Talk:François Mitterrand

Biography: Politics and Government Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Moved from page

Great projects

As far as I'm aware there were four such 'grande projects' but the Channel Tunnel was not one. I think the fourth is the Opéra Bastille. I'm new to Wiki so thought I should get a consensus before changing it! --Taffioso 13:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're quite right in negating the Chunnel and affirming Bastille. The problem with the "Grands Travaux" is that there were several that didn't amount to much architecturally and/or are in less-visited parts of the city. These would include the Cite de la Musique, and the Ministre de l'Interieur at Bercy. Update should note the Institut du Monde Arabe, and edit the Louvre part to denote that the improvement wasn't just the pyramid, but the addition of the entire Richlieu wing. --Jabberwockyoligarchy 07:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Bercy, this is the Ministère de l'Economie et des Finances, not the Ministère de l'Intérieur (which is at Place Bauveau)

Toubon law

On the downside, his Minister of Culture Jacques Toubon proposed a law that was supposed to protect the French language (March 1994). The law, later known as "Toubon Law" would impose hefty fines on businesses using English words or language in their advertising or slogans.

Factually false. David.Monniaux 10:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taking a lesson from Quebec's Bill 101? The mother country learns from the child... Trekphiler 16:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because : it is pov; and perhaps could belong to an article on Toubon more than on Mitterrand

Toubon needs to be anchored at a meaningful place. It's place in history is reassured for the impact on the vision of cyberspace. Mitterrand is a sure anchorplace.

I understand that. However, I think laws proposed by a specific political personality belongs rather in the page of that person. Not on the page of another. Though possible to discuss the politics followed by a certain governement on the government leader page, I think you would agree there are some limits. I don't think the current politics of the Bush government are all stuffed on Bush page, when the propositions or actions comes from Donald Rumsfeld. I think this is an inappropriate reduction of french politics. If I stretched your reasoning to the last point, all current french politics would be stuffed under Chirac and LePen pages, just because they are the only french political personalities american people know. This is not something I find acceptable.

And really, there are enough things to say about Mitterrand.

Besides, I fail to see how a Toubon proposition could in any way be a "downside" point about Mitterrand. The "downside" is your perception of a law which is not followed by everyone, and I can't see how it would be a "downside" of a person. "Supposed to protect" is pov.

Worst of all Mitterrand has very few responsability for a law that was proposed by a mininister and voted by a parliament that were both opposed to him. Ericd 23:59, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ditto with Ericd: Toubon is a right-wing politician who was minister under a right-wing prime minister supported by a right-wing majority in Parliament. Ascribing his actions to Mitterrand denotes a total absence of understanding of French governmental structures. David.Monniaux 10:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Spelling

This article appears to be in the wrong place. François Mitterrand is not the usual English way of writing Francois Mitterrand, even though it's correct French. Barring objections, I'll move it to the place our normal practice says it should be at. Jamesday 15:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How did you did you determine the usual English way of writing? Looks like Wikipedia always spelled it François Mitterrand, and many English sources spell it that way, unless they don't have the ç in their charset. I'd leave it at François Mitterrand where it is since article names can include ç as well. --User:Docu

A multiple part test. English language keyboards don't contain the ç character, so few English users looking for this person will know how to type it (I used copy and paste here instead of looking it up). Then I looked at links to the article and found 24 using c and 29 ç. Next stop Google searches. .uk 720 using c and 865 ç. English language only, 9560 using c and 8210 ç (quite a lot of these English versions of French sites). .gov 40 using c and 12 ç. .au 138 using c and 64 ç. It's not a really obvious choice but c seems to be what we're most likely to see typed by ordinary Wikipedia users and what is most often used by ordinary people.

Francois Mitterrand redirects to François Mitterrand. So, whichever version you type for your search will get you to the article. olivier 06:28, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

Just a little remark about the character ç and English keyboards : it's possible to type this letter using the ['] key. You just have to type ['] and [c] to get the character "ç"

Personally, I prefer "ç". And you can go into your language listings, change the keyboard, generate every French character, & cut & paste whichever ones you need. (I've got a whole file of Fr, Ger, Greek, Russian...) Trekphiler 16:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How many Rs?

