Misplaced Pages

Talk:Frédéric Mitterrand: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:44, 9 October 2009 editOff2riorob (talk | contribs)80,325 editsm →Mitterrand's autobiography "The Bad Life"← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:42, 21 June 2024 edit undoCFA (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,369 editsm Repairing missing living parameter on articles tagged with WikiProject AfroCreatives (via WP:JWB) 
(141 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{NOINDEX}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=no|class=Start|listas=Mitterrand, Frederic|1=
{{Talkheader}}
{{WikiProject Biography
{{WPBiography
|living=yes
|class=Stub
|priority=
|filmbio-work-group=yes |filmbio-work-group=yes
|needs-infobox=yes ||politician-work-group=yes
|listas=Mitterrand, Frederic
|auto=yes}} |auto=yes}}
{{WikiProject France|class=stub}} {{WikiProject France}}
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|person=y}}
{{LGBTProject|class=Stub}}
{{WikiProject Politics}}
{{Television|class=stub}}
{{WikiProject AfroCreatives}}
{{WP Politics|class=stub}}
}}
{{Controversial}}
{{NOINDEX}}

{{Archive box|]
== Someone with edit privileges correct this typo ===
}}

{{ITN note|Frédéric Mitterrand|date=24 March 2024}}
Mitterrand, who '''is is''' openly bisexual, <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{done}}. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 01:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

== Comments about ] ==

I have removed these, as they carry ] when balanced against the rest of Mitterrand's career. His comments are notable, but are more suited to the article on Polanski's recent arrest. ] (]) 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

== His children and sexual orientation==

This comment has been added and now reads...

He is openly bisexual and has three sons: Mathieu, Said and Jihed

this is just wrong, the children bit is worthless and looks uncited, why are his three children in the same phrase as his sexuality?
The children are not even worth a mention. ] (]) 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I dislike all the sexual tagging, he is not allowed to be a french actor, he has to be a lesbian, bisexual or gay french actor, what rubbish, he is not notable for his sexual tastes, he is notable as a writer, as a politician and whatever. ] (]) 21:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:A person's sexual orientation and family are very relevant to their life. A biography is about a person's life as a whole, not just his career. He is openly bi and there are LGBT themes in his work; the categorisation is correct. We don't ] info for anyone's benefit, a bio should be a full account of the subject's life. How can you claim it is irrelevant to a person's life that he has 3 children? ] (]) 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is not controversial at all. why is it controversial? Also please cite for me that he has three children and why it is very relevent? Are any of them notable in their own right? no, so why do we need to name them> we don't. Also remove the childrens name from the single phrase that includes his sexuality. ] (]) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Where I come from we treat people with respect and consider their talents first , their sexuality is their own buisness. he is a french actor and yet you only add french bgl actor. why is that? ] (]) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the sexuality from the children sentence, and moved it to a slightly more relevant place. I don't see the value in the children's names either. ] (]) 21:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:I have moved the 3children to a seperate section, family life..the childrens names should also go. ] (]) 21:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He is a controversial figure, and meets the Misplaced Pages definition of that due to the frequent recent additions which are reverted and added back and forth. ] (]) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:No he is not, he is a normal person doing his thing, the roman polanski fall out is affecting half a dozen articles and this is one of them, that does not make this person controversial at all. ] (]) 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::He is controversial not merely due to his connection to Polanksi - look at this article's history. ] (]) 22:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I added relevant, correct cats. The subject chose to make his sexual orientation ''everyone's'' business by going into public life, coming out and utilising LGBT themes in his work. ] (]) 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:Well perhaps it is more important to you than to him. I have looked at the history, there is nothing controversial about the history at all. I find that what you did by adding his childrens name to the same phrase as his sexuality controversial. ] (]) 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A subject's children are relevant, whether notable on not, hence why non-notable children (and parents, siblings, spouses) are mentioned on thousands of bios. A bio is an overview of a person's life, not merely their career. To not include a subject's children is a major omission when they exist. Their names are not excessive detail; in fact, there should be more info on the article about each of them: place of birth, year of birth, name of mother. ] (]) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:Absolutely not. Per ] the names etc of relatives are not used unless there is a compelling reason to do so. ] (]) 22:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

