Talk:Jacques Chirac
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theJacques Chirac article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
| Archives:1 |
| ||||||||||
 | News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia'sMain Page in the"In the news" column on July 15, 2002,March 8, 2011, andDecember 15, 2011. | |||||||||
 | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia'sMain Page in the"On this day..." column onMay 17, 2005,May 17, 2006,May 17, 2012, andMay 17, 2015. | |||||||||
 | The Development of the Port of New-Orleans was nominated fordeletion.The discussion was closed on13 October 2013 with a consensus tomerge. Its contents weremerged intoJacques Chirac. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please seeits history; for its talk page, seehere. |
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chirac has never been a member of the Communist Party, contrary to what is written in this article. It's right the young Chirac had participated to the campaign for the communist-inspiredStockholm Appeal against nuclear weapons. Some people said he seld the communist paperL'Humanité, but he has always denied it. Nevertheless, he has never joined the Communist Party. (Excuse me for my English, I'm French)—Precedingunsigned comment added by82.66.234.112 (talk)15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chirac is a brillian president and after CDG may be the best president France ever had. I am pround to be from Europe where there is a great country France led by such a charmful, intelligent,independent and pragmatic president. He did so much for France and for Europe overall. his antiamericanism encourages every independent thinking soul in the world to heroism and dignity.Oh Mr Chirac you will be dearly missed, so sorry to find out you retire from politics. Who is going to save France from Sarkozy, why De Villepin doesnt run for president. We will all miss you. A great man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--armenianNY 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)--armenianNY 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The only person very well known for receiving oral affections is Israeli president Kazav( probably your president Mr Adler) If I were you I would be more careful with my lables. I am wondering why you are still not blocked from so called online encyclopedia. If any gentle came and blackmouthed the Jews or Jewish pogroms he would have been blocked immediately. Without any shame or any courtesy, being a real cynical loser, you after signing in, opened your mouth and critisized de Gaulle whose antifascist activities saved your Jewish race during Holocaust. And you have so much hatred towards Chirac because he did something wrong that did not coincide with Israeli interests; he supported Saddam. Good for us. That is one of the reasons he is magnificient. He is independent and very objective. Chirac is a very very good president for both France and Europe overall. After his term he will be dearly missed.--armenianNY 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I wish Mark Twain's nation contributed as much as the French into human culture and civilization. So far it is still the French making laws in the world of fashion, art and literature. It is still the French inventing the best parfume in the world. It is still the French who lead the world in gastronomy and dining. The only contributions that your nation made so far are Mc Donalds and crap a la Jennifer Lopez. If you look at the same Black race acting in Paris and in New York subway you will realize the real difference between French and American civilizations. May Twain rest in peace. Things have been change since his death. He would run away from the country where he was born if he were alive.
It is the souvereign right of the French president to sell what he wants and whom he wants. In terms of nuclear weapons,you have to prove that he tried. You accused the innocent Iraq of obtaining and producing WMD and so far havent been able to prove it. You invaded an innocent independent country for no reason, killed almost 600000 Iraqis and capitally punished its leader. Look at yourself before judging Chirac. If I were him I would do the same. Americans need to be shown some teeth all over the world so they will realize the meaninglessness of their bullying. About who saved whom, it is a big question. Soviets also claim they saved Eastern Europe from fascism, they claimed they liberated Baltic states from Hitler. But who asked them to liberate? Did the French ask you to go to save them? I bet you, no. You Americans entered the WW2 when the victory of the Soviets after Stalingrad became obvious, when you realized that France would be "saved" by Russians, when you really wanted your zone of occupation in post war Germany. Therefore, nobody wanted you to liberate or save anybody. Sit and spin in your own country. Iraqis did not ask you to liberate them as well as Afghanitsan did not ask you to stick your nose in Afghanistan. They lived in the stony age and they wanted to keep living like that. Russians built civilization for them, nonetheless they hated Russians who built air base Baghram used by American occupiers at the moment. You boycotted Olympic Games in Moscow because Russians were fighting in Afghanistan. You supported Pakistanis in their fight against Russians in Afghanistan as if you were so concerned with occupation of Afghanistan. When everybody left pain-in-the-ass Afghanitan you decided to "save" them again by occupying it. Who will save "America" one nice day?
Rather as some will never learn that "fascist" does not mean "person with whom I disagree."