Could editors please confirm for me that Mitterrand is spelt with two 'r's? Is there any legitmate derivation? I ask because of [1] and [2]. Are these legitimate alternative spellings, or mistakes? Help would be greatly appreciated as I'm writing a non-wikipedia article. The JPS 01:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that there is two "r".. It is however a common mistake even in France. Some people remembers that there are two "r" because there were two "reigns" (1981-1988 and than 1988-1995)!

02:21, 19 Feb2006 (UTC)

His wife, Danielle Mitterrrrrand, is a left-wing militant. is POV to me. Not changing it since i am not familiar with her history. pamri 13:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a fairly accurate assessment about Danielle Mitterrand. David.Monniaux 11:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well she did say once that no election was needed in Cuba because Castro was so popular that he would win anyway.--equitor 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replacing the word "militant," because it's clearly crept in from the French, where "militant" as a noun means someone who is a member in a political or labor organization.Jabberwockyoligarchy 04:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"in 1943 he is said to have received the francisque, the honorific distinction of the Vichy regime, which he later denied." I don't think there is disputation that he received the francisque. Mitterrand denied it, but I think there's evidence for it. David.Monniaux 10:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mitterrand first denied but later admitted receiving the francisque. Not sure of the chronology here. I read somewhere, in a book or in an interview by Jacques Laurent (possibly in Jacques Laurent's autobiography) (Jacques Laurent is a French writer who was close to Vichy, known for his right-wing views and who could not be suspected of caring to protect Mitterrand) that Mitterrand had accepted the francisque as part of his "resistant" cover. It is believable. Others had done the same. What makes Mitterrand's francisque potentially more than just a cover for his underground activities is his post-war relationship with the French nazi Bousquet, who was fiercely antisemitic and with whom Mitterrand maintained a friendship. (Patrick Toche, 24 May 2006)

1985 Bombing of Greenpeace Boat

A former head of France's spy agency just said that Mitterrand personally approved the sinking of a Greenpeace ship in a New Zealand harbor in 1985.

I have added this information to the page...here is an AP article about it though there are others. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0710-03.htm

Should articles be sources in the entry itself?

--Fluxaviator 20:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hernu (Minister of Defence) personally approved the sinking of a Greenpeace ship in a New Zealand harbor in 1985. That's the official version... What else ? Some will say that Mitterrand personally approved the sinking, other than he doesn't... As I don't believe that the investigation was much better that it was for JFK assasination I think the truth will remain secret. Ericd 20:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

prominent POV quote removed

Removed:

In December 1942, Mitterrand wrote in the official Vichy journal France, revue de l'État nouveau:

   "If France doesn't want to die in the mud, the last French people worthy of this name must declare a merciless war against all who, here or abroad, are preparing to open floodgates against it: Jews, Freemasons, Communists... always the same, and all of them Gaulists."

   "Si la France ne veut pas mourir dans cette boue là, il faut que les derniers français dignes de ce nom déclarent une guerre sans merci à tous ceux qui, à l'intérieur comme à l'extérieur, se préparent à lui ouvrir les écluses : juifs, maçons, communistes...toujours les mêmes et tous gaullistes".

No time to translate, but here is the source:

Jean Pierre-Bloch, chef de la section non militaire du Bureau central de renseignement et d'action (BCRA, services secrets de la France libre) de 1942 à 1943 puis commissaire adjoint à l'Intérieur, grand-croix de la Légion d'honneur, compagnon de la Libération, explique dans De Gaulle ou le temps des méprises (éd. La Table ronde, 1969, pp. 216/218) : « C'était sur notre ordre que François Mitterrand était resté dans les services de prisonniers de Vichy. Lorsqu'il avait été proposé pour la francisque, nous avions été parfaitement tenus au courant ; nous lui avions conseillé d'accepter cette “distinction” pour ne pas se dévoiler. La calomnie sert toujours ; vingt-cinq ans plus tard, on ressortira les mêmes arguments au cours de la campagne présidentielle [qu'à Londres et Alger en 1943 et 1944]. Les services gaullistes ont de la suite dans les idées. [...] Mitterrand fut même proposé pour être compagnon de la Libération, mais les titres de Résistance n'ont quelquefois rien à voir avec cette décoration. Ni résistants ni combattants, on trouve sur le Livre d'or des Compagnons de la Libération les noms de héros qui n'ont jamais quitté leur bureau de Londres. On l'a donné à quelques hommes de gauche, mais ils se comptent sur les doigts. Même Gaston Defferre, qui fut chef de réseau, n'est pas Compagnon de la Libération, et combien d'autres, tout comme François Mitterrand, l'auraient mérité cent fois et pourtant ne l'ont jamais eu. »'

