking about Islamic law taking over:

"An infamous law, once passed, can always be repealed. I just listened to an Algerian blogger: "In any case, he said, in fifteen years the Islamists are in power in France and it will remove this law." Not to make us happy, we suspect, but because it is contrary to Sharia (Islamic law). [..] Protesters May 26 can not ignore this reality. Their struggle can not be limited to the refusal of gay marriage. The "great replacement" population of France and Europe, denounced by the writer Renaud Camus is an otherwise disastrous for the future risk."

I hope soon a reference can be found to fix this radical reinterpretation, or if not just directly quote from the blog post. It seems the spin doctors are in. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Further detail has since been added to the page, which should provide a fuller picture. Keep in mind that every article is a work in progress. If you ever find that an article is missing relevant information, remember that it is within your power to remedy the omission. Just be sure to provide sources. LANTZY^TALK 20:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Believe me, I looked for sources outside of the Google translation of his blog post, but I don't speak French and many articles were in French, and the English news articles were just a repetition of whoever misconstrued his blog post in the first place. Thanks for your additions, but this part in the Suicide section is still wrong:

Only hours earlier, he had left a post on his blog calling for radical resistance to the new French law on same-sex marriage.[20] He had written, "The demonstrators on 26 May will cry because of their impatience and their anger. An infamous law, once passed, can always be repealed."[21] He went on, "It will require new, spectacular, and symbolic actions to rouse people from their complacency [...] We enter into a time when words must be backed up by actions."

The "radical resistance" he called for was in regards to the "great replacement", as he calls it (or Google translate does). I would correct it myself but my lack of French is hurting me for sources, and IP edits tend to invite reversals anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.115.184 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You're correct about that. I read Venner's entire blog post, and his letter to the radio station. Our summary was definitely misleading. I doubt if any deliberate "spin doctoring" was involved. Initial reports simply failed to appreciate the magnitude of Venner's crankiness, and English-language news stories have considerably simplified his motives. As more information has emerged in the last 24 hours, a more complicated picture has developed.

To make a long story short, Venner's chronic preoccupation was the "Muslim takeover", Sharia, and all that. He was unquestionably a homophobe, but there is an element of opportunism and condescension in his approach to the "Manif pour tous" crowd. His pre-suicide blog post appeals to the anti-gay marchers to stop focusing myopically on same-sex marriage. He basically says to them, "Gay marriage is just the tip of the iceberg". He wants them to turn their attention to the threat of immigration, and to abandon demonstrations in favor of more militant methods. His letter to the radio station makes it clear that his suicide had multiple motives, some lofty and philosophical, but above all focused on opposition to immigration and gay rights (as he puts it, the destruction of the family). In Venner's philosophy, the two are part and parcel of the decline of French civilization.

I've edited the article to reflect these more complex motives, with appropriate citations. I hope I've addressed your point. As it stands now, the article may lean too heavily on primary sources, but it doesn't stray far from the French-language reportage, and at least it should be free of major errors.LANTZY^TALK 01:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, the general accuracy is much better. Maybe others will want tweaks, but I'm satisfied. Just a note on the "spin doctoring", as I put it. I believe as you say the Wikipedia article followed the original news sources. Maybe it was just an innocent mistake on outlets like the BBC, but I've seen a pattern of the media to try and downplay Islamic tension with the West. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Islamification

I believe we could agree to take out the non-NPOV phrase "the Islamification of France."

France is by no means becoming an Islamic state ruled ONLY by sharia law; which is what the term represents.

Mr. Venner, resented the multicultural adherence to the freedom of religion, within a state he saw as primarily Christian. Count of Cascadia (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of "Islamification of France". It accurately describes his concerns of where he thinks the country is headed. You may disagree, that is perfectly fine, but an article about Venner should describe his views. His concern is about mass migration replacing the law and culture of France. He makes that abundantly clear in his last blog post, which makes reference to The Camp of the Saints. The way the current article reads is completely Point of View by not representing the views of Venner. You could write "perceived Islamification of France" if you are worried about giving legitimacy to his views. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In context, it should be clear that these phrases are meant to represent Venner's perceptions, not the editorial consensus. Also, we can avoid any ambiguity by making use of direct quotations from Venner himself. LANTZY^TALK 18:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

French quotes versus translations

Are the translations to English of statements in French used on this page in any way controversial? If not, I see no point in having statements in English followed by the original French quote. They interrupt the flow of the text and are unnecessarily distracting. If there is no controversy surrounding the translation, I propose they be removed in favour of the English synoptic prose. 150.203.35.193 (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there's no need for the original quotes to appear on this page. Every quote on this page has been translated manually from the original French news article. Machine translations have not been used. I don't see any potential for controversy. Anyone who doubts the accuracy of a quote can follow the link to the original French and check for themselves. LANTZY^TALK 18:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. 150.203.35.193 (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Terrorism?

I earlier added {{WikiProject Terrorism}} to this page; it was removed by User:Auric. I don't want to get in an edit war over this, but I just thought I'd explain why I thought it was appropriate. It's undisputed that Venner was a former member of the Organisation de l'armée secrète, a paramilitary organisation which carried out bombings and assassinations in order to effect political change during the 1960s, and remains officially designated as terrorist today. I don't know whether or not Venner was directly involved in any such actions himself, but the article states he was a member of the organisation and was imprisoned for it, which is reason enough to add the template, IMO. Robofish (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that modern day terrorism is a different kind of terrorism than that used by the OAS. I may be splitting hairs here, but I thought that putting that on this page was inviting conspiracy theorists to claim he was also a modern day terrorist. --Auric talk 17:55, 26 May 2013 (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:

• Dominique Venner.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)