Talk:The Camp of the Saints

Unsourced claims and weasel words in the introduction

The introduction makes vague, unsupported statements claiming that it has been "widely dismissed." What sources supports this assertion? If anything, the sources currently included on this article (and the article itself) state that it has received both praise and criticism from multiple public figures and that it is regarded as a politically significant book. See the dictionary definition of "dismissed" in this context (OED: "treat as unworthy of serious consideration"). These statements either need to be sourced or removed. User:Dionysus1886 October 26 2018

Edit: Fixed (October 28 2018)

I dont see the justification for the inclusion of the word "racist" to describe this book in the sources provided. None of the 3 sources used to justify this description provide much except for moralistic subjective bleating from people who dont have the final say over whether anything is or is not "racist". Its clearly just being included in the description for political and biased purposes, and is against the neutral spirit of this website. Please can Grayfell provide solid, *unbiased* reasoning for continuing to edit it in

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

SPLC declares themselves to be protectors of immigrant rights

Thus we must conclude they are pro-immigrant. That they are left-wing may be more debatable, but considering there positions are adopted by the left-leaning parties and politicians in the United States, a very good logical case can be made. 208.102.198.209 (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That's original research and not allowed, however logical it may be, nor is the use of a source to describe the SPLC that doesn't even mention the SPLC. Doug Weller (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Camp of the Saints. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913401,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Restored material which had been vandalized

I restored the following section, which had been vandalized on 09:08, 12 August 2017‎: «William F. Buckley, Jr. praised the book in 2004 as "a great novel" that raised questions on how to respond to massive illegal immigration.[14] In 2005 the conservative Chilton Williamson praised the book as "one of the most uncompromising works of literary reaction in the 20th century."[15] ». In case anyone feels this well-sourced material does not belong in the article, please reach consensus before deleting again. XavierItzm (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

First, don't call other people's edits vandalism unless they really are vandalism. That's a personal attack.

Second, it was removed because Buckley makes this comment in passing and given the context it's not even clear if he's not being his usual sarcastic-Buckley self.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It is highly subjective and improper to remove material on the basis of your personal interpretation of the writings of a major author. Completely unjustified. Material restored. I ask you again to reach consensus prior to deleting again. XavierItzm (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it's a side comment is not disputable - not a subjective opinion. Whether he was being sarcastic or not is hard to tell, but since we don't know we should't include it. And it's actually up to you to get consensus for inclusion, or else, find further sources to back up your claim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This is also a WP:PRIMARY source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No, the text was there for 9 years and user Volunteer Marek arbitrarily deleted it. It is up to user Volunteer Marek to seek consensus for deletion. The text is not primary as it is the reaction of a noted public figure. And by the way, I have added a second source that demolishes Volunteer Marek's personal speculation that Buckley was being anything other than straightforward. XavierItzm (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no status quo bias on Wikipedia so it doesn't matter how long it's been there. And it is primary source for Buckley's statement. The second source also only mentions Buckley in passing. And it's also from National Review.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You asked for a second source, the second source is a well-known author who has his own wikipedia page. You got what you wanted, which is a WP:RS proving that Buckley was being straightforward. XavierItzm (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a non-National Review source which confirms it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

So, you have Buckley himself praising, and a notable second author, a decade later, noting that Buckley praised, and you still think your personal speculation that Buckley could have been jesting should prevail? NR is a magazine. By definition, articles from different authors spaced a decade in between constitute separate WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It's still pretty weak sourcing - since both comments are made in passing - but for now I'll let it go. It would be helpful if you found an independent source though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Revered by white supremacists"

Cited source for this (SPLC article) isn't a study confirming this. It's an unbased opinion mentioned in one half-sentence of the so-called source. Unbased claim like that has no place in leader paragraph. Kekmon (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

SPLC is a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

SPCL source doesn't describe methodology acquired to reach that conclusion. It is completely unbased claim, and should in fact be removed entirely from the wikiarticle as untrustworthy. Kekmon (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Just look at the "source" you are pushing as "reliable": https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2001/racist-book-camp-saints-gains-popularity. There is no methodology whatsoever presented behind statement "Today, The Camp of the Saints is widely revered by American white supremacists" in it yet. Explain your reasoning why it should be in leader. Kekmon (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

conspiracy theory?

