Talk:Jean-Marie Le Pen

Le Pen is just a nationalist

When talking about his speeches on German occupation of France, by saying its not so bad. I disagree, sure the Communists did suffer worse, but so did many other civilians. Its favouring too much, I wouldnt be surprised if the far right are editing this. This needs to be neutralised. nmak3000 20.58, 21 February 2005 (BST)

I'd dispute the "far right" allegation purely on the fact that being right wing implies being in favour of a free market, and since Le Pen is in favour of higher tariffs he is not right wing, and most certainly not for an extreme deregulated economy as the term "far right" would imply. I think perhaps nationalist would be a far more accurate way to describe his political stance. Withoutaface 11:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh ? free market is a "liberal" thing; not all right-wing sensibilities are liberal. Rama 17:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please neutralize this article. It very seriously breaks NPOV. Calling people names, like "xenophobic", "nationalist" etc. is ok only if they use these names too. Word "extreme" in politics is always used only for attacking opponents, usually those who are against current establishment. Taw 13:12 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

This article is neutral as it is. Or should we write "Adolf Hitler is viewed by some as an antisemite"? Ericd 19:08 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

(over two years later, but still...) In French, "far-right" translate into "extrème-droite". Hence, it is very possible that occurences of the word "extreme" could arise because of a false cognate by a French-speaking editor. Feel free to correct taking this into account if necessary. Rama 05:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Taw is absolutely right and this article is *absolutely* not neutral. You may *not* confuse Hitler with Jean Marie Le Pen. User:anthere

Try to make it more neutral I can't. Ericd 13:38 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Eric. The sentence reads: "...on a platform widely considered xenophobic, nationalistic, and extremist". It does not say, that it IS xenophobic and so on (although I don't know, how anyone could doubt this). I do not see any breach of NPOV. -- Cordyph 14:03 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

When only one position is reported, I consider it a breach of NPOV. Reading this article, I don't think a Le Pen supporter would find it fair in the least. It is one thing to report true facts, it is another to report only negative facts about someone. This said, I sure won't spent time on this article. However, it is not neutral per Wikipedia policy ant

Anyone is free to expand. Anyone can add positive facts. I don't see why we should remove a phrase like "...on a platform widely considered xenophobic, nationalistic, and extremist" it's a fact. Ericd 18:14 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Considerations are facts? Kingturtle 18:17 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. That pretty much everybody outside of the National Front considers Le Pen to be xenophobic and nationalistic IS a fact. This does not mean that Le Pen is necessarily xenophobic and nationalistic, but it gives some good information of what the general public (in France or abroad, see the foreign press reactions) thinks of him. David.Monniaux 13:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

80 % for Chirac isn't the sign that is platform was widely considered xenophobic, nationalistic, and extremist ? Ericd 19:31 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC) You are free to add "in France" to make it more compliant with NPOV. Ericd 19:34 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

We do not have to think about, what a Le Pen supporter would find fair or not. AFAIK the entire political spectrum of France (now) dissociates itself from Le Pen and regards his politics as extremist. We must not conceal these circumstances. And yes, in this case considerations ARE facts. Adding "in France" would be inappropriate, since these considerations are valid beyond the French borders as well. -- Cordyph 08:20 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

-) It is absolutely not true the entire political spectrum of France dissociate from him. There are other groups, that I would label extremists, with voters, and who called for voting for LePen. Besides, if you consider the percentage of people who voted for him the first time (granted, not necessarily *for* him, but rather *against* others) or mostly the number of people who voted for him the second time, one cannot consider him at being a "fringe". If you consider that saying only negative things (which I agree are facts) about a leader who was the second candidate at presidential elections (so, who quite a number of people thought he could met their expectations) is NPOV, fine. I don't think we have the same interpretation of what NPOV is. Let's see : the majority of french people think Bush is a total jerk. If an article was written on him on the french wikipedia, only stating facts demonstrating he is a total jerk, I would consider that not NPOV. Even if these facts were all true. Because it would deform the vision given by the man, and misrepresent the vision of many americans thinking he is great. This is just as simple as that. So, whatever my (and clearly Eric) feelings are about Le Pen, I will go on saying the article is not satisfying. User:anthere

I just took a stab at neutralizing. I don't know much about Le Pen, so any changes that affect the meaning of the words is accidental. Tuf-Kat

If nobody has added any positive facts, counters of xenophoby claims, and this page hasn't been the object of edit wars, how can anyone claim it's not POV Neutral? All of the negative facts about Le Pen are qualified, and negative opinions are reported as such. What exactly is disputed about the content of the article? -- Miguel

it is perfectly true all the negative facts are reported and qualified. But there are no positive facts. And the man has some. Actually, reading it, I think one can not understand why so many french voted for him, but only think french people were crazy to do this. It is tendencious. So, it is disputed because of its lack of information about what people think the bright side of the guy is.

