Talk:Éric Zemmour/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is problematic: He also believes that within a European community, the political right and left are forced to advocate "the same economic policy, social liberalism or liberal socialism"

It was obviously translated directly from the French article: Selon lui, à cause de l'Union européenne, la gauche comme la droite ne peuvent qu'appliquer « la même politique [économique], le social-libéralisme ou le libéralisme-social »

My problem is that libéralisme-social doesn't mean the same thing at all as liberal socialism. Liberal socialism is a term sometimes used (ignorantly) in American English to mean social democracy or democratic socialism, (e.g. Michael Moore is sometimes called a "liberal socialist"), while libéralisme-social has nothing to do with socialism, it's basically another way of saying social-libéralisme (e.g. Barack Obama). Zemmour was making a kind of play of words; I think it can't really be translated, it would be better to simply put it: ...are forced to advocate "the same economic policy, social liberalism. In any case the word socialism should go, because Zemmour didn't mean to say the EU promotes any kind of socialism, which is the point of his criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Ethnicity" does not mean nothing in France since nobody really cares about it. Mr. Zemmour parents were French citizens when Algeria was a French colony. Just as their parents and grand-parents also were. Mr. Zemmour joked himself with that because Zemmour is a name of Berber origin (it means "olive") and people which are Jews, Christians or Muslims, may bear it. Nobody will tell that someone like Mr. Édouard Balladur is "ethnically Armenian" or that Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy is "ethnically Hungarian". I think that clearing this from is infobox would be better, because antisemitic nationalists only would use it in France.--Leznodc (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hate speech

What are the reasons for censoring a contribution ? I wrote that Zemmour is in difficulty because of his hate speech, a fact that is well established in France because he has been condemned. User yintan undid my cotribution but gives no reason, and can't be reached.

Should I start to undo his undoing ??? Or how to stop his unjustified censoring ?

--Ft (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes great care in how we describe living persons, and this is not always easy for relatively new Wikipedians to get correct. As a rule of thumb, a potential negative comment on an individual should be concrete and backed up by reference, as well as dispassionate in language. Thus, instead of writing that Zemmour is notorious for hate speech, it's rather recommended to write exactly what he has been convicted for and include a reference or more. If there are references included in the body of the article, you don't necessarily need to include it in the lede though (and as you can see the conviction for racism in covered in the body of this article). In addition to condemnation in courts, one may also include criticism from respectable individuals/organizations etc, but criticism should be given due weight and do not always belong in the lede. As finding the right phrasing and nature of criticism of an individual can be complicated and is very sensitive, it may often be a good idea to not jump right into these issues until one has a good grasp in general of the rules and practices of Wikipedia. Iselilja (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"Alternate History Novel"?

The article makes reference to "the alternate history novel by Frédéric Deslauriers (2011), Les Deux-Cents jours de Marine Le Pen..." and describes her winning the 2012 election. I'm re-phrasing this as 'speculative fiction' since a novel written in 2011 can't be an "alternate history" as it dealt with the then-future (unless we're also going to consider a LOT of science fiction to be "alternate history" because history subsequently took a different course).70.174.126.206 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Section "Cases before French jurisdictions"

This section only deals with his two lost cases.
Whereas there are at least 5 other instances where he won against the persons or entities who sued him on similar grounds (racism, hate, defamation). See, in French: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éric_Zemmour#Relaxes
This section is also greatly unbalanced. --Emigré55 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

As nobody improved the section since this warning, I have introduced a sub section on the 6 legal cases he won so far.
Thus the banners do not seem to be necessary anymore, and I have removed them for the whole section.--Emigré55 (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Section "Controversies and conflicts with opponents"

--Emigré55 (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"Violent speech"

The word 'violent' should be removed here. 216.8.174.241 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Zemmour and Le Figaro

Munci, hello,
Zemmour was not "dismissed" from Le Figaro. Please do not extend and/or relay fake news yourself. You are right to write that these infos were written by supposed "reliable" sources. But they are fake news, as stated afterwards, with all due evidences, by other reliable sources which did fact checking (whereas previous sources you only rely on only did not!) and gave evidence, such as the letter of the former managing director of Le Figaro, on this subject, which you can read in the sources I gave: In 2010 (not 2009, another fake news), he was moved by Le Figaro to Le Figaro Magazine, allegedly after making controversial statements in other media but in fact because his salary was too high for a low weekly production. --Emigré55 (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

So basically he was going to be fired, but he got shifted instead, and it was because he undercontributed with respect to his contract. Munci (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, hence, continuing or insisting in writing that he was "dismissed" first, and because of the alleged following reasons you reinstated second, is contrary to the facts, truth and evidences given (such as the letter of the managing director of Le Figaro, if you have read the sources I introduced for that).

Please cancel that part you wrongly reinstated.--Emigré55 (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Section "Overview of political positions"

--Emigré55 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't we first get some input from the editor who put up the tags? The onus of showing/proving why the taga are deserved is on said editor. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"The onus...on said editor": is there a rule on this? If yes, please advise, as I did not see, and hence do not know, such a one.

