Talk:Libération

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

[Untitled][edit]

"Libération started off in the 1970s with a definite left-wing stance, often challenging right-wing economic and social choices and the dominant culture. However, by the 1990s, it strongly supported the racist themes of the fascist party in France, the Front National, with the justification that the best way to stop the fascist party from being voted into local and national government was to accept the basic assumptions of racism (such as the assumption that immigrants are a danger to France), while promoting a more moderate implementation of racist concepts."

is there any evidence for this? Why was it deleted? Is there any truth to these claims? This can be made NPOV by simply sourcing some criticism from elsewhere and filing under "critics".


What a shame, that vandalism was not found for half a year. Get-back-world-respect 15:38, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see your point that you want to point out their political tendency. "Leftist slant" is however derogatory and not very specific. The German page calls them "linksliberal", a term that does not exist in English and that means "liberal and left to the center". But I am not sure if "liberal" means about the same in english as in german, "socialist" for example usually does not. I would say that the reader can already judge from the fact how they were founded. It would be worth noting how they developed, and maybe something more specific than "they tried to shock the bourgeoisie". Get-back-world-respect 15:18, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You should definitely not have deleted this paragraph, even though you disagreed with its formulation. It is a fact that Libé is a left-wing newspaper – similarly, it is a fact that Le Figaro is a conservative newspaper.
If I may say, the tone in Libération is somewhat "bobo" (left-wing bourgeois) nowadays – trendy, if you see what I mean. I don't see how to say that without sounding POV.
Libé used to be a much more militant newspaper than it is today. In the counter-culture 1970s era, it often tried to "épater le bourgeois" – bring out arguments, points of view and ideas that would seem alien to the conservative bourgeois.
Finally, arguing that Libé is a quality newspaper does not mean much. I've spotted Libé spewing nonsense out too many a time to have much respect in its factual reliability. David.Monniaux 20:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I find it highly questionable to describe this newspaper as "highly critical on the action of the United States federal government, and some aspects of American society that it deems unsavory." The journalists are clearly not critical of whatever US federal governments actions, and "aspects of American society" is so vague that it does not say anything. This is not a racist newspaper. Strong criticism of actions like the Bush administration's Iraq war are more or less widespread in newspapers all over the world, I see no reason to particularly stress this here. Get-back-world-respect 00:31, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Libé is not a racist newspaper, but it has a long tradition of criticizing aspects of the American society that it disagrees with. It goes much further than criticizing the current US administration; they largely disagree with many of the values and ways of doing things of the US. In doing so, it has a militant tone that you won't find in, say, Le Monde. As the quotes I have linked prove it, this militant tone is officially assumed by the newspaper. David.Monniaux 05:57, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have never read in any French newspaper anything close to the militant style that could be found in US and British media regarding the French position on the Iraq conflict:
Shall we include the tag "militant" in all the related articles? Get-back-world-respect 14:52, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Krauthammer and Safire are op-ed columnists; what they write are opinion articles, not news articles. What I contend is that the news reporting of Libé, outside of their opinion pages (rebonds), tends to be made from a specific left-wing point of view that disapproves of many workings of the US society and their government – and this goes far beyond the current international relations.
Similarly, US newspapers such as the New York Times tend to mix up value judgments in their international news reporting (again, I'm not talking about the opinion pages).
Still, I think you're right – this is something difficult to report upon in an encyclopedic fashion. David.Monniaux 17:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Out of date?[edit]

I understood from newspaper coverage in the UK in 2006 and 2007 that Libération had gone bankrupt and been closed down. This article is written as if it still exists, but it hasn't been updated for some time. Could somebody who knows what has happened please update it and clarify what has become of the paper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.242.160 (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the paper is still very much in print, thank you… 83.199.53.73 (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i'm just reading it now, he's still alive despite the bad shape of the french press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.188.128 (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To archive[edit]

http://m.liberation.fr/

This also leads to the mobile site WhisperToMe (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.bjp-online.com/2013/11/french-newspaper-removes-all-images-in-support-of-photographers/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Libération. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)