Well, a few weeks ago I went to the French wikipedia and extracted all the positive information I could find (like his decorated veteran status, his student activism, his humanitarian volunteering in the 50's, etc). The article contains all I know about the guy, if you think there are positive facts left unreported, please enlighten me and report them! And, by the way, the reason why "so many" (1 in 6) French people voted for him is plain and simple: he is a great speaker, he's very nationalistic and proud, and he promises jobs for the French unemployed by taking them away from immigrants. It seems to be a constant across Europe that about 15 percen of the voters will vote extreme right options given the chance, so there's nothing surprising about France in this respect. What was surprising about the last presidential election was not Le Pen's result, but Jospin's debacle. -- Miguel

It would be nice to add a few quotes about his nationalistic pride and whatnot. Right now the quote section is basically all negative-sounding comments.

Why no edit war ? Because in truth, I have other things to do than fighting on that type of article. Eric seems to be the only one interested in it, and I also doubt I would fight with him :-)

Do you believe I offerred some wikimoney to anyone that add positive fact about Jean-Marie Le Pen just to censor these addition and fighting an edit war ?Ericd 10:28, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oh, was that the reason ? I wondered why you did so... my... that is something to consider perhaps then... what are the rules for this edit war ? Which techniques are authorized and which ones are not ? Anthère

It's very simple, I have a strong anti-Le Pen bias. I have nothing against NPOV policy I don't write unbanlanced articles on purpose. For me the fact that Le Pen is racist and anti-semite is obvious fact. He may also have some positive aspects, everyone can add them.

I will just add something. What belongs to Front National article and whats Jean-Marie Le Pen. If I can imagine there are some reasons to think that there is something positive in the existence of the FN, I still don't find many positive things in the personnality of Le Pen.

Ericd 13:52, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Having read again I don't want any war. I just think it's worth a good article. Balance this article if you find it's unbalanced.

Ericd 17:52, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Those whoo are interrested in editing this article should also have a look at Front National & Department of Protection-Security, they need some work. Ericd

---

The page is also on Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. Anybody still wanting The neutrality of this page is disputed on this page? Btw, there is a Wikipedia:Political dispute page. --Ann O'nyme 17:11, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ann, I see not really why my opinion would have changed in a couple of days. The article is much better than it was a couple of months ago, and yes, the negative facts are very well attributed. However, I will repeat what I said above. Basically, you have a guy, who succeeded to make it to the second turn in national elections, who have quite important scores for each parlementarly elections, who certainly has many voters, and many supporters.

still, the article mostly mention the negative facts about the man. Except for a couple of little things about his youth, the whole amount of text explaining why he has success hold precisely in one line.

on the other hand, the critics go on 2/3 of the article

I think an encyclopedia is also there to explain things to readers. To give them enough food to help them understand how it can be possible that the so wonderful french people can vote and support such a jerk. And this is said nowhere. I maintain this article is not fair to Le Pen, or to Le Pen supporters.

Miguel above states "And, by the way, the reason why "so many" (1 in 6) French people voted for him is plain and simple: he is a great speaker, he's very nationalistic and proud, and he promises jobs for the French unemployed by taking them away from immigrants. It seems to be a constant across Europe that about 15 percen of the voters will vote extreme right options given the chance, so there's nothing surprising about France in this respect."

Yup, that is right. And this is barely explained in the article. Not explained either his position on the european community.

another passage I like in the french article is

Jean-Marie Le Pen est célèbre pour son style oratoire, ses références à l'histoire de France, ainsi que pour ses commentaires jugés racistes et antisémites par ses adversaires. Ses partisans soulignent quant à eux que son équipe comporte des personnes d'origines diverses, juive comme Jean-Pierre Cohen ou maghrébine comme Farid Smahi, et ils déclarent qu'une partie de la communauté juive de France s'est rapprochée de ses idées, ressentant une pression de l'antisémitisme en France dont la responsabilité serait à imputer en partie à l'immigration musulmane que Jean-Marie Le Pen combat.

En Français c'est plus facile :

Tout ça est très subjectif. Personnellement je connais aussi des arabes qui sont tentés de voter Le Pen depuis la 2° guerre du Golfe. Le Pen a très bien exploité la vieille réthorique du complot judéo-américain.

A mon avis les analyses sur les motivations du vote Le Pen sont plus à leur place dans l'article FN .

Ericd 21:42, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

oui et non. Je pense qu'il y a autant vote pour le parti et les idées du parti, que pour le personnage lui meme. J'ai bien peur que les deux ne soient indissociables.

il faut que j'y réfléchisse d'avantage, mais...j'insiste pour dire que cet article n'apparaitra pas honnete aux yeux de ceux qui voient en JM un homme de poigne, grand orateur, pret a leur rendre un boulot, a favoriser la famille, pourfendeur de l europe, garant de la fierté nationale, blablabla. Je me le met en arriere plan.

On peut toujours developper ses principaux thèmes politiques.

and yes, my opinion is that it is perfectly possible to find an article non neutral without necessarily engaging in an edit war :-) Anthère

tant qu'il ne fait que "runner" et non pas "gagner", c'est fun :-)

à mon avis "he has a lot of fun"

You're right that there's a lot missing in the article. Thanks for sum-up ;) --Ann O'nyme 22:21, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I would call it a stub. I don't feel there is much POV in it, compare to many articles not listed for NPOVing: Jörg Haider, Alleanza Nazionale, Jürgen Möllemann, Neo-Nazism... Just to give a few. --Ann O'nyme 23:06, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

There is a very interresting photo here [[1]]with some famous peoples :

- Jacques Peyrat was the defensor of Albert Spaggiari and is today the mayor of Nice ;

- Hélie Denoix de Saint Marc was notoriously involved in Algiers Putsch.