I have more considered these tags as an invitation to improve these sections generally, for the reasons stated in the tags, neutrality and balance, which to me seemed and still are not respected. (e.g.: I have slightly begun to balance in the introduction, with Camus's opinion, as he is a well known and respected author on the far-right issues.)

Having said that, the sub paragraphs on economic issues prove themselves to be very poor; with a lack of information on all main economic issues. And there is no paragraph on the institutions, for instance.

--Emigré55 (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm invoking an unwritten rule applicable in any such discussion, conducted in good faith, whether in Wikipedia or not: Whenever I claim that, for example, some person is not honest or a text is biased, I feel obliged to state something beyond such generic and unsupported claims, to offer some evidence and some reasoning. These tags' wording is not just an invitation to improve "generally" an article; they're pointing out specific faults in the text. The editors who have identified those faults should, one feels, in the constructive spirit in which we all hopefully work here, offer us their views and findings. That is all. -The Gnome (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand. And I apologise if you felt I did something wrong setting the tags as I did. I have since given you examples of major flaws. Having said that, as far as I am concerned, I am cautious, and more on a "wait and see" attitude for the time being on these paragraphs. And I hope you will understand because I have had in the past bad experience on other articles with some editors who do not have a good faith conduct as you and I.

Giving a chance to others to make this paragraphs better, i.e neutral and balanced. cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

Please remove "— a loaded term that even Ms. Le Pen has avoided —" This isn't objective or backed by source Netex (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Far right?

Note: The initial comment was previously posted at User_talk:Hemiauchenia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, As you reverted my previous reorganisation of Zemmour's presentation, I would like to discuss it with you as your grounds are not accurate and/or complete. He was and is first known in France as a journalist and famous book writer, who became then famous as a polemist on TV talk shows, before "exploding" this year with his expected/soon to be candidacy to the presidential election. This is the somewhat chronological approach and emphasis on his main activities first which my editing tries to reflect. As to the the "far right" qualification, 2 things: 1/ it is debated, as you can read in the section on his political views (pls read third sentence), and especially by Jean-Yves Camus, the most eminent specialist of far right and extremists movements in France (I added his quote on this subject). Not all the media call him a "far right", and I am documenting this and will soon edit on this as well. 2/ "Far right" is often used with a negative or even derogatory meaning (in France at least but even in the US), and as he himself describes as a "Gaullist & Napoleanist" (which is not far right), and is also described as such by other media, this article deserves now a more precise presentation of him on this single aspect as well. Trust this helps you understand my cautious approach to a careful reoganization of this presentation, to encompass all aspects of this person, without giving too much or biased importance to a particular aspect of his biography/personality. Wihtout, of course, deleting any previous info. Just reorganising and balancing them when needed, as I did, to be also as neutral as possible. Cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone's self designation is irrelevant, we don't describe Alex Jones in wikivoice as a paleoconservative, even though that's what he self-identifies as, because reliable sources labell him a far-right conspiracy theorist. Zemmour has been labelled as far-right in numerous english language sources, including The Times, The Guardian, Reuters, which describes him as more radical than Marine Le Pen, Politico Bloomberg The New York Times describes him as "known for his far-right nationalism". Jean Yves Camus definiton of Far-right, which excludes all but literal facists and neo-nazis, is at odds with most mainstream definitions of far right, and would exclude well known european far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson (activist). Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You are right in saying that Zemmour has been described (far right) as such by many sources. Sources I did not remove, btw; I even added a footnote (a) listing them all. But not all sources describe him so. How do we balance then this ? I believe my editing is a better way to do it than a blunt "far right" first hand description, which does not encompass the entirety of this person and the complexity of the subject. Which other way would you suggest?--Emigré55 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't think that Camus definition would exclude Robinson. Will try and look to see if he studied him.--Emigré55 (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I will add soon other sources describing him other than "far right". Just allow me the time to do it, as I have also other duties. cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is a list of other political qualifications used by other French media to present him, as I edited it in the article (with due sources of the many media concerned): "Many other French media present him also “on the right”, or even in the “conservative right”, or as “Gaullist”, or in the “sovereignist right”, or in the “radical right”, or in the “radical and identitary right”:

L'Express, Libération, La Presse.ca, Entreprendre, Le JDD, Midi Libre, Nice Presse, Ouest France, France inter, Courrier international - Il Foglio, Vanity Fair, Le Parisien, L'Obs, L'Opinion, LCI, Le Soir.be

cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Zemmour « far right » before his professional qualifications in the introduction?