==His defense of Polanski==
I agree that Frédéric Mitterrand is obviously a controversial person. (telegraph.co.uk) is only one of the many controversies he has been involved in. The Polanski incident is not the first time he defends pedophilia, he been under harsh criticism from other French politicians before. ] (]) 22:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:"On Tuesday, the opposition Socialists joined the chorus of outrage. Benoît Hamon, the party spokesman, said: “As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking.” (from the article linked above). ] (]) 22:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

::Reporting of the accusations by the right wing daughter of pen, related to the book that has been released as fiction and pen is interpreting as fact and on which this link is reporting is nothing but, well..fiction. ] (]) 22:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:::This is incorrect. You are making a straw man argument. ] (]) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:::I suppose Le Pen is a socialist? "The Socialist party, the main opposition, said that it was appalled that the apparent practitioner of pedophile abuse was serving as a Cabinet Minister. "I find it shocking that a man can justify sex tourism under the cover of a literary account," said Benoît Hamon, a senior Socialist. ] (]) 22:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

== The Polanski related BLP violation edit ==

If it is not reverted I am going to report it. ] (]) 22:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:Don't be so bloody ridiculous. This case is making international headlines and he is about to loose his job. It certainly needs to be mentioned in the article. ] (]) 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::We can wait until the dust has settled as far as ]s go. Young might not mean illegal too. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Agreed, for BLP, lets see where this goes to, or not, whatever way it goes. ] (]) 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:::: Also, please be aware of not breaking BLP in comments. There are several on this page that directly accuse the subject of doing illegal things without evidence. 22:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::He has been in the news for weeks for his defense of Polanski. Internationally, he's mostly known for the pedophilia-related controversy that involves his defense of Polanski. BLP does not apply in this case, all the information is from reliable sources (actually The Times and The Daily Telegraph, countless other sources can be found). ] (]) 22:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

== Protected ==

As a result of a request at ], I have protected this page until such time as the dispute is resolved. ] (]) 23:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

==Suggest reinstating previous version==
I suggest the is reinstated. The content is supported by ] and is relevant – Mitterrand is internationally mostly known for this incident. There are no valid reasons (i.e. reasons supported by Misplaced Pages policy) to remove it. ] (]) 23:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:Absolutely outrageous that this is not mentioned ] 2009-10-08 00:55 (GMT) <small><edited comment to remove a claim that was made as a statement of fact and is therefore libelous, rather than as a reported opinion or allegation. ] (]) 10:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)></small>
:: Where is the RS, per BLP, for paedophilia? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 04:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Please refrain from making straw man comments. All the information is sourced (The Daily Telegraph and The Times). It has never been claimed in the article that Mitterrand is a pedophile, the article has, and must, address his comments on the pedophilia case involving Polanski, who is ''convicted'' of child sexual abuse, as well as the recent controversy in France involving calls from several parties including the main opposition party (socialists) for his resignation. This is not a trivial incident, but a major political scandal that urgently needs to be covered by the article. ] (]) 05:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Btw: "The Socialist party, the main opposition, said that it was appalled that the apparent practitioner of pedophile abuse was serving as a Cabinet Minister" (). ] (]) 05:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
'''Agree''': It is well documented and quite notable. Indeed, it is at the heart of his international fame and is at the center of a French political maelstrom. Ignoring its reality is irresponsible.] (]) 15:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

While the section heading is clearly inappropriate, and probably should be changed to something like "Sex Tourism Controversy," the extensive press coverage makes the notability of the controversy clear. The BBC, within the last few hours, reported not only the details of the controversy, as well as a commentator's suggestion that the dispute will affect European negotiations over supressing the sex trade with Thailand. Mitterand doesn't dispute the central charges, although he does challenge the interpretation of his references to having paid for sex with "boys" as implying underaged males. The Polanski controversy needs to be mentioned only briefly and as the matter which touched off renewed attention to Mitterand's prior statements. ] (]) 16:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
: The section heading clearly fails BLP policy and was the main reason for the removal. The whole thing could do with a bit of fine tuning, but the heading is just wrong. Accusations of vandalism are unfounded. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::The section heading was never intended and could not reasonable be interpreted as an accusation of pedophilia against Mitterrand. Rather, it was meant as a summary of the main topic of the controversy, including his defense of a film maker convicted of sex with a child. The word pedophilia has been used by reliable sources like The Times in connection with the recent incident. However, the section heading itself was a minor issue at least to me. If you disagreed with the section heading, you could have changed just the section heading or suggested an alternative. All the contents of the section were supported by the two sources (The Daily Telegraph and The Times). ] (]) 17:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