I wonder if Peyrat and Le Pen where also involved in the putsch ? Another obscure part of Le Pen ? Ericd 23:26, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In fact le Pen spent less than 6 months in Algeria he was back in Paris several years before the putsch. Ericd 23:31, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

lol, un fait négatif de moins :-)

Peut-être mais il semble qu'il cherche à exagérer sa carrière militaire. Il est arrivé en Indochine après Dien-Bien-Phu. Et ses photos avec Massu datent du début de la bataille d'Alger.

Ericd 00:16, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I find the current article pretty much NPOV. Why not remove the dispute warning? David.Monniaux 13:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After nobody reacted, I removed the NPOV notice. David.Monniaux 14:15, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

"Critics sometimes explain Le Pen's political success, in southern France, by slow economic development and mounting racial tensions, especially against the Arab community." This is simply stupid. Everybody now that the economy has been growing faster in the South since at least the 60s and maybe the 50s. Less industry/trade unions a more individualist ethics more immigration by ex Algerian settlers.... And probably a lot of other factors... This need a serious rewrite. And I would add that the situation is very different in South-East and South-West. Ericd 19:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that the article does not affirm that this is factually true, but reports critics. What should me examined here is if these critics are indeed made and sufficiently spread to be worthy of a mention. Only if the comment is deemed thoroughly false and/or diffamatory, it could be removed (or accompanied by a precision of the more impartial facts; pardon the pleonasm). --Liberlogos 09:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think many people who know somating about France will argue that Le Pen success can be explained by slow development. IMO this is some ready-made idea "the South is underdevelopped while the North is industrial".

Ericd 11:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I changed "slow economic development" to "economic concerns." That seems more appropriate. A region can have solid economic growth and still leave some of its residents worried about their future.

moved to talk

Jean-Marie Le Pen is a highly controversial and divisive figure in France. While he is undoubtedly supported by part of the voters, he is also disliked by another, greater, section. In April 2002, a poll [2] showed the 22% has a favorable opinion of him — but 61% had a very unfavorable opinion, and 13% a somewhat favorable opinion. In this poll, Le Pen is disliked by 84% of left-winger voters, but also by 74% of right-wing voters. As a result of this dichotomy, at the 2002 French presidential election, Jean-Marie Le Pen scored 18% of the votes and reached the second round of balloting — but was soundly defeated, with 82% of voters from the whole political spectrum, aside from the far right, voting for his opponent Jacques Chirac, after unprecedented mass protests against Le Pen on May 1st.

Firstly this is POV, the election is no proof the greater section of France dislikes him. People lose elections for all sorts of reasons, likeability only being one. That statement would need a better citation, like an actual poll on what french people think of le pen. Secondly, the description of the votes is confusing. He recieved 18% of the french vote (suggesting to me that he is wildly popular, you or I would likely recieve far less ;) in the primary, and in the general election 82% voted for Chirac? Is that correct? Whats this "from the whole political spectrum, aside from the far right" bit about? Am I to believe that 18% of French voters are "far right", or what? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read French presidential election, 2002. Then, you should read the French press, and especially about the millions of people who protested Le Pen on May 1st, 2002.

Besides, the text does not say that "the greater section of France" dislikes him. It says that a greater number of people dislike him than like him. David.Monniaux 23:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have read (and edited) French presidential election, 2002. I won't be reading french press because I am not a francophone, but I am well aware of Le Pen and his popularity. My question is if you have a citation regarding it. If not you should not claim that a greater number of people dislike him than like him. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 04:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added the results of a 2002 poll. If I may make an observation, anything that was written was obvious for anybody who follows French politics. This is not matters where there are knowledgeable people on both side discussing the issue... Though I agree that it is far easier to discuss the politics of a country if one knows that country's language (and can read the press), and if one knows some basic facts about the electoral processes and the political factions in that country.

As for the "far right" qualification: as you may have seen, every commentator (and, in my experience, just about every person) outside the National Front calls the National Front a far right party. Le Pen disputes this qualification. David.Monniaux 04:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Very good work, the article is looking much better, and my concerns have been addressed. I can't seem to find the poll you mention, but the current wording deosn't require one, at least as far as I am concerned. As far as the "far right " part, I agree they are far right, what I am less confident of is that every last person who voted for him were far right. Its still not entirely clear to me if this is what the article is saying, but don't worry yourself about it over much, you've made some very substantial improvements, which I appreciate. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Woops. Re-inserted the poll results. David.Monniaux 09:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was living in London during the 2002 French elections, and I was in Paris in late April, when the campaign to defeat Le Pen was reaching a peak of shrill desperation. I remember well the mood, with every single newspaper, television program, magazine, or cocktail napkin proclaiming the manifest evil of this man. At the time, I knew little about French politics; but walking the streets those days a casual observer would guess that Satan himself had descended upon the Gauls, somehow stole a first-round victory, and was now proceeding into the election with the whole of French civilization against him. I use this anecdote to make my point about a severe failing in this article: it says nothing about the pernicious effect that a totally hostile media and academic culture can have on ANY politician, regardless of the merits of his argument. Le Pen has a constituency--possibly as much as 16%, and one of his principle arguments is that democracy in France suffers when this constituency is ridiculed, marginalized, or simply ignored by the press and the "acceptable" political culture of the government. Just because the media and the socialist college professors have made up their minds doesn't mean that the French people have.