@Hemiauchenia:, The introduction should first reflect a summary of the article, not someone’s opinion: Yours (which your last edit here reflects), or mine (I personally only try to balance the article/writing, to reflect all different sources first, NPOV then, not to forget WP: BLP), or of any particular media (which use different words to qualify him politically).
The article begins with a section mainly about his professional life, in which his political qualification is only secondary.
Writing «...is a French far-right[1][2][3][4][5][6] political journalist, essayist, writer and television pundit» as you did in the first sentence, is qualifying him BEFORE even saying what he is professionally. What is not reflecting the article.

And qualifying him in one way only, with a highly charged word, “far right”, is also not reflecting the various sources available, including the ones you rightly added to enrich the list of sources available.
More over, it is not possible to qualify him as “far right” only, while you acknowledge then and write in the 3rd § that “mainstream news organizations characterize him as right-wing to far right.»
His qualification is both different from one media to another (a), AND subject to controversies (b:
(a) The new list of English speaking media you introduced yourself contains media who precisely not qualify him as far right, or use different qualification: Two of the list even qualify him in their title as “right wing” (« conservative » as Politico in his title, suggesting hence that they consider him more as such as « far right », a qualifier they only use once later in the article )
(b) Controversies on the meaning of “far right”, as illustrated by articles on history of far right, or radical right, and more important by the widely known specialist of far right in France nowadays (see Jean Yves Camus’ citation on Zemmour being not “far right”, here in this paragraph, third sentence ) Finally, a mere research in Google shows « Zemmour + far right”: 971.000 results, and “Zemmour + rightwing”: 822.000 results, so quite similar results.

Hence, the previous introduction was better structured, encompassing all notions and respecting both the article and a balanced approach to the various qualifications used to depict him in the media (WP:BLP).
--Emigré55 (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

We clearly have very different irreconcilable perspectives here. I don't see how this will get resolved without outside input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. And I will sincerely feel sorry if you feel our perspectives are as you describe. I have not reverted all your inputs, on the contrary. Your sources added are welcome, and I included them in a dedicated note. I hope you will nevertheless agree with me that these media call him differently, not only "far right", and that it should be reflected without giving unbalanced and hence undue importance to "far right". Especially in the intro. The rest of the article develops anyway the controversy. cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It's nothing personal, it's just it's not possible to form a robust consensus with two people who have different opinions, only a compromise, and I'd prefer for other people to chime in and give their thoughts, otherwise we just keep going round in circles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think the intro has well progressed, thanks to your inputs and mine. I can also live with your last change (moving up the section on how he is qualified), although I personnaly think that it is better in the last paragraph, as it links well with the following sentence about the NYT article. --Emigré55 (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Having said that, I encourage you to look at the sections below, in the article itself, and improve them. They are a total mess, lacking a lot of infos, and presenting things in a very partial way, non neutral, and totally unbalanced. --Emigré55 (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the french wikipedia equivalent a good guide on what content is missing from this article, or would you consider that article also biased? What parts of Zemmours early career are most worthy of mention? Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The French wikipedia is unfortunately very biased. His career as a writer is most worthy of mention, because of the huge success of his books and under and/or misrepresentation of them and his ideas, and the fact that the part of his career as a TV pundit is overrepresented, which both create a serious balance problem, particularly concerning the description and representation of his ideas.--Emigré55 (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The French article is not biased. What he is most well known for being a polemicist. That might be not a profession, but it's certainly the case. I find the intro has recently regressed. Munci (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

We disagree on the fact that the French article is not biased, and that the intro has regressed. It was clearly improved also thanks to the English based sources brought by Hemiauchenia (although sources normally belong to the articles itself, as an intro is a summary of the article). It would greatly regress, however, if fake news still are maintained.

His polemicist qualification may well be cited in the article, with all due sources, for instance in the paragraph about his TV activities.--Emigré55 (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

In what way is the frWP article biased? Also I am not convinced English sources are the WP:BESTSOURCES on a French subject. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that French are better sources on Zemmour. As far as I am concerned, I think the English article in this instance would benefit from modeling itself more closely on the French one: including the word 'polemicist' from the intro sentence (that is what he is mostly known for) and having more information on the 2018 offense, among other things. Munci (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree on the fact that the enWIKI article would "benefit from modeling itself more closely on the French one". For the French article is heavily biaised and already subject to very strong controversies among French editors.

Zemmour is also not "mostly known for being a polemist", but for being before all a famous journalist and successful book writer, and mostly now for being a (soon to be announced) candidate to the French presidency.

Finally, insisting on adding to what is already cited about the 2 offenses he was fined for (not a crime in either case) would add to the existing unbalance of the article on these issues and facts, which should also be secondary to his ideas. And would be contrary to WP:BALASP, WP:PROPORTION, WP:UNDUE, and WP:WEIGHT. The paragraph on the first offense already weighs 3,091/2,617 characters (with ou without spaces), as opposed to 6,241/5,258 characters (with or without spaces) for the 6 cases he was released free of charge: already a massive undue proportion.

--Emigré55 (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The French one is well-written as it stands. Its just that the subject is controversial because he creates controversy.