:::(EC)''"Sex Tourism Controversy"'' is an acceptable compromise, and more accurately indicates the greater issues at the heart of it. Are we now ready to return the prose with the objectionable header sorted out? = ] (]) 17:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::I agree, but I'd add that the text, as written, seems to come from a strong POV, even when compared to the sources. The "young boys" claim needs to be placed in context per Mitterrand's explanation, and there is some support for Mitterrand which is lacking. I also agree that this should be separated a bit from Polanski, which is a minor issue in context - a trigger, but potentially little more. - ] (]) 17:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::: Totally agree with Bilby. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::::That's a ridiculous and unfounded accusation. Please prove it. The text had the same tone and used the same expressions as The Times and The Daily Telegraph, the two sources. It may be your opinion that The Times holds "a strong POV", but that would be OR. ] (]) 17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::I'm not suggesting that The Times has a POV, but the text as previously inserted does. In The Times they stated Mitterrand's assertion that the "young boys" were not underage. Leaving that out is a significant problem with the proposed text. They also mentioned the credit the book gained upon release. In The Telegraph there was mention of ]'s support of Mitterrand, which is also missing, and I suspect other support will, or has, emerged. The proposed text only mentions one side and leaves open the suggestion that the "young boys" were underage, which is by no means necessarily the case. - ] (]) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

:I would suggest a header with the book name and then a little bla bla about the book and then a couple of comments regarding the recent comments from le pen and perhaps something from another source and a rebuttal of some sort from Mitterand, I have a cite I read where the book is claimed to be literacy fantasy and not a factual representation.] (]) 17:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The book, the rent boys and the support of Polanski are certainly all of international notability, having been reported quite prominently in the mainstream media in several countries. The Times and The Telegraph are certainly both reliable, mainstream national newspapers with a sizeable readership. ] (]) 18:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

== Edit request ==

{{tlx|editprotected}}
The three childrens names are surplus to requirements, they have no notability of their own and require a bit of protection in this situation, the names need removing. ] (]) 17:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:If the names are removed, the fact he has three sons should remain in this article; it is relevant biographical info. ] (]) 18:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::Perhaps if you want that to stay in the article you could find a citation for it, thanks. ] (]) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::: Agree, it should be removed until sourced, and only basic info (-names) should be included from the source. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
*{{done}} <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

== Sentence for sentence; please show us the evidence that the text is not correct ==

Some users have insisted that the section on the sex tourism controversy is "highly libellous" and not supported by its sources. However, they have so far refused to back up their claims. Unless we are soon shown some evidence, I will consider these accusations to be dismissed once and for all.

Sentence for sentence:

"In 2005, he wrote a book where he admitted paying for sex with "young boys" in Thailand. "
:"Frédéric Mitterrand admitted to paying for sex with 'young boys’ in Thailand", this is even the heading of the Telegraph article, with further details below. The sentence is directly based upon the Telegraph article.

"After he emerged as one of the most vociferous defenders of Roman Polanski, who was convicted of having sex with a minor in the United States and who was arrested in 2009, Mitterrand came under harsh criticism from both the right-wing and the left-wing in French politics, and both the right-wing Front National and the Socialist Party called for his resignation. Socialist party spokesman Benoît Hamon stated: “As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking.”"
:Well, just read the two sources. What exactly do you dispute here?