"Socialist college professors"? David.Monniaux 06:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Professeurs socialistes d'université", si vous préférez M. Monniaux.

The choice of the French people at the second round of the presitential election was clear. Ericd 04:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Le Pen is a controversial figure in France because he has not allowed himself, nor his patriotism, to be silenced by a media beholden to a multi-racial, anti-European dream.

(Very late after). Anti-European dream ? Hihi.... After the referendum on the European constitution who has an European dream ? Ericd 21:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That statement doesn't seem NPOV to me... Nil Einne 07:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That seems to be just one of many POV edits by 24.99.253.117. I'll try to fix it while keeping later edits intact. // Liftarn

Thank you. I am quite astonished that these ridiculous edits might have slipped unnoticed. Rama 10:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are a few more: "On May 1st, millions of France's far-left walked the streets protesting in opposition to patriot Le Pen...an obssessed media who never seem to turn such a critical eye on the fact that France has an unabashed Communist party in its national government... Pen made the point that the main import of WWII history was a world war and not that WWII should be a footnote to the Holocaust because of Jewish obssession and an underlying supremacy that Jewish loss is more important than all Europeans who died during the war... His campaign ad went as far to show France burning - and this is exactly what happened in November 2005 as thousands of African-Muslims burned more than 6,000 cars and businesses in more than 300 French cities."

Yes, I think I found all of them. // Liftarn

OLD TOPIC REHASHED:

I noticed that Le Pen's first-line description has been changed yet again from "coservative" to "reactionary". I stress again that "reactionary" is a normative term, applicable in the prejorative to groups on the right and on the left. It is not an accurate or useful distinction to make about Le Pen's political philosophy, or his standing as a statesman.

If "reactionary" is defined by knee-jerk protection of the status quo, then Le Pen certainly does not qualify--the status quo is overwhelmingly against him! He seeks sweeping reforms of French government and society, which are opposed on principle by the established power-brokers of the country. How is this "reactionary"? How is this even "conservative"? What then is a "progressive" if not a radical reformer?

I am not going to edit the "reactionary" bit myself, because someone would simply change it back again. Also, I would much rather convince whomever is protecting the bias of this page that this change is necessary, so that perhaps he'll do it himself.

Read the definition of reactionary

Le Pen wants to return the society to a previous state on many respects (immigration, death penalty, defence, etc.). "Reactionary" is therefore perfectly clinical and descriptive, just like "racist" is appropriate for someone who believes in races among Human beings and advocates a policy based on them. That it is "prejorative" for some people has nothing to do with the matter at hand, the term is used here in its technical acceptation. Rama 15:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you've stumbled over your own terminology Rama, thus proving my point. Your definition of a racist as "someone who believes in races among Human beings and advocates a policy based on them" removes any kind of negative connotation from a term that is used almost exclusively as polemic. A policy of "positive discrimination" identifies people based on race, and forms policy on those criteria. Legislation aimed at equal opportunity in housing, education, and employment also does this, though I'm sure you would not call these laws "racist". If Sarco manages to institute preferential hiring for underrepresented minority groups, this will, by your definition, be a racist policy. Get it straight man, and recognize that using negative terms for neutral ideas cheats us of any meaningful dialogue on the issues.

My personal opinions are irrelevant. Besides, the term that is under scrutiny is "reactionnary", not "racist". Rama 20:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sarkozy is racist and knows exactly what he does, any policy of discrimination (even "positive") based on race is racist. If we need some positive discrimination this could be made on some objective social criterias instead of race. Ericd 20:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm... but surely language is user defined? Thus as a reactionary would readily be defined by 'most' people as someone who holds views akin to those of Le Pen, it would be POV to NOT call him a reactionary. Marcus22 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

controversy : russian extremists

I remember, when the iraq had just begun or was about to begin, that they showed russian far right militants who were actually planning on going to iraq to fight against the american invasion

surprisingly he was present there in russia and spoke to them, and showed support?

Could this be included or is it irrelevant?

This is clearly relevant. But as this kind of subject his highly controversial please give sources. Ericd 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that is the problem. I can't find any sources. A picture of is presence would be nice too.

Always carry a camera like I do... Ericd 20:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said it was on tv, but I did not record it. I also can't find anything on the net. I'm sure I saw it. It is one of his weirdest performances and I don't have a source??!! Please help!

Evilbu 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

E-mail/mail to the organization that put out the video for a sample or clip from their video archives.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Photo: pretty le pen

Who found that photo? That's the first time I see Le Pen with such a "nice" head... I think another one could be looked for, don't you? Tazmaniacs 00:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand, it comes from the party's website... Tazmaniacs 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So what? you would prefer that wikipedia puts on a nasty face of him? thats exactly what the media does, throwing out pictures of Le PEn where he looks mean. This one is fine. Putting a "mean" face wouldn't be objective.