[1]

It's especially a lack of information on the recent condemnation. Munci (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Insisting on his condemnation, you bear the risk of being considered non neutral (WP:NEUTRAL, WP:NPOV), and even prejudiced against him. While aggravating the unbalance of the article (WP:BALANCE), all against Wikipedia rules. Also bearing in mind that you called him a "criminal" in a recent edit, whereas he never committed any crime. The article should be neutral, balanced, and mainly about his ideas, which are very much underrepresented.--Emigré55 (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE is not the same as NPOV. We must accurately and proportionately reflect what sources are saying about Zemmour. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. That is why I made my recents edits, to stick exactly to facts and sources, and adapt the text proportionately.cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Zemmour has been condemned for hate crime. Please be aware that the use of the word 'crime' in French and English are not the same: as we can see on wikt:crime, the English word 'crime' can refer to both the French 'délit' and the French 'crime'. See also Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies, which is why he is far-right whether he says or not. Except that he has recently implied that he is, when someone said "He wants to unite the right and far right under the far right" and he replied "You have understood". I can't manage to find the source though. Munci (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

1/ « Zemmour has been condemned for hate crime ». : No. Also as per wikipedia definition:

• "Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the social groups listed above, or by bias against their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, homicide, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse (which includes slurs) or insults, mate crime or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).
• A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence.Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech.

We have to deal here with a "hate speech", condemned in French law as a mere offence, not a crime.
2/"the English word 'crime' can refer to both the French 'délit' and the French 'crime'": Be it in French or in English, the word crime is loaded, I am sure you will admit it. Using it in such instances, especially whereas in France it does not apply at all, and where there is a strong and clear legal difference between crime and offense, is therefore not only contrary to what is explained above, but presenting facts as they are not, or in a way oriented or which can be seriously misunderstood, i.e. against WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.
3/"He wants to unite the right and far right under the far right": I would be very surprised to find a quote from him saying this. He certainly said he wants do "unite all the rights", but I do not believe he added "under the far right". All the more because he describes himself as a gaullist and bonapartist, and being closer to the RPR (the Gaullist party) of the eighties.
--Emigré55 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the use of the term "far-right" is inflammatory and tends to be used to discredit political oponents. France, as many other nations, is immersed in culture wars and political battles where anyone can be labelled a racist or a fascist. Zemmour in particular has been object of vitriolic anti-semitism by his former partner Dieudonne. He is opposed to Islamism as a political force and has made borderline xenophobic statements but has also been outspoken in his condemnation of racism and xenophobia. I don't think its fair to label him far-right since ultimately he is a rather intransigent believer in France's republican values which are strongly opposed to religion in the public sphere. In a French context where Jews are often victims of actual hate crimes (ending up dead) I suggest exercising caution here. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cristodelosgitanos:, Hello, I could not say better on this subject than you did. Fully agree with you. cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

To the extent that "far-right" may be inflammatory, it is the extent to which Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. The vast majority of people are not condemned for hate speech (OK for the distinction between hate crime and hate speech in passing). I'm not sure which of Dieudonné and Zemmour is supposedly "outspoken in his condemnation of racism and xenophobia", but it doesn't fit either of them. France's republican values have usually (up until the nineties) been about having no official status for religion, not being "strongly opposed to religion in the public sphere". Munci (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing the refs from the lead

The lead looks pretty intimidating right now, because it has a lot of italics, references, dates and footnotes. An idea in order to clean it up would be to remove all the refs, which is allowed by MOS:LEADCITE provided that the relevant references can be found in the body and that there is talk page consensus. There are many examples of successful implementations of this idea, including Anderson Cooper, Barack Obama (a FA), or today's featured article Oryzomys couesi. Is there consensus to work towards that? JBchrch talk 21:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

As can be seen elsewhere on this talk page, there is insufficient consensus on the content of the article, including the lede. In my opinion, that should be sorted out before any tidying up. I am considering contacting the ArbCom. Munci (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch:, Thank you for your suggestion. As far as I am concerned, I was/am not intimidated or bothered but the italics, references, dates and footnotes in the lead. But if you feel it can be simplified, I am of course Ok to see with you how to do it.

I read that "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.", and also that "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." and "... editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.".

If we follow these guidelines, it seems to me that most of the refs could be moved to the main text. Especially those of the second §. But probably, we should then keep the footnotes presently in the first §, because they relate to touchy subjects. In the third paragraph, we should also keep the ref to the NYT article, because it is not cited in the main text. Unless we move it with the whole sentence into the main text.