] (]) 18:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::I think we're beyond that now. There seems to be consensus for the edit with minimal changes.] (]) 18:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

:Where is this consensus? Regarding the edit..I would say that just sticking in peodo this and peodo that gives it undue weight, we are not here to titilate, a full rounded encyclopaedic comment should be added, as I said with the context added, if it is all about what was in the book then give a synopsis of the book to explain what it is all about and then a rounded explanation of the comments from le pen and some other relevent details, not just...in a book he said he pays for children and he supports the other ... polanski. ] (]) 18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::''Consensus'', '''not''' unanimous consent. It'll be fine O2R, we're tweaking it now.] (]) 18:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:::We? ] (]) 18:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::::The community. You, I, them. ''We''. - ] (]) 19:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::There is no consensus for the proposed text. There doesn't even appear to be a majority. We need to give it more time - Misplaced Pages is not news, and we can afford to take a bit longer to get this right. - ] (]) 22:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

== Edit request ==

{{tlx|editprotected}}
There seems to be a clear consensus to reinstate with the heading changed to "Sex tourism controversy", per the discussion above. ] (]) 19:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:I do not think this edit should be replaced at all, the edit carries undue weight to comments made in a book that is not expanded on at all. ] (]) 20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::: I also don't think it should be reinstated ''as it is currently phrased'' because it is not ] and doesn't clarify by giving the context and Frédéric Mitterrand's side, although I do think the "controversy" ''does'' need to be included in the article. A couple of points that I think are important to include are
:::* According to the BBC, "the account of cruising for prostitutes in Thailand ''attracted little attention'' when it was published in 2005" . So the recent controversy the passage in the book has attracted is ''only'' in the context of Frédéric Mitterrand's support for Polanski. It's also in the context of a political rival making an allegation for political reasons. Prior to that there hadn't been a controversy for 4 years of the book's life. For that reason, ''the context that the controversy is only in relation to his support of Polanski needs to be included'', as well as who initiated the controversy (it was only ''"after a leader of the far-right National Front launched a tirade"'', according to the Associated Press ). Claiming that the passage of the book has been controversial without that context would be untrue.
:::* It's worth noting that in the book he refers to one of these "young boys" he was attracted to as being 20 years old (''"J'imaginais Tony Leung à vingt ans"'' - the "controversial" passage is published in Le Monde ). Also, he has said that the term "boys" was used loosely and that ''"each time I was with people who were my age, or who were five years younger — there wasn't the slightest ambiguity"'' ; by which he means they were not underage. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, Mitterrand's clarification of the meaning of "young boys" and clarification that they were not underage needs to be included in the same sentence or immediately before or after the accusation.
:::Whatever anyone's personal feelings, Misplaced Pages needs to represent both sides of the "story" and make sure it's not given undue weight. ] (]) 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this material should be included in some form, but not this one. I '''oppose''' this request. The text should be workshopped on the page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 21:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:I share the concerns. The POV problems have yet to be addressed, and this needs discussion before any change can be made. - ] (]) 21:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

*{{notdone}} Clearly no consensus for changing the wording to that. Please hammer out an exact wording that a consensus can agree upon. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