Well, it's also a very old picture. I'm sure I can scrounge up a more recent one, but someone more familiar with editing techniques should stick it there. I don't think it would be a breach of NPOV to put a different picture there. You sound like a supporter of his. Your comment about the media isn't "objective," either. I'd do it myself, but I'm not very familiar with formatting and editing techniques here. ~Kazu 00:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Positions?

Other than being a nationalist what are his positions, especially his specific policy proposals. He is a politician, he ran in a number of elections, what are his proposals for French law?

Reintroducing the death penalty, establishing strong quotas for foreigners, send the army in the banlieues in case of riots... RCS 08:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually he never talked about the army in the suburbs in case of riots of the kind of the one of autumn 2005, on the contrary, Philippe De Viliers did and Le Pen mocked him for that ...

• Off the top of my head here are a few examples of what LePenism is about:- Le Pen is a strong advocate of "encouraging" women to stay at home and have children 'for the good of France' etc.. (IMHO a rather sad and outdated view of both women, their 'role' and the sustainability of current levels of global human population). Other ideas that could (and indeed should) ring certain alarm bells include: he, or his party, or both, are strongly censorial in nature. Thus films, art, TV, newspapers etc.. are to be "encouraged" to espouse a particular view of society. I believe that he also advocates that all males must undertake military service; and those that are "good" are allowed to keep an automatic rifle after their service so that, should these good lads be required (ahem) then they can be readily called upon. (From this one can arguably surmise that brown shirts will be a part of the uniform). It is, really, just the usual reactionary its-all-someone-elses-fault tosh. The stuff grumpy old men adore and those with little help or hope are often readily attracted to. Elsewhere, hmmmm, and apart from this old stuff, I have never really seen any serious policy that is worth considering: I think he possibly has an underlying, heart-in-the-right-place, approach to the environment; he does, after all, at least in his terms, want the 'best' for the country. But as is often the case with such misguided people many of his policies would have the opposite effect and actually harm the environment. Ah well.... Old dog, old tricks. Marcus22 20:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Le Pen is foremost the only politician in France, who proposes a real reduction of tax load, combined with a patriotic industrial policy. He is the closest to Reagonomics of any politician. That he is a nationalist too is not disqualifiying. Reagan & Thatcher were too! In the U.S. he would simply be a paleoconservative republican. And one thing he is certainly not: National-Socialist or Faschist. He is everything but a collectivist or socialist. He definitely should receive a chance, and 2007 is the last time he could get elected, due to his age. And yes, he is also a war hero, and was known for very galant behaviour towards non-french co-combattants.

Didn't Reagan also grant amnesty to illegal immigrants... which goes against the cornerstone of Le Pen's movement, namely opposition to immigration especially from ethnically different countries? In terms of U.S. politics, Tom Tancredo is the closest I can come to Le Pen (he's more like Mike Huckabee in terms of charisma and populist appeal, but closer to Tancredo and Duncan Hunter politically).

He also denies the Holocaust happened, or if it did, the numbers were greatly exaggerated... which I believe would also put him at odds with the majority of U.S. politicians.

"And yes, he is also a war hero, and was known for very galant behaviour towards non-french co-combattants."

Sure, unless they're Jewish... or Arab... or African... 147.9.234.143 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

german court conviction

Maybe someone could find a record of this conviction in one of the on-line German court databases, so an exact translation of the quote can be entered into the article. Intangible 17:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced, and quotes

See WP:QUOTE for guidelines on excessive use of quotes. They should be removed to WikiQuote, or incorporated into the text. The quotes chosen are obviously to make one point, and are not balanced, so some balance in quotes should also be provided.

The article is largely criticism, and no balance has been provided. Criticism is larger than the rest of the article, and all of the quotes are also criticism. This article is a bashing.

The use of the words "far right" are covered in WP:WTA. Sandy 02:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Extreme droite

Or "far right" is not a weasel word, since it is a known term in France, and not to be taken separately far/right. There is also a far-left in France for eg... there are no pejorative implications. Sfacets 03:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not the French language Wikipedia though. What is meant with "far right" is dubious at best. No single definition can be given; the introduction of any article should start with a concise definition of the subject at hand, and thus "far right" should be avoided. The rest of the article can detail all of Le Pen's obscurities and whatever not. Intangible 03:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