Would this way seem to you better? cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Munci: I am puzzled why you think of going to Arbcom. It seems to me that the consensus is wide enough, and we have also reached a compromise over our differences. I do not see any subject for Arbcom, to be frank with you. Which one(s) do you have in mind? And anyway, in my opinion, we should all discuss here first before going to Arbcom. Hope this helps, cheers --Emigré55 (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, pending Munci's answer to my comment below. I don't plan on removing or touching the footnotes, just the references. JBchrch talk 16:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch:We are in full agreement. cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Munci: As I'm sure you are aware, ArbCom doesn't solve content disputes and is a solution of last resort. So the way forward if you have a content dispute is either to launch an RFC or to drop the WP:STICK. If you choose to launch an RFC, I don't have a problem withholding this proposal until it is closed. However, it should be launched sooner rather than later, because the discussion above has pretty much died out, and it would be inappropriate to withhold improvements to the article on that basis alone. JBchrch talk 16:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I misremembered. It's RFC I meant. I'll do that now then. Munci (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, it has not died out at all! There have been comments above almost continuously since the tenth. Munci (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Grammar issues

There are several grammar issues which may be due to French speakers less familiar with English editing this page. For example, issues with tense are abundant. It refers to "pronouncements" which isn't really used in English- it would be statements. These are just some of the issues; I'm sure others may find more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldwayz (talk • contribs) 15:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not a grammatical issue at all, and is entirely a stylistic one. "Pronouncements" is completely standard English, but it could be read as suggesting said utterances were of a pompous or grandiloquent nature, which may or may not be what's intended (and may nor may not be appropriate as editorial content). As for the "abundant" tense issues, you may have to point them out, or indeed just edit them yourself. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC on True Balance of article

How should the article on Eric Zemmour most appropriately represent its subject, taking into account true balance?

Issues I consider contentious:

• the absence of the word 'polemicist'
• the description of his ideology
• The description of his trials, and the subdivisions thereof

Munci (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Munci: you are launching a general discussion, without proposing specific solutions to what you consider contentious?
Whereas multiple efforts have been made since september to truly balance the article (e.g. the description of his trials, where only appeared before that he had been condemned).
Can you be more specific and explain why you consider the 3 issues "contentious"?
Can you also propose specific solutions? and wording on specific issues? to be then discussed?
Thank you in advance. --Emigré55 (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Emigré55:

• the absence of the word 'polemicist': as I have mentioned here [2] [3] [4] and edited here [5] [6], I consider it appropriate for the term 'polemicist' to appear in the first sentence, as it cited by tens of different reliable sources. As far I am concerned, it's the main thing he is known for. It is also uncontested on the French version of the page.
• the description of his ideology: as I have mentioned here [7] [8] and edited here [9], the main ideology he is described as having is 'far right' and the article should reflect that.
• The description of his trials, and the subdivisions thereof: as I have mentioned here [10] [11] and edited here [12], I consider the section on his trials, and the formatting thereof, unbalanced in favour of Zemmour, as it puts subsections for the trials he won, but not for those he lost or for those still underway. Munci (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Bad RfC. Such broad, open questions are not suited to the RfC process. See WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:WPRFC § Specificity. JBchrch talk 17:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I read those and tried to do it accordingly. How could it be improved? Munci (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You would need to propose a specific change to the article. JBchrch talk 20:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this RfC could be repurposed quickly to consider only the word "polemicist" in the lead, so that we can swiftly find consensus on that, and then Munci can draft a more concise RfC for the other concerns? — HTGS (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

I would suggest that we include "polemicist" specifically in the second sentence of the lead paragraph, in the context of how he's been characterised by mainstream news organisation. (As opposed to, say, in the first sentence as a factual statement of how he makes his bread and butter, it being more of a market-segment subdivision of any and all of those activities.) This indeed seems very robustly sourceable: RTÉ, The Economist, The Irish Times, The Times of London, the FT, Euronews, RFI... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to accept the suggestion of the preceding IP address. If others are OK, I suggest we can modify the article in line with that, and then get on with the questions of the trials and ideology, whether the other two require separate RFCs or not. Munci (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Munci:As explained here above, this does not work like this. To JBchrch's comments above, which I fully agree with, I also add the fact that you have not explained and/or justified so far that and why it is "contentious". You should hence first close this wrong RFC, be it only as a gesture of good will. We will then discuss here all wording suggestions, of course. --Emigré55 (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. We still have not been shown sources. Since when is namedropping sources without providing links a valid way to present sources and advance discussions? Besides, the second sentence of the first paragraph is currently From 2019 to 2021, he was a presenter of Face à l'Info on CNews. What is the proposed language here? JBchrch talk 12:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have shown the many sources on many occasions. I have even added other sources since. I can even add yet another citation for Zemmour being a polemicist, this citation from yesterday: while he aimed a gun at journalists: Schiappa "horrifiée" par l'image de Zemmour dirigeant une arme vers des journalistes (bfmtv.com). And I have linked to my sourced edits above in my second edit of the nineteenth in this section of the talk page. The sources are even still in the article. They were taken from the French article where their legitimacy is not put into question. If you really insist, I can do more work and close this one to open three others, but seriously the information is still already there in the article at the moment. It's just it's been moved and changed to say 'pundit' when the sources actually say 'polémiste'. It's the first set of references on the page (). Munci (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the insertion of the word 'pundit' as a remplacement for the word 'polemist' stems from this edit: [13]. The editor argued that 'pundit' would be a better translation for 'polémiste' than polemicist', which is contrary to what is found my Robert Collins French-English English-French dictionary and contrary to what is found on wikt:polémiste. Munci (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