Testimony of the director of the Free France secret service (1942-43) that Mitterrand was spying for them at the Vichy government, stayed there only because of an express order, and accepted the Francisque as a part of his cover. Jules LT 00:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Pierre-Bloch, chief of the non-military section of the central intelligence and action office (BCRA, Free France Secret Service) from 1942 to 1943 then assistant commissary at the Intérieur ministery, bearer of the grand-croix de la Légion d'honneur, member of the "compagnon de la Libération" association, explains in "De Gaulle ou le temps des méprises" (De Gaulle, the time of misunderstandings) (éd. La Table ronde, 1969, pp. 216/218) : « It was following our orders that François Mitterrand stayed in the prisoners service of Vichy. We were ully aware of the granting of the "francisque" to him ; we advised him to accept this distinction” so as not to blow his cover. Calomny always works ; twenty-five years later, during the presidential campaign, they would use the same arguments [as in London and Alger in 1943 and 1944]. When the gaullists have an idea, they hold on to it. [...] Mitterrand was even proposed as a "compagnon de la Libération", but the Résistance titles sometimes have nothing to de with this decoration. Not resistants nor combattants, we find on the "Compagnons de la Libération" book the name of heroes who never left their London office. It was given to some men from the Left, but hardly any. Even Gaston Defferre, who was in charge of a resistance network, isn't a "Compagnon de la Libération", and many others, like François Mitterrand, have largely deserved it but never got it. »'

Resistance?

I'd be careful of including his membership in the Resistance as fact. Seems today, everybody who wasn't executed as a Vichy sympathizer is claiming to have been in the Resistance. Trekphiler 16:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See testimony from then director of Free French Forces secret service above Jules.LT 20:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources that I have seen appear to agree that he was part of the resistance, but the real question was how dedicated was he? The controversy is that he was also an offical in the Vichy government. Personally I think he simply switched sides once the war turned in favour of the Allies. As I once told a friend: Throughout his life, Mitterand was only on one side: Mitterand's! marktreut 18:22 12/02/2006 (UTC)

Being a resistant was risky and often involved a double game ("double jeu" in French), a cover, appearing to "collaborate" with the enemy (Germany/Vichy) while working for the free French. The only way we have to assess whether Mitterrand was a genuine resistant is to compile testimonies of witnesses and to balance the pros and cons. It would seem that the balance is that Mitterrand was a genuine resistant (as asserted in the biography "une jeunesse francaise"). After his arrests and deportation to Germany there was no other option for Mitterrand but to be a resistant. Before that, during the early months of Vichy, who knows what Mitterand's intentions were? Perhaps he was still hesitant. He was clearly an antisemite and a racist at the time. The biography I mention has a picture of the young Mitterrand demonstrating against foreigners. That was a common trait among French people at the time. It seems that Mitterrand later genuinely changed. If he had remained an antisemite, would he have appointed a jewish Prime Minister? (Fabius) I don't think so. He must have changed. So did most French people. (and German people, for that matter). However, his friendship with the racist/antisemite Bousquet shows that he was willing to forgive others for their racism/antisemitism, perhaps just as he had forgiven himself for being a racist young man...

So on balance, I would venture to say that: Mitterrand was a young racist/antisemite, allied himself with Vichy with intentions that are impossible to judge from our perspective, either to be a double agent or to collaborate with Hitler, then clearly opted for resistance and distinguished himself as a resistance leader; and later in life cured himself of his early antisemitism but maintained friendships with antisemite characters... (Patrick Toche, 24 May 2006)