the splc doesn't say "conspiracy theory" & it misleads the reader. the turner diaries sounds like a conspiracy theory novel - the federal government is secretly controlled by a vast jewish conspiracy. but judging but the plot summary, there's no conspiracy in Camp - there's just an invasion, which is the opposite. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The source says "The premise of Camp of the Saints plays directly into that idea of white genocide". And yeah, that's a conspiracy theory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

googling "camp of the saints" "conspiracy theory" just brings up this article. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The book itself, by the way, does posit a conspiracy, by various "globalists" who facilitate the "invasion".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

source please? and why does the praise in the article body get no weight in the lead? NPalgan2 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

in the article (in addition to the criticism) there're 10 people with wiki bios praising it as a novel + shriver praising it as a novel but saying it's racist. lead should summarise article. can't see why kirkus reviews comparing it to mein kampf + splc comparing it to turner diaries is more notable than the other sources. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that section accurately sums up the general opinion of this novel. It's a grab-bag of random commentators weighted in favor of the novel. You could find 20 people with wiki bios and quote them saying "yeah, it's racist". Professional sources like Kirkus and Time and the SPLC should be weighted more than the opinions of randos. Gamaliel (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

"Randos"? Anouilh was one of the most famous French writers of the 20th century. But a Kirkus Reviews freelancer and an SPLC intern deserve more weight? NPalgan2 (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Dispute between me and Gamaliel. On its publication, The Camp of the Saints was praised by prominent French literary figures - the dramatist Jean Anouilh, members of the Académie française, et al. This is noted by several RSs:

• Sociologist fr:Jean-Marc Moura "has experienced many translations and, in France, a favorable critical reception" ... "distinguishes itself from this "stomach" paraliterature by the reception it has received from the ensemble of literary critics".
• Historian fr:Yvan Gastaut "received a favourable welcome from literary critics."
• Jeffrey Hart of Dartmouth College writing in National Review: "Respectable, comfortable reviewers in the Times Literary Supplement, the New York Times and elsewhere have been reduced to sputtering, even as their predecessors were by Ulysses and Tropic of Cancer. In freer and more intelligent circles in Europe, however, the book is a sensation and Raspail is a prize winner." Hart says that the two English-language outlets have condemned Raspail the way that the English-language books Ulysses and Tropic of Cancer were condemned in the past, contrasting the positive reception which the Camp of the Saints has received "in Europe" (note that this agrees with Moura's "in France" language).
• A Time magazine review makes it clear that the reviewer would prefer to ignore the book, but thinks that it has to be responded to due to the plaudits it has received: "This bilious tirade would not be worth a moment's thought if it had come off a mimeograph machine in some dank cellar. Instead, The Camp of the Saints arrives trailing clouds of praise from French savants [note plural], including Dramatist Jean Anouilh" (Gamaliel has described Anouilh as a "rando"; he was one of the most famous French writers of the 20th century.)
• Le Spectacle du Monde, French literary and culture magazine: "The Camp of the Saints finally obtained an impressive reception, not so much by the number (which was nothing compared to any showbiz memoir) as by the quality of those who praised it. They are called Anouilh, Bazin, Cau, Clavel, Deon, Dutourd, Fourastie, Maulnier, Pauwels ..."

In summary, Camp of the Saints received a positive reception from French literary figures; this was an important aspect of the book's reception as it lead to the book being picked up by a major English language publisher and is stated as a fact by observers like Moura, Gastaut and Time who clearly disapprove of the book; language noting this should be in the lead. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey there NPalgan2. It looks like this is the first attempt at talk page discussion about the dispute. I am removing the 3PO request until this discussion has had a chance to resolve the issues over the page. If after some reasonable attempt at discussion here you or Gamaliel feel that a 3PO would be useful it can certainly be relisted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hart and Moura do not discuss widespread acclaim by literary figures. Moura quotes some pull quotes from the book jacket. Yvan Gastaut just cites Moura in passing. Hart makes exactly the opposite point, that it was rejected by mainstream figures. You know very well I did not call Jean Anouilh a "rando"; this is part of a disturbing trend on your part of you reading quotes as what you want them to say and not what they actually say. NPOV means we must be neutral, but it doesn't mean some kind of false balance where we present two arbitrary sides with equal weight. Sure, a couple people, randos or not, praised the book, but you're taking a handful of passing references to that and are attempting to spin that into a narrative of imaginary widespread critical acclaim in order to create this "balance". Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"Moura quotes some pull quotes from the book jacket." No, Moura makes the SYNTH judgement that the novel received "a favorable critical reception" and then Gastaut repeats his language. "Professional sources like Kirkus and Time and the SPLC should be weighted more than the opinions of randos." NPalgan2 (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note the lack of the words "Jean Anouilh" in that sentence. Please also note the difference between "a favorable critical reception" and "praise from prominent French literary figures". The former includes randos while the latter does not. Gamaliel (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell:,