@Munci: Please justify the introduction of this label for the whole article, as opposed to determined sections in the main article, which you did here, [14], against previous consensus.--Emigré55 (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Emigré55: I never got the impression that there was a consensus. Munci (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Munci: This may be an explanation of your own POV, but it is not the justification asked. Please, elaborate. --Emigré55 (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Emigre55's idea of a consensus is whatever his opinion happens to be, anything opposed to it is "biased". That's why I said earlier that our opinions are irreconcilable. I saw how his previous interactions with The Banner went at RSN. I defer to other editors on how Zemmours political opinion should be described. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Emigré55: I intend to remove the POV banner when the third RFC is resolved. As far as I can tell, there is no banner for RFCs so I put this one. I consider the situation with the RFCs has worsened now that it is has been claimed that no sources have been provided [15], despite the fact that I provided the sources available on the French version of the article (fr:Éric Zemmour) over a month ago [16].

@Hemiauchenia: Could I please clarify what RSN is referring to? Munci (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought it might be that, I wasn't quite sure. Thank you. Munci (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Le Pen not considered a "ring-wing candidate"?

"On 1 October 2021, with 15% of voting intentions, he passed in front of all the right-wing candidates for the first time, reaching the third place of all candidates with only 1 point behind National Rally candidate Marine Le Pen." This reads oddly to me, and clearly Le Pen is a "right-wing candidate" by any normal "two wings" criterion, and in that poll he's not ahead of her. I'm not sure if the intended implication is that Le Pen isn't right wing, but some sort of Third Position, or simply that if she's Far-Right, she's somehow not also Right. Perhaps it would be clearer to say "the centre-right candidates" (though some might wonder if that includes Macron), "the more moderate right-wing candidates", "the candidates of The Republicans", or some such rephrasing? As the article is of course IPproof, I'll leave the best fix up to the judgement of the logged-in. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It's what the source says though [17]. But I agree that it's not satisfactory ; we would need to find other sources. JBchrch talk 12:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point, that's exactly the headline. But the article body then says (via google translate, apologies, but my rusty school French would be no improvement) "This is the main lesson of our Ipsos / Sopra Steria poll for Le Parisien-Today in France and France Info: with 15% of the voting intentions, the essayist is ahead for the first time the candidate LR whoever he is. either (Xavier Bertrand, Valérie Pécresse or Michel Barnier) and follows Marine Le Pen, credited with 16% -17%." So on that basis, I think it can faithfully be expanded to something along the lines of my third suggested, above. An additional source would indeed be nice, however. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Le Pen and National Rally are usually considered far-right, not right wing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

They are indeed (considered and are) far-right, but as I say, by its very nature it's a binary metaphor. It's an awkward construction at best to rely on it being clear that the logic is they're "too right-wing to be right-wing", and not some other criterion (or artefact of sloppy writing). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think what is meant by "right-wing candidates" in this context are those like Barnier etc that are standing for Les Republicans, rather than Le Pen and RN. Maybe that could be made more clear. Hemiauchenia (talk)

I did not have the time to complete this task today but if you look up the poll on google, you find other news sources interpreting it without using this weird language. We would probably need to use those. JBchrch talk 02:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it could be much more clear. The sentence eventually conveys more-or-less the correct meaning, but with a sense of double-take and why-did-we-get-here-like-that. Additional sources might be helpful, but as I say above it's a strange paraphrase even of this one. While the article title refers to "the right" (as distinct from the "right-wing candidates", not necessarily exactly the same connotation), the article body is much clearer -- "le candidat LR quel qu’il soit (Xavier Bertrand, Valérie Pécresse ou Michel Barnier)". If we use something close to that wording, I think we're good. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on the description of Eric Zemmour's trials and the categorisation thereof