FN and JMLP are doubtlessly far right, and we have provided various sources to prove it. Furthermore, his own program leaves little doubt about it, as do his remarks for which he has been judged guilty of historical revisionism (negationism). Intangible, careful, your trolling (see RfArbitration against Intangible currently filed) is attracting lots of attention. Did you know that someone had found Le Pen's knife during the Algerian War? Someone who accused him of having tortured her? Do you want me to look up the references for you? Tazmaniacs 13:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The introduction of an article should give a definition of the subject at hand. What is the definition of "far right"? Intangible 21:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think there is a link to an article titled "far-right" on this word ? Rama 08:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Le Pen refuses the word "far right" (arguably because of the connotation is has in mainstream electorate, where he wants to expand his basis). However, Le Pen has often referred to himself and his party as being the right-most choice in French politics. So the question is only "do we have to stick with the rethorics crafted by the FN to support themselves in elections" ? I, for one, think not. Rama 08:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother Rama, Intangible is trolling around. See the Rfa pending on him. Of course "self-identification" is not enough to qualify a party or a politician, or else we should wrote on Stalin's page that he was the most humanist leader of all times. Beside, I would even like to see some quotes were Le Pen refuses the appelation "far right", because I suspect it wasn't always the case. Finally, I've added on the National Front's page René Rémond's explanation of sinistrisme and his underscoring the fact that Le PEn was the only presidential candidate in 1974 to present himself as "right-wing", while none at all did present themselves as such in 1981. It is well known (except by Intangible), that in France, everyone is left-wing and antiliberal, except, of course, all those who support liberal policies (without ever saying it). This is called "sinistrisme", but Intangible seems to have a problem with it (as, in general, of qualifying far right people and parties as far right; see also his recent edits at Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, where he pretends that Drieu La Rochelle was in favor of a "federal Europe devoid of nationalism" (sic). Tazmaniacs 14:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Rama, a link is just not enough. If you look at the far right article, one would be hopelessly searching for a coherent definition of "far right." Intangible 15:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If your scepticism was to be taken seriously, than I don't see why "conservatism", "liberal" or any other qualifications would be "coherent" enough for you. Far right is coherent: read his program, read his lips and "slippings" concerning Holocaust denial (this alone is enough to qualify someone as far right or ultra-left - which in this case is rather like "ultra-left/far-right"), ask yourself how come FN billstickers kill immigrants (there's no KKK in France, but the KKK isn't "far right", is it?), etc. etc. Then, finally, muse on the reasons which push right-wing politicians to morally condemn Le Pen & the FN, and why when cases such as Charles Millon (see La Droite article which you've read already) lift so much indignation (and leads to his exclusion from the UDF). What is far right in France? Take this thread: Ultra-royalists — Legitimists — Action française — Far-right leagues, Drieu La Rochelle, Vichy France — OAS; and... what comes after? Front National. Oh, I forgot Marcel Lefebvre's fundamentalist catholics... Again, you would be familiar with this tradition if you borrowed some time to read this classic of French history, René Rémond's book... Tazmaniacs 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: what a pity, I forgot poujadisme, which is, after all, where Le Pen comes from... Tazmaniacs 21:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Refer to fr:Poujadisme, it's better written, especially the part on the continuity between Jacques Doriot's fascist party and poujadism. Tazmaniacs 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ocular prosthetic

Someone insists in categorizing Le Pen into Category:People with an ocular prosthetic. Not only I am opposed to that silly categorizing, but I've asked for the deletion of this irrelevant category. He calls me a "vandal" for removing his inclusion into this category, so I'd like some others opinions... Tazmaniacs 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're only considered a vandal if at least one of your parents is of Vandalian descent.--217.85.92.83 23:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I offer my support, I guess? You aren't a vandal just because you really and truly think that something is unneccecary. What kind of help do you want? ~Kazu 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OAS links

User:Intangible has removed the following section:

"Elsewhere Jean-Marie Le Pen has been criticized for his connections to figures associated with the right-wing and militarist Organisation armée secrète [citation needed], including:

• Roger Holeindre, member of the political bureau of the Front National; was a member of the Organisation armée secrète (OAS)
• Louis de Condé, leader of the National Front in Auvergne and candidate to the 2004 regional elections had been sentenced in 1963 to life imprisonment for the attempted murder of president Charles de Gaulle as part of the OAS campaign of terror attacks."

I included here (which Intangible should have done himself) for discussion. Le Pen's links to the OAS are well-known, and this has been translated from the French Wikipedia. Does Intangible claims Roger Holeindre isn't a member of the politbureau of the FN? Or is he claiming he was not a member of the OAS? And does he claims Louis de Condé was not the leader of the FN in Auvergne & candidate to the 2004 regional elections. Or does he claims he wasn't imprisonned in 1963 for the attempted murder of de Gaulle? Tazmaniacs 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is critizing Le Pen here? Wikipedia editors? Intangible 19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, the OAS isn't precisely the most popular political group in France. De Gaulle once said something like: Action française, Vichy France, the OAS... same______" (let's censor it in case you consider de Gaulle made personnal attacks on fascists). It is well-known that the FN and Le Pen has links with the OAS, one of the reason it is well-known is that it is not hidden! And, if it's public, well, there are quite many people in France who have a grudge against the OAS. Tazmaniacs 13:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Again. Criticism should be entered not because Wikipedia editors critize Le Pen, but because others have made such criticism public somewhere else. That can be cited and added. Intangible 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Time