Do you know the date when Americans opened the Second Front in Normandy? I think that is the date Americans came to "save" French people, as they "saved" Germans in Dresden. About doing nothing against Holocaust until the end of the war....Well, I do not think that arbeitende volke in Auschwitz, Buchenwald Maidanek had ball until May 9 1945 and went home with good memories.... I think that some people came from the East and liberated and saved them long before the end of the WW2. My facts about Stalingrad? It is a common sense that the breakthrough in WW2 happened in Stalingrad and the battle of Stalingrad predicted that Soviets would be the only real and true winners of the war. After Stalingrad even Turkey declared war on his ally Germany and Americans began to kiss Stalin's ass as tight as possible. FYI Mr Adler (I think your last name tells everybody you are a Jew) it is a complement to be called Communist by Stalin and not only by him.--armenianNY 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
To all the armchair generals and statesman who posted above... you guys are tools.Are you sure they are generals and statesmen? Would be nice if you signed you posting or were more precise instead of sending multi-meaning double messages.Yes Jacques Chirac led France in the period of economic cooling or slowdown. He had so many internal problems that he couldnt solve. But we all know about cyclic system of laisez fair market economy. May be the next president Royal will come and do nothing or may be she will try to change it... or implement welfare reforms (Who will need them? we all know that Chirac indeed was very lefty). But, again. as a matter of chance, her presidential period can coincide with economic boom and she can be remembered later as a good reformist leader...Overall, so far as I am on the planet Earth I do not remember any French president who was a bad leader for France. Valerie had lots of internal economic problems as well, but overall he was a very good president. Mitterand was just brilliant. He did so much for France.. And Jacques Chirac was very competent in external affairs, balanced policy, Eurointegration. But most of all I will remember him for his love for French football....I will always remember how he jumped when Petite scored the 3 goal in Stade de France, how he defended Zidane when Zizou really needed that.... I will always remember his modest and humble wife Bernadette, their elegant mannters and intelligent actions. Again, Monsieur Chirac, Mercie beaucoup. we will always love and support you and France. --armenianNY 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Now don't get me wrong, I hate Chirac as much as any other red-blooded American, but I don't think we should have a section devoted mostly to negative portrayals in an article about a standing head of state. I especially think we should get rid of the picture of the "Superliar" puppet. A brief mention in another section about how he is portrayed should be more than enough.
I removed the "Super Liar" picture. If no one has a problem with it, I'll remove the parody section alltogether.--Cuchullain 04:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Les Guignols de l'Info is a very influent parodic show in France. I think it's really important to explain what image JC have cause/thanks to this show. I also really don't understand the point that as Bush's article have noparody section all other article about president mustn't have one!Aoineko07:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I reinserted the information.David.Monniaux09:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hottentot, if you remove this parody section one more time, I'll file a request against you. I don't give a damn whether we do not have a parody section in GWB's article. This is an article about a French president, and the French like parody a lot.David.Monniaux13:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, David, this is not the way to go. There is disagreement about this section. The supermenteur parody is outdated. The guignol changed a lot and don't call Mr Chirac supermenteur anymore.Peco08:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1448471.stm
What are the allegations against Chirac?
There are several cases under investigation, of which the four biggest are:
Paris public housing (or HLM) contracts backhanders: This investigation, initially opened by Judge Eric Halphen in 1994, concerns bribes allegedly paid for the allocation of public housing contracts, which are thought to have contributed to the financing of the RPR and other political parties. The allegations against two people close to Mr Chirac - the late Jean-Claude Mery and Michel Roussin - prompted prosecutors to ask how much he knew about the scam.
Chirac's career 1976-1994: RPR President
1977-1995: Mayor of Paris
1974-1976 and 1986-1988: Prime Minister
Since 1995: President
In September, the Court of Appeals threw out the case because of procedural flaws, but replaced Judge Halphen, with another magistrate, Armand Riberolles, who observers say may be able to resume the investigation.
Cash-for-tickets, linked to bribes on secondary school contracts: Backhander payments are also reported to have been made in return for contracts to refurbish secondary schools in the Paris region. The scheme, thought to have been put in place in the late 1980s, is said to have benefited all major political parties. Once again, Mr Roussin and Mr Mery were implicated, leading the investigation, which opened in 1997, in Mr Chirac's direction.
In July it was revealed that large sums of cash, allegedly totalling almost 2.4m francs ($320,000), had been used to pay for trips for Mr Chirac and his family and close colleagues between 1992 and 1995. He says the money came from his personal allowances, but investigators believe it may have been one way of spending the illegal commissions.
Fake RPR jobs: This investigation, opened in 1996 by Judge Patrick Desmure, relates to fictitious jobs given to members of Jacques Chirac's RPR party by private firms - who would be granted public contracts in return - and the Paris town hall between 1988 and 1995. It is alleged Mr Chirac knew of the arrangement.
Sempap fraud: This investigation, which began in 1997 and is headed by Judges Armand Riberolles and Marc Brisset-Foucault, examines allegations of fraud and favouritism towards the Sempap company, responsible for the Paris town hall's printing requirements between 1986 and 1996 while Mr Chirac was mayor.
Funny thing, the info about JC's problems when firstly going to US because of his left wings ties I could only find it on the en.wp but not on the fr.wp. Is there any reference to that? Thanks! --Vlad00:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Chirac de A à Z definitely mentions that he had problems with the French military because he was considered what would be called in the US a "pinko commie", and also mentions he went to the US. I'd have to dig out the book to see whether it also mentions visa difficulties, or whether these were sourced in another book.