Eric Zemmour has been involved with several trials, generally for contrversial statements he has made, often for hate speech. Some of these he has lost, others he has won and others are still underway. As I have mentioned here [18] [19] [20] and edited here [21], I consider the section on his trials, and the formatting thereof, unbalanced in favour of Zemmour, as it puts subsections for the trials he won, but not for those he lost or for those still underway. Munci (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the section is unbalanced. I think it would need a better structure that is less black-and-white, such as describing the cases chronologicaly. However, if he's managed (somehow) to win a number of cases those cases should still be described accordingly. The lead to the section makes it seem as if he hasn't lost a single one, however, which is not true. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 06:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was much more unbalanced until the 6 cases he won (against 2 lost) were very recently only introduced (see talk page ["Cases_before_French_jurisdictions"|above topic section]).
Before that, the section was only dealing with his 2 cases lost: 100% against WP:NEUTRAL.
The section gives still more importance to the cases lost, insisting on and describing them much more than the cases won. Against WP:WEIGHT.
How do you suggest to address a strict balance and neutral presentation?
--Emigré55 (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the best way to do so is to not have a separate section for the lawsuits he's won and instead include them chronologically within the same section. See WP:CSECTION for general guidance on this. In addition, all the sentences after the first one of the lead do not seem to belong there, except for the one about the pending lawsuit in the European court. An additional sentence with the number of lawsuits he's been a part of could also work there if there is felt a need for more text in the section lead. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 06:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Also just a friendly reminder to perhaps venture into other parts of WP Emigré55. Basically all your edits over the last month are on the Zemmour article, talk page, or in the user talk pages of users in matters related to eric zemmour, and you might be falling into certain unmovable opinions and aggressive editing patterns that are not your intention but might discourage other users from the project. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz, is there anything wrong in concentrating at the time being on an article which was, and still is to a large extend, unbalanced? If you look with attention at my edits, you will realise that they were ONLY intended in balancing the presentation of an article and of a BLP. Not pushing any POV, contrary to other editors. and supporting also other's edits (and/or comments in this talk page) when balanced, far from the "unmovable opinions and aggressive editing patterns" which you seem to accuse me, which definitely are not my intention (but might be from others, as I fear to have noticed recently, and as could transpire from some other's edits), as you rightly then write.

Have you also thought that I myself be discouraged by your comment? is this the aim of it? As to your suggestion, I am retired from other contributions, for the reasons explained on my page, which I encourage you to read. You will realise how discouraged I have been precisely to contribute. In other fields at the time. I hope this will not be the case here, and precisely not coming from you. Sincerely, --Emigré55 (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Discouraging you was not my aim. All I was saying is that editors, including me, if they spend too much time on a single article tend to become increasingly contentious (similar to falling into WP:OWN, but don't take that as me diagnosing policy). In any case, claiming as a blanket statement that other editors are pushing POVs and purposefully unbalancing the article while claiming you are entirely free of bias is illogical. We all have some bias, the important part is to respect a consensus that may or may not be against our intuitions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 08:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was 100% unbalanced, reporting ONLY about his 2 convictions, in somewhat aggressive terms, before the introduction of subsections, to differentiate cases lost and won (is this wrong? if you think so, why should it be, as opposed to a strict chronology which does not weigh and differentiate the cases?), and a second subsection written early october to reflect the 6 cases he won against his political opponents.
The second subsection represents now approximately 66% of the whole section (unless I am mistaken), against the fist section which still represents 33% of the whole section.
Whereas 2 cases lost, out of 8 in total, should logically represent not more than approximately 25%, not 33%, so that WP:WEIGHT is respected in this whole section.
What do you suggest to cut in the first sub-section to now truly balance the whole section? --Emigré55 (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Balance is not measured in percentages. For a suggestion however, I suggest describing the cases chronologically. Having a "he won" "he lost" division encourages a type of he-said/she-said argumentation that encourages bias and preconceived notions of who is right and wrong. For another instance of me encouraging this change see my third bullet-point here.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 08:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Why should balance not be measured in percentages?? is there a rule preventing it? Isn't it the most neutral way to balance presentation of facts, without giving too much, and hence, undue, proportion and importance to one or several in a mere description? If not by percentages, by which other measure then, according to you? --Emigré55 (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Utilizing only percentages would be falling under the McNamara fallacy. Due proportion is not only a quantitative assesment. In this case, for example, I would argue that the important part of Zemmour's legal conflicts is not that he's won or lost n lawsuit, but the fact that he is very frequently the target of such lawsuits. That indicates that he is an unusually controversial and inappropriately-spoken public figure. Thus, I'd write about that in the section, if sources support the characterization (to avoid WP:OR). In any case, there is no one measure upon which neutrality can be held against. It is by definition a grey line found by consensus and reliable expertise. In addition, with regards to hyper-specific rules, WP:5P5 WP:IGNORE. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 10:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT does not mention your rhetoric theory of the MacNamara fallacy.

It says, on the contrary: "Due and undue weight[edit source]:

• Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
  
• Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. (...)
• Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements(...)."

What was exactly the situation of the first sub section. And unfortunately still is, even after introduction of the second subsection: It is still being given , way over the facts of the second section and their mere descriptions, and hence given an "undue weight", as the third sentence of the rule thereof however outlaws.
Adopting a chronological order would not change this either.
What do you suggest to do to correct this situation, according to the rule as reminded thereof? --Emigré55 (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what your question/point is Emigré55. I'm well aware of WP:WEIGHT, there's no need to be patronizing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not patronizing. This is not my intention. Just reminding all pertinent aspects of the rule, for all readers also, who might not have read it. And to be precise in my wording, for the sake of clarity of my description of the situation, which in my opinion exactly fits the descrition, in italics, of the rule. So, rephrasing my question could be: What to do to correct the "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements" of the first sub section, which is presently given an "undue weight", because of them?--Emigré55 (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