This is a horribly stilted article and I have questions about factual acuuracy. The parts I did check, aboyt Buchanan and Coulter admiring Le Pen, turned out to be bogus. I intend a major cleanup job, both to make the existing article readable and to make Le Pen's actual positions clear in an NPOV manner. Even the devil gets a fair trial! My existing changes are a necessary improvement, but much more is necessary. Yakuman 05:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been having a peek at this article for a while and it is terribly biased. Anyone who claims it is in any way neutral in its present state is lying through their teeth. It categorises him through the eyes of a critic, and then attacks him and lists flaws. michael ^talk 07:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Yakuman! I've already seen your message hereabove, but this doesn't explain massive changes to the article. If you propose them progressively it will probably be easier. As you might be aware, introductions are always a bit of a head-ache, so please discuss changes here before. I don't believe Pat Buchanan is relevant here. It seems to me a bit of US-centrism to believes so. Maybe some input from others Wikipedians would be helpful? PS: Concerning Beneathelandslide (Michael)'s message, well, he might call "flaws" Le Pen's historic revisionism, denounciations of the "colored nature" of the French soccer team, and other statements and policies of him. That is his own right. But Le Pen is old enough to assume what he says and thinks, and is very proud of being nationalist and xenophobic, as he is of representing the French far right (and of having managed the incredible feat of gathering all the far right rival families into one political party - until Bruno Mégret's split and before Philippe de Villiers's ascension, that is). Tazmaniacs 11:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I was simply correcting the erroneous refernce to Buchanan which was there before. BTW, I have not changed any of the facts in the article. I copyedited and cleaned it up a bit, that's all. Just quit reverting back to that heavily flawed previous versions, ok? Nationalist is an word, but "xenophobe" is POV. You have to show, not tell. Yakuman 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This Article has to be changed. It is not neutral, even the word "extremist" is used. Please respect Wiki rules. Thank you EddieAlighieri January 15 2007

Article repeats parts over and over. For example, article refers to his trial in Germany several times -- using the same language. Sections have no flow and the article is very bady organized. Please clean up.

Convictions

Not only has JMLP been convicted several times, he has also lost lawsuits against people who publicly insulted him because of the statements that got him sentenced. I've provided a link that succintly shows how, who, what and when. 82.230.180.185 15:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

tag

if anybody who thinks that this article is not neutral could actually give some examples... otherwise i will conclude that the dispute is other and remove the tag. trueblood 18:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't you dare. Read the rest of this page. ~Kazu 00:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Circonvolutions

What is that supposed to mean: "f he wasn't intentionally anti-Semitic and/or racially charged, Le Pen could be considered insensitive to the issues affecting France's racial and religious minorities."???? Tazmaniacs 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJean-Marie_Le_Pen&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

French wikipedia entry translated into English —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.135.24.72 (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Disability ?

Does being blind in one eye count as a disability ? If so, he could fit in the Politicians with physical disabilities category.Wedineinheck 10:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Task Force

We need to remove this. It'd be like including "George W. Bush was criticized by the American Communist Party". It's obvious and it's giving a really fringe Kahanist group undue attention (and is also not from a secondary source). Proper criticism from notable French Jewish groups is warranted. gren グレン 07:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with this argument. The whole section (Jean-Marie Le Pen#Comments on the Right) consists of comments from right-wing groups or persons, mainly outside France; most of them are characterised as "far-right" in the text. In this context, I do not think that it's inappropriate briefly to mention and link to a group which admittedly probably is "more fringe" than e.g. the Austrian Freedom Party. Note, that the Jewish Task Force is mentioned much more briefly than e.g. Pat Buchanan's opinions. This is rather appropriate.

Very much depends on the context. In an article or long main section titled something like Comments on George W. Bush by the American far left, IMHO it would be quite appropriate to include a sentence like "George W. Bush was also criticized by the American Communist Party^[reference]". JoergenB (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. If it is included it needs much better context. The section is Le Pen on the right... not the right on Le Pen. While I think it could use some work, the rest of the article gives at least some discussion of why Le Pen criticized the groups and their responses to that. Not just X criticized Le Pen. Especially when talking about anti-Semitism above the reason needs to be given or you are leading readers to a conclusion about why they criticized him--is it because they think he's anti-Semitic or because they disagree with him always running the FN instead of letting someone else take the lead. Thirdly and maybe most importantly that was a primary source with no reliable source used to show it was of any importance. The Buchanan quote and otheres were quoted in secondary sources (although not always the most notable) and not just from comments on their website. Something needs to attest to the importance of the JTF criticism and what it was--to show we're not cherry picking. gren グレン 22:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that reliable, published secondary source would be better, if one is available. The present quotation is clearly of a primary source, and does not permit us to draw any non-obvious conclusions. The conclusion drawn is obvious, however: that he has been fiercly criticised by this group. I think we without overstepping the required obviousness could add that he and FN were criticised as bein neo-nazis. I agree that we could not use it in order to judge the importance of this criticism, seen from a larger scale. As for the reasons for the criticism, IMHO the source clearly indicates that a major complaint of JTF is that Le Pen and the FN accept Moslems and Islam as Frenchmen and part of the French culture; but this might be contested as a borderline WP:OR case, whence I don't think we should include this conclusion.

There is a discreptance between the section's title and its content. In the text, I do not find criticism uttered by Le Pen concerning the far right groups and persons in question. Some criticism of his is mentioned, together with some other background facts, but only for explaining what the far right people are commenting. (E.g., Le Pen is said to have made statements highly critical of American foreign policy and culture, but this is of course not the same as criticising Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan.)