== The new version ==


== External links modified ==
We are all in agreement that this needs inclusion in some way, so offer something up for inclusion, I was thinking to try to write something balanced tomorrow. ] (]) 23:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::If we are now suddenly all in agreement that it should be included, then I find it really astonishing that certain editors have engaged in personal attacks, disruptive vendetta sprees on numerous pages (I've lost count), and false accusations against other editors for alleged "BLP violation" by reporting factual, The Times-sourced news stories, all in order to have any mention of this "highly libellous"(!) case removed from the article. We already have a balanced version. You've had the opportunity to suggest changes to the text all the time, of course, or suggest a completely different text for that sake. ] (]) 23:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
:::Latest reports.. , ] (]) 02:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091011095633/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/story/0,25197,26184126-2703,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26184126-2703,00.html
::::Thanks for the link. The article establishes the proper context: ''"A senior French politician, who jumped to the defense of Roman Polanski, appeared on national television to deny he's a pedophile after he wrote about paying boys for sex in a book."'' Of course we should include statements he makes in defense of himself. However, the fact that he claims "I never committed pedophilia" does not make the controversy go away, it's still there, and it's relevant. We should report what critics say and what he says in defense of himself. It is especially relevant that the main opposition party (socialists) has called for his resignation. I also think this article clearly establishes that the original section heading was not uncalled for and was not in any way a BLP violation, this is a controversy widely described by reliable sources as a controversy over pedophilia (i.e. over his comments on the Polanski pedophilia case and over his statements in his book). ] (]) 03:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
:::Urban, your version is not balanced. The original edit that you made and are trying to get reinstated made absolutely no attempt at all to present Mitterand's side of the story, literally not one single word. You chose to edit war over that wording instead of attempting to collaborate to find a compromise, which is why the article is protected. ] is clear, you cannot add a criticism section to someone's article and make ''no effort at all'' to present their side of the story. The section needs to be "written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article ''or appear to take sides''; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and ''in a neutral'', encyclopedic tone. Be careful ''not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints''". You gave 100% of the space to one viewpoint and chose a non-neutral heading and the article is protected because of your attempt to do that. I suggest that you work to come up with a neutral wording that complies with BLP and also presents Mitterand's side, rather than trying to get your original wording reinserted. ] (]) 10:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Please refrain from making false accusations. I did never "chose to edit war over that wording", the edit war was started by User:Verbal. I have ''never'' insisted on any particular wording and has always been open to discussion of both the wording of the section and the heading. I have only reverted mass content deletion per policy. If an editor held the opinion that not sufficient weight was given to Mitterrand's point of view, he should have made changes or suggested changes to the wording instead of deleting content in contravention of Misplaced Pages policy. The initial version was only a summary of how the case was presented by most mainstream, English language ] and thus perfectly neutral, btw. (although there have since been some developments that should be included as well). ] (]) 10:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::It's not a false accusation: text added , your revert , your revert , page protected for edit warring . That you were edit warring ''with someone else'' does not mean you weren't edit warring. Your original edit was not neutral, the reason it was not was best explained by Bilby here and here as well as for the reasons I gave above (literally not one single word of Mitterand's side of the story. Entirely, 100% and exclusively one sided: biased, which is contrary to BLP). Your argument is that ''because you used a reliable source'', your edit ''was thus neutral''. That is not true, the reason your edit is biased is because it uses a reliable source ''but only uses material from that source that represents only one side of the story and deliberately ignores the material in that source that represents the other side of the story''. ] (]) 12:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Utterly false. ] (]) 15:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
=== Section title for new version ===
I suggest '''Sex controversy''' as the section title. ] (]) 10:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 14:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
:As I have stated before, the wording of the heading is a minor issue at least to me. Sex controversy, sex tourism controversy as suggested by others, pedophilia controversy, or something else (Polanski and sex tourism controversy?), don't make a big difference. ] (]) 11:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
==More sources==
Here are some more sources, which clearly demonstrate both that this urgently needs to be mentioned in the article, and that the original heading "Pedophilia controversy" was perfectly OK - this is indeed a controversy over the issue of pedophilia. "Pedophilia controversy" does not mean Mitterrand is a pedophile, it only means he is implicated in a controversy concerning pedophilia (his support of Polanski, who is convicted of such acts, and the allegations against himself), a fact that is supported by numerous reliable sources and has received worldwide attention; he is primarily known internationally in connection with this incident. ] (]) 07:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
* (inthenews.co.uk)
* (The Daily Mirror)
* (The Independent)
* (euronews)
* (The Daily Telegraph)
* (The Independent)
* (Reuters)
* (The Scotsman)
* (New York magazine)
* (Press Association)
* (The Daily Telegraph)
* (euronews)
* (LA Times)
* (TIME)
* (theage.com.au)
* (New York Times)
* (Associated Press)