But what exactly do you feel is being given undue weight, Emigré55? Is there too much/too little coverage of his lawsuits as a whole, too much/too little of the ones he won, too much/too little of the ones he lost, too much/too little of the context within French civil law? Without a specific answer to these questions I cannot continue the discussion. From my perspective, both Munci and I think that there is a bias in favor of him in the section, regardless of coverage. And additionally, I personally believe one way to help this issue would be to restructure the section. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz, I thought my previous comment was clear: The first sub paragraph has too much coverage, relative to the second, i.e., "undue weight" is given to his convictions. And the whole section "Cases before French jurisdictions" is given "undue weight" relative to the section on his "Overview of his political ideas", as well as to the whole article. So the bias now in or of this whole section (as is) is not in favour of, but obviously against Zemmour. Personally, I don't see how "restructuring" only the section would help in that regard. Either you present the cases against him, as was the case since this section was created, and balance then with the cases in favour of him, or you adopt a chronological order. But you will still need to reduce in both cases the relative "undue weight" of the cases against him. Please, explain if you see another way to improve neutrality and also undue weight of the whole section relative to the whole article.--Emigré55 (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I disagree Emigré55. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 06:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverts by Emigré55

Emigré55, you recently reverted an edit I made to fix grammar and improve readability of content you wrote diff. Furthermore, you removed my wording in this diff. In regards to this, it makes no sense for Zemmour to pursue alliances with Russia as an individual, if he is to do so he must do it either through a company or through a state. Finally, you removed the better source tag I added here while citing a source of dubious quality. I am tagging you here so we can discuss this before I ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Particularly, I wish to improve the readability and reduce the number of quotes MOS:QUOTE and instead rephrase them as descriptions of his views, but I fear you would instantly just revert any edits made by anyone to do this. Additionally, I would expect you to act similarly to those tagging your edits with needing a better source. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this article relies too much on quote and, generally, on primary sources. JBchrch talk 14:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the first edit, the real problem is that this section is sourced to trash sources, which I will now try to improve. Regarding the second diff I agree with Émigré55, Zemmour has been expressing political opinions for a long time, without any link to actual political action. Regarding the third diff, I agree with placing the tag, but it would have been better and less controversial to just find another source. JBchrch talk 14:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz,

• for each of your modification I reverted, I explained at length why, here (« quotes are necessary in order not to report his positons wrongly; to my best knowledge, he has not stated that he is "against ..the existence of NATO", just that it should have been dissolved at a precise point of time, for precise reasons. Your edit is OR on that point. Will add also later the reference asked » ) and here (« "if elected": no. this is again OR. He has been advocating this position for a long time, even when he was not a candidate to the presidency. asking, suggesting, or promoting such alliances from the powers in place, not saying then he would do it "if elected").
• « I would expect you to act similarly to those tagging your edits with needing a better source. “ : I also added a reference you asked, here , and another one here.

So, I am surprised (even a bit shocked to be frank) that you wrote in the title of this section that my reverts are “unproductive”. TY to JBchrch to have removed this undeserved, if not unfair, qualificative[22]

• « In regards to this, it makes no sense for Zemmour to pursue alliances with Russia as an individual”: I never claimed that. Only that he supported these ideas for a long time and asked/recommended them to be implemented by powers in place. And that it was not only “if he gets elected”, as you wrote, which was OR.
• « reduce the number of quotes » & « (...) but I fear you would instantly just revert any edits made by anyone to do this”. 1/ Please give me the credit of WP:FAITH before accusing me that way. 2/ I find the changes made by JBchrch very constructive, very intelligent and with value added (new refs he also looked for and found), and will not revert them. This also not the first time that I find others edits not only acceptable but interesting and bringing value added.
  

Finally, I would like to add that I have introduced the sections on Zemmour's political ideas at the end of September, somewhat reorganised them, waiting for others to bring input, which did not happen. I started then, slowly, to improve and substantiate them, as they should be more important than controversies, as was and still is the case now in this article. --Emigré55 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz May I ask you to please try to be careful about your tone on this talk page? This is not the first time that you have leveled a comment directly at Emigré55, and I think that neither the scope of the content dispute nor Émigré55's behavior really warrants that. JBchrch talk 00:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch That is a fair assessment. I got inflamed by them reverting my edit or removing wording I added without first discussing it in the talk page. For example, after the discussion above on the second diff you were able to pitch in and consensus was produced to remove that particular wording. Seeing how you and other editors have since covered many issues I think the best thing here would be for me to step away from Zemmour's article. As a last comment before I do, though, I would encourage Emigré55 to use better sources in the future and reduce the use of quotes and bullet point-type grammar. It should not have to be where you or other editors have to then go back and find reputable sources for their edits, summarize the information contained there-in, or remove opinions by far-right sources (such as Hemiauchenia did here). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 06:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)