Rigth now, the content of the section is "comments on Le Pen by the far right" rather than the other way around. That means, that either the section title should be changed, or the whole section be rewritten. I suggest the former: Change the title to e.g.

Comments by the Right

The section is not specifically concerned with anti-Semitism; and nor is the JTF criticism. The section also contains other, even less substantiated material, like the sentence Over the years, Le Pen gained widespread popularity among neo-Nazis and white nationalists throughout Europe and North America.; no sources, either of fact or of importance of fact. (Of course, this has no direct bearing on the JTF sentence; but it should be noted, if you plan to rewrite the whole section.) Perhaps, this is a better place to compare with the JFT criticism; something like

Over the years, Le Pen gained widespread popularity among neo-Nazis and white nationalists throughout Europe and North America[citation needed]; on the other hand, he was criticised for being a neo-Nazi e.g. by the far-right Jewish group Jewish Task Force[reference].

Thus, it would be placed a bit before Pat Buchanan's quotation, which implicitly brandish Le Pen as a Fascist. Do you think this is a more reasonable presentation? JoergenB (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous anti-semitism section

• Le Pen once made the infamous pun "Durafour-crématoire" ("four crématoire" meaning "crematory oven") about then minister Michel Durafour, who had said in public a few days before "One must exterminate the National Front".[9] The corpses of the victims of the Nazi gas chambers were incinerated in such ovens.[10]

How can this possibly be considered anti-Semitic? Can someone explain that to me?

• In February 1997, Le Pen accused Chirac of being "on the pay roll of Jewish organizations, and particularly of the B'nai B'rith".[citation needed]

I suppose calling anything Jewish bad is automatically anti-Semitic. Man, I wish I were a Jew so I could get to be treated as a victim this often.

• In May 1987 he advocated isolating those infected with HIV (whom he calls "sidaïques"[11]) from society by placing them in a special "sidatorium". "Sidaïque" is a word coined by Le Pen, meaning "person infected with AIDS" (the correct word in French is "séropositif" – see serology). Sidaïque takes on a pejorative connotation.[opinion needs balancing]

This has nothing to do with xenophobia or anti-Semitism. I suppose this is just a section for "things I don't like about Le Pen"?

• On June 21, 1995, he attacked singer Patrick Bruel on his policy of no longer singing in the city of Toulon because the city had just elected a mayor from the National Front. Le Pen said "the city of Toulon will then have to get along without the vocalisations of singer Benguigui". Benguigui, a Jewish name, is Bruel's real name.

Calling this anti-Semitic is a real stretch. There is an obvious bias running through this section--the reader is supposed to come away believing that Le Pen is anti-Semitic.

• In 2005, he claimed that the occupation of France by Nazi Germany "was not particularly inhumane".[12].

Anyone with a casual (and open-minded) interest in WWII history knows that the Allies were responsible for many atrocities. Is acknowledging this somehow anti-Semitic? Hitler had many policies that modern liberals hold: abortion, euthanasia, gun control, etc. Is agreeing with these policies anti-Semitic?

• In June 2006, he claimed that the French World Cup squad contained too many non-white players, and was not an accurate reflection of French society. He went on to scold players for not singing La Marseillaise, saying they were not 'French'.[13]

I can see this being xenophobic, but it's not really a radical thing to say. This could stay, I suppose.

• In the 2007 election campaign, he referred to fellow candidate Nicolas Sarkozy as 'foreign' or 'the foreigner' due to Sarkozy's Hungarian heritage.[14]

See above. This could stay, IMO.

67.171.43.170 (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no need for these statements to be removed, but I have made the section heading more appropriate, as some of these quotes are neither anti-semitic or xenophobic, but have all, for whatever reason, provoked controversy. Please also note the closing paragraphy, which attempts to restore neutrality. It would, IMO, be unreasonably difficult to find verifiable information to give a completely neutral POV for this section. If you know of any sources, feel free to add them, but make sure to include source details. I would suggest that you create a username for future edits, but this is by no means obligatory. Regards, Tom::Leave a message 20:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

POV or not, Le Pen necessarily comes across as a bit of a, how shall we say, DB. That being said making a pun on a Minister's name is not the same as expressing anti-Semitic opinons but the heading in question has already been reassessed. I think, as someone not politically driven to one camp or the other, that this article seems quite balanced when read as a whole. Le Pen is not depicted as the FN would like him to be nor is he depicted as the Socialists and left would prefer that he be. Pretty solid and well cited overall.99.240.142.65 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

EU Reform Section Not NPOV

While most of the section on his views on the Reform treaty is relatively neutral the last half of it really is'nt, an example being the last sentence;

The treaty is now stalled, pending a new tactic from the European establishment to continue the building of a federalist Europe despite what the people of Europe want.

-IkonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 23:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the cites be in English?

I realize that the article is rather French centric, and there's going going to be an occasional French cites, but it seems to me that we should have as many English cites as possible. Less than a third in English is rather low. And I'm not fluent in French, but I can guess what "Le Monde.fr : Page non trouvée" means. What the heck is that doing as the title of a cite? Also, I deleted a few lines that didn't make any sense.Heqwm2 (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)