« J'ai acquis la conviction que François Mitterrand n'a à aucun moment été antisémite. Son amitié, à partir de 1938, avec Georges Dayan, n'est pas la seule preuve à l'appui de cette affirmation. Georges Beauchamp, juif lui aussi, qui travaillera à ses côtés [dans la Résistance] à partir de l'automne 1943, déclare : “Tactiquement, il avait des opportunités droitières, mais il avait un certain goût de la justice et du social... Il était allergique à l'antisémitisme.” J'ai été frappé, au cours de mon enquête, auprès de plus d'une centaine de témoins, par le fait que le sujet n'ait jamais été évoqué spontanément, y compris par ceux qui possédaient les meilleures brevets de Résistance. » Pierre Péan, Une jeunesse française. François Mitterrand, 1934-1947, éd. Fayard, 1994, p. 211

Domestic politics

How can any discussion of Mitterrand not include any mention of domestic politics beyond the end of the Dealth Penalty and the 1983 economic troubles - e.g. no mention of any of Mitterrand's Prime Ministers (Mauroy, Fabius, Chirac, Rocard, Cresson, Bérégovoy, Balladur)? For that matter, why has the French entry (just replace the en.wikipedia with a fr.wikipedia) not been translated where applicable? Skington 23:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a whitewash

Just like the French press. 131.107.0.86 19:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

Vox populi, vox dei -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1676950,00.html --Constanz - Talk 16:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General review of article

The Wikipedia article on François Mitterrand, who served as president of France from 1981 to 1995, does not take a neutral stance on the man and his career. The language, organization and fact choices of the article make clear the author’s negative opinion of Mitterrand. Even though the sources of information for the article are weak, the author attempts to convey the disreputable nature of his career by citing various scandals and controversies. Because the author is biased, it is difficult to obtain an accurate picture of Mitterrand from reading this article.

By the end of the third paragraph, with the comment about Mitterrand denying having received the Francisque, the author is already trying to establish Mitterrand’s sketchy past. He or she is trying to persuade the reader that Mitterrand was a less than honorable man who will be remembered more for scandals than for what he accomplished during his presidency. The author mentions Charles de Gaulle’s supposed dislike of Mitterrand, his covering up of illegal acts during the repression of the independence movement, and a possible attempt to stage his own assassination. Other scandals include false health reports, adultery, and an anti-terror cell he set up that may have “obtained wiretaps on journalists, politicians and other personalities who may have been an impediment for Mitterrand’s personal affairs.” Scandals are mentioned throughout the article and the author ends with a section devoted to them, so the reader is left with little recollection of Mitterrand’s accomplishments but a strong memory of the controversy that surrounded the president’s career.

Though the author uses phrases like “he was said to,” one senses that the author is assuming that the alleged stories are fact, and that he has drawn conclusions about Mitterrand based on those stories. Also, the author mentions Mitterrand in relation to other leaders and sometimes it appears that Mitterrand does not measure up. The author seems to favor Charles de Gaulle, noting that Mitterrand was “one of the few to object to the nomination of Charles de Gaulle as head of the government and de Gaulle’s plan for a French Fifth Republic.” The author also uses a phrase usually applied to de Gaulle’s decline to Mitterrand’s decline (“crossing of the desert”). When discussing Mitterrand’s annual laying of a wreath on Philippe Pétain’s grave, the author makes sure to remark that “the annual tributes…marked a departure from those of his predecessors.”

The article is convincing in its portrayal of Mitterrand as a controversial figure whose career was characterized by some major accomplishments but also a great deal of scandal. The article also convinces the reader that much about Mitterrand is not known for sure; there is a fair amount of speculation surrounding all of it. It appears that the author tries to downplay Mitterrand’s accomplishments and convince the reader that his legacy is not a good one. This is not convincing however, because Mitterrand served longer as president than any other man; he must have been more popular than the author makes him out to be.

The sources for this article appear inadequate. Unlike some Wikipedia articles, this article does not have a bibliography or list of references so it is unclear where the author is getting his information. He says that one piece of information comes from author Jean Montaldo but does not list the book. There are three numbered links within the article: two links to articles from the French newspaper Le Monde, and one link to an article on netscape.qc.ca. While these are acceptable sources, they cannot compare to primary sources or articles from historical journals. The lack of adequate sources makes some of the author’s claims questionable.