* (Daily Mail)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:: These examples that you've produced to attempt to show that your original heading of "Paedophilia controversy" (that lead to edit warring and the protection of the article ) was a good title to use in the Misplaced Pages article proves instead that only 6 out of 18 articles mention paedophile in their heading (only 33%). The publications in your list that use the word paedophile in their titles also have other articles that describe the same controversy but ''don't'' use the word paedophile in their title (eg. The Independent: ), so the same list can be constructed with 0 out of 18 of the articles using the word paedophile in their title (0%). This list demonstrates the opposite of what you are trying to demonstrate. It demonstrates that "Pedophilia controversy" is a bad choice of heading. ] (]) 10:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100523091945/http://www.arte.tv/de/Die-wilden-Seventies/2139232.html to http://www.arte.tv/de/Die-wilden-Seventies/2139232.html
:::I don't understand how you get to that conclusion. The links prove that "pedophilia controversy" is ''not'' in any way a BLP violation. Whether we in the end should use "pedophilia controversy", "sex tourism controversy", "sex controversy" or something else (i.e. which title is better) is irrelevant because it's a completely different matter. A title considered less fortunate by some editors is not necessarily a BLP violation. ] (]) 10:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
::::I need to correct my figures above. One of the articles that you claim has a title involving the word paedophilia doesn't have that title. The TIME article title is rather than the title you claim "French Culture Minister Mitterrand in Pedophilia Row". So the figures are that only 5 out 18 articles that use a title involving the word paedophilia (rather than 6 out of 18). Over 70% of the titles you gave as examples don't use paedophile in their titles. This demonstrates that, based on your list of article titles, "Paedophilia controversy" would not be a normal (neutral, unbiased) choice for a section title. ] (]) 12:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Incorrect, the TIME title is "French Culture Minister Mitterrand in Pedophilia Row – TIME", check it yourself. Apparently, the title has been changed in the body (which stricly speaking isn't the title of the page as a web page), while the head title still is "French Culture Minister Mitterrand in Pedophilia Row – TIME", the original title. Your figures are completely irrelevant, this is a random selection of articles only meant to demonstrate that the word pedophilia has been used by a number of sources in connection with this incident, percentages have no relevance and making your figures is OR. ] (]) 15:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
== Mitterand's autobiography "The Bad Life" ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
This is a good title for the new section regarding this situation, I am today going to write a small section to offer for inclusion, if anyone else also wants to write something to also offer that would be great. ] (]) 12:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
===Mitterrand's autobiography "The Bad Life"===
Mitterrand's autobiography "The Bad Life" or "La mauvaise vie" the original French title was a best seller in 2005. In the book he details his "delight" whilst visiting the ] of ]. In the book he wrote, "I got into the habit of paying for boys ... The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire I no longer needed to restrain or hide," At the time Mitterrand was applauded for his honesty, but since he publicly defended Roman Polanski when he was detained in Switzerland on an American extradition warrant for having sex with a thirteen year old girl, he has had to defend his writings.
On October 5th 2009 ] of the ] quoted sections of the autobiography on French television, accused him of having sex with underage boys and "]" and demanded Mitterrand resign his position as culture minister. In his defence Mitterand stated, "I condemn sexual tourism, which is a disgrace. I condemn ], which I have never in any way participated in." <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/10/08/2009-10-08_french_pol_.html|title=French pol Mitterrand forced to clarify 'sex with boys' comments after he defends Roman Polanski|publisher=NYDailyNews.com|accessdate=October9th, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26184126-2703,00.html|title='Bad life' haunts Frederic Mitterrand|publisher=the australian news|accessdate=october9th, 2009}}</ref>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 13:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
'''Oppose'''. No consensus. ] (]) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:Hi, what are your problems with the edit, do you like it? ] (]) 16:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
::The section title is inappropriate, because the reason this issue warrants a section is the controversy itself, which involves more than just the book that was published several years ago. Without his defense of Polanski, there wouldn't be a controversy at this time. Also, the text is dishonest, because it suggests he has only been criticized by Marine Le Pen, while he has in fact been criticized by politicians from the entire French political spectrum, notably by the Socialist Party, but even by other members of his own government, as well as by other parties, and the case has received worldwide attention, which the text fails to convey. ] (]) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::The original critical comments were from le pen, we could add another if there is someone who is relevent, who would you suggest? ] (]) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::It was also suggested on the BLP board that the polanski story be kept to a comment here. ] (]) 16:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::It is actually the book that is the source of all the controversy here, he supported polanski, that is not controversial and his support caused the book to be brought up for discussion, it is not his support of polanski that is the issue here at all, it is the comments Mitterrand made in his autobiography in 2005. ] (]) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:42, 21 June 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frédéric Mitterrand article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Actors and Filmmakers / Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
WikiProject iconFrance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies: Person
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.
WikiProject iconPolitics
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAfroCreatives
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject AfroCreatives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of AfroCreatives articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfroCreativesWikipedia:WikiProject AfroCreativesTemplate:WikiProject AfroCreativesAfroCreatives
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:
Archiving icon
Archives

Archive 1


An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events.
Notice date: 24 March 2024. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frédéric Mitterrand. 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.—Talk to my owner:Online 14:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frédéric Mitterrand. 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) 13:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Frédéric Mitterrand: Difference between revisions Add topic