Please check a little bit your revert the ended up in a result with an improper grammar. On the other hand, see the discussions in the talk, is there a consensus for the book to be described unanimously as racist (or just that, since it is more complex to summarize it on one denominator)? I'v re read the sources, they make apellation that the work received such critics or has been described like so, while as well other opinions emerged as the lead further properly summarizes this. So, until this is discussed we should stick to a more neutral descriptor, or just ignore labeling, as the critics are already present.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC))

I have fixed the typo. As for the book's status, I do not think it is appropriate or neutral to merely describe this book as "controversial". This is too simplistic to be meaningful. It is not "controversial" in the same way that Harry Potter was controversial, or The Celestine Prophecy was controversial, it is controversial because of it's aggressive fear-mongering and dehumanizing contempt for non-white people based on their ethnicity. In other words, it is "controversial" because it is racist. If you want to discuss how to properly explain this in the lead, go ahead, but WP:EUPHEMISMs are not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Grayfell. I am the author of the second paragraph that I wrote back in December. After looking at various other Wikipedia articles(some of which are more developed), I believe that rather than place an adjective such as "racist" or "controversial" that no adjective of this nature should be placed at all in the lead sentence. Pieces of literature that are seen as racist or controversial are typically not explicitly stated in the lead sentence of each respective Wikipedia page. For instance, the Turner Diaries wiki page(a book that is certainly racist with a capital R) lead sentence simply describes it as a novel from the year 1978 by the author William Luther Pierce. Similarly, in the two examples you give as controversial("Harry Potter" and "The Celestine Prophecy"), are not labeled as controversial in their lead sentences for their wiki pages. When I was researching articles on this book, I took the time to read and add each one for support as part of an elaboration that is currently the second paragraph of this wiki page and the general consensus that the sources come to. I believe that we should avoid redundancy as it would be described as racist twice within the introduction. To understand my intent in regard to formatting and syntax, I would suggest looking at the introduction paragraphs for the The Birth of a Nation wiki page and the syntax that is used in this "good" rated page. I can see that both of our edits have been put libel to vandalism edits, and that there are some that despicably wish to hide this book's nature. I want to ensure you that my proposed edit is not of a place of malice or want of concealing the unpleasantness of this book but that of ensuring the syntax is of the highest quality. AdvancedScholar (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the lead sentence state that the book is "a racist 1973 French dystopian fiction novel"?

There has been slow edit-warring over this since atleast November 2019 and discussion on a talk page thread. --Pudeo (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• No, but cover controversial status in the lead. I think that WP:LABEL is clear with this. Value-laden labels, such as racist, are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The New York Times article is an authoritative source, but even that should be attributed. The lead sentence is in wiki-voice and thus it can't be attributed in-text. Furthermore, it sounds awfully unencyclopedic and simplistic. Can you imagine opening a general knowledge encyclopedia and reading that something is a "racist novel"? Racism and white nationalist following should be covered in the lead regardless. However, a 2011 article in L'Express, while concluding that the book is a "work of the far-right", noted that it had been read and commented by former French presidents Francois Mitterand, Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy, and not least by US president Ronald Reagan while in office. Samuel P. Huntington also met with the author in 2004. So there should not be undue emphasis only on the white nationalist following in the lead, because the influence was wider than that.--Pudeo (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• No, per my earlier comments in the lead section and per nominator.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC))
• No, I would like to thank Puedo for making this vote so we can end the protracted edit-warring and come to a consensus. The explanation for my decision can be found in earlier conversations on the talk page.--AdvancedScholar (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• No, because it uses Wikipedia's voice for the epithet, even if it brings several citations for it. These epithets, which may or may not have validity, ought to be attributed to those who made them. On the point of Mitterand (Vichy regime + Socialist Party Leader and President), Chirac (UMP), and Sarkozy (UMP), it goes to show that educated mainstream politicians of all stripes read the book. XavierItzm (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)