The quality of writing of the article is not outstanding. There is a typo in the second paragraph: “an mid-level functionary.” At times it is a bit choppy and the paragraphs do not always flow into each other perfectly. The author also devotes an entire section to the famous last meal, and only briefly mentions Mitterrand’s personal life at the end of the presidency section. The article ends with a paragraph that states Mitterrand personally authorized what New Zealand called their first terror attack, which is an interesting choice for a conclusion that leaves the reader associating Mitterrand with terror and bombing. The inclusion of the discovery of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus is puzzling and seems unnecessary, as do the two paragraphs about Bérégovoy and Pelat. It appears that some pieces of information were included simply to paint a more negative portrait of Mitterrand.

I would have liked to know more about Mitterrand’s “great projects,” because the projects that are listed seem to be very significant structures in France. Some additional information about his personal life would also be interesting. I also wish the author had discussed Miterrand’s popularity ratings and the general public opinion of Mitterrand, in order to give the reader an idea of why he held the post for so long.

This article does not give the reader an adequate, well-rounded picture of Francois Mitterrand. Although it does provide some interesting facts and speculations on possible scandal that keep the readers’ interest, the author fails to completely describe Mitterrand’s career, accomplishments, and legacy.

128.239.212.172 13:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the article and its subdivisions

I don't see how Mitterand's whole career before 1981 can be labelled as 'early career' -- this looks odd. Compare e.g with the Freebch version. I think the article urgently needs reordering in this respect. --Constanz - Talk 15:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph has been recently added: Mitterand was a talented balladeur and in the early 1960s he briefly tried his hand in the world of chanson, arguably in another effort to cultivate his image. In 1962, he represented France in the Eurovision Song Contest, performing his self-penned composition "La Chanson du Petit Oiseau Jaune". He came seventh, despite a typical Eurovision chorus which spanned the linguistic divide ("Yummy Yum Yum! Yummy Yum Yum!").

I doubt if we really need this, as the article is long anyway and Eurovision participation here is covered so thoughroughly...--Constanz - Talk 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last meal, Rwanda

You can do worse than trash talk Mitterand but I stand by the need for neutrality in any approach to a controversial issue so I propose two changes, one of which I'm going to make unilaterally and the other of which I am going to open to the discussion. They are, respectively, the removal of "last meal" in its entirety, and the other is the inclusion of (factual) information (footnoted respectably) regarding Mitterand's arms dealing with Libya and support of the Hutu regime in Rwanda (ostensibly to protect his family's planation).

Last Meal. Michael Paterniti's Esquire article about the "famous" last meal doesn't really blow my skirt up. Who are these guests he interviewed two years after the fact? How did he locate the cooking staff and the servers? Who cares? Mitterand is easy to recognize as the stereotypical "decadent European." Esquire's article doesn't do much for either side of that viewpoint. It's just another rumor given wide credence by the tasteless American press. Move on.

Some details about the "last meal" may have been exaggerated, but the meal itself (with the ortolans) is real: it was narrated in a book by George-Marc Benhamou, who was there (cf Template:Fr [3]) and apparently confirmed by Roger Hanin. It probably deserves one or two sentences, no more. Thbz 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Princegeorges 13:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rwanda. This warrants further research. But I invite you all to read Dr. Gregory H. Stanton's article "Could the Rwandan Genocide Have Been Prevented?" at genocidewatch.org. I'm following up on more detailed discussions of the French government's relations with the Hutus, and so far it's pretty damning for a character like Mitterand. Results to come.

Also, I've been encouraged to look into the number of government officers Mitterand had on the payroll without portfolios. Nothing further on this at the moment.

[Note: I realize I am an American, but please, nobody contact me with a laundry list of American crimes against humanity, we all know our governments are fucked up, this is about Mitterand's government and Mitterand's government only and criticizing a French President does not imply support for Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, or either George Bush. I give you all thanks and praise.]

Princegeorges 17:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Stanton says nothing about François Mitterrand (except that he is Jean-Christophe Mitterrand's father), so I wonder why you want to use it here. See Rwandan genocide instead, or something like Role of the French government in the Rwandan genocide. Besides, in 1994, Mitterrand was ill and the Government belonged to th opposite political side! So don't assume that he was responsible for all French actions then. Thbz 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. But the Economist isn't a respectable enough source so I wasn't going to reference that. I'll find a better article.Princegeorges 13:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]