The French wikipediadoes mention this event:
I.e. "he signs in 1950 the Call of Stockholm, against nuclear weaponry, of Communist inspiration (which resulted in him being interrogated when he requested his first visa to the United States, a country for which he has a genuine admiration)".David.Monniaux05:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added his function as mayor of Paris because, if one does not mention that in the list, the reader gets the feeling Chirac didn't do anything but be the president of a party during this long period.Vb13:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the military wanted to de-rank him because they did not want a "Communist" to become an officer. However, Chirac's extensive family acquaintances had him ranked back at his former position. - Unless there is a source for this, we cannot really include it. It looks to me like a subtle attempt to portray Chirac as the aloof aristocrat...of course he may actuallybe an aloof aristocrat, but Wikipedia convention dictates that we give sources, so can anybody provide one for this?Peeper 11:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC) PS - same goes for this: Chirac volunteered to be deployed in Algeria while the Algerian War of Independence was raging, even though his family connections would easily have allowed him to obtain a safe position away from the war.Peeper15:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading an online BBC article[1] and noticed that it said "Mr Chirac, who plans to run for re-election in 2007..." I was kinda surprised, so I came here to see what our article said about this, and saw that we were saying it was uncertain if he was running again. Anybody know if the BBC just got this wrong, or we're out of date, or what?Everyking08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This part Chirac threatened to veto any resolution in the U.N. Security Council that would authorize the use of military force to rid Iraq of alleged weapons of mass destruction, and rallied other governments to his position.is incorrect. I read at the time precisely what Chirac had said and it was not as clear cut as the article is making out (Tony Blair has been using this dodgy excuse to justify his failure at the UN). Clair Short has pointed this out on Television and in her book so it's a prettty well established fact.--MarkB15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, this issue was discussed on the BBC - here's atranscript of a Panorama program.
Does and did Chirac not veto a law that was "passed" by the National Assembly? Does this warrant a mention??
Hmm.. no info about Chirac's famous activities during crisis over "corridor" from Kaliningrad, during negotations in Nice and finally famouse "you lose the occassion to shut up"?Szopen13:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that he either doesn't stand, or is defeated, then will he lose his immunity from prosecution over alleged wrongdoings whilst he was mayor of Paris ? If so, it is likely that he will be charged, or at least investigated ? --219.77.165.9313:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google lists this as an article about the current French president. I presume this is an inaccuracy in some preview code in this article. Can someone explain what the casue of this datedd assertion is, and how to fix it? Maybe fix it too, cuz I sure don't know nothing bout this here intertubes.65.185.93.86 (talk)03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC) peach out homeyz; tha motherfucking G Dawg; Jersey Shore 4 Life[reply]
86.16.159.21215:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does Co-Prince of Andorra need to be in the infobox? It's a piece of historical trivia, not an important part of what Chirac actually does, and is already mentioned in the first paragraph of the article.john k13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears onNicolas Sarkozy's page as well; it's part of the standard infobox and apparently part of the title.--Gloriamarie09:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
user Sensi.fr reverted an edit concerning Chirac sustaining an injury during a visit to a brothel. This edit was not made to malign Chirac, just a statement of fact. Was the revert done to suppress an inconvenient truth?
Is the trivia section really needed if it's only one piece of trivia?
Reigning Monarch? Why is listed under this?
Hello. I see that the article has a certain tilt towards outlining only the criticisms of Chirac's two presidencies. I am disappointed to see that the entire article is a concentrated critique of him as a person and none to his actual policies. There were no highlight of the policies that rendered positive results during these two terms. Aside from the NO vote against the Iraq War, is there anything else that can be said about his presidency putting aside the party politics, corruption speculation et al?
I am in the predisposition that the article be reformatted and have portions that deals with a comprehensive analysis of his economic policies, foreign policies (such as his success in strengthening the Franco-German Bloc in the EU with ex Chancellor Schroeder perhaps?) , military, and other domestic issues which were not tackled as much as the personal criticisms were. The entire bulk of this article should maybe be classified under the subtitle "Criticisms During Chirac's presidency" or something of this sort.
Although I sense some impartiality in this article (except of course the Biography portion), I think that the writers and the contributors to this article have aptly illustrated how great a political tactician Chirac is when it comes to finding leverage during elections.
Happy if anyone can enlighten me on these matters. Thanks much.—The precedingunsigned comment was added byAbrionesknox (talk •contribs)08:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Would it be worth mentioning that as a young man JC spent a Summer as a waiter in New York?
ToY who undid my modification. do you deem it normal that more than half of the PMship section is devoted to the relation with Saddam Hussein (common to all democracies of the time) and Osirak ? do French politics of that era amount only to that (in fr: there is not a word infr:Jacques Chirac, and I never saw it mentioned in short biographies). Half of the section, really ...81.250.60.21515:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81, I disagree with your removal of "The Osirak Controversy" section. This was not simply a "warm word of welcome given in the past to a current dictator", this appeared to be an ongoing relationship which resulted in significant financial deals, sales of nuclear reactors and significant military sales ("It is reckoned that during the 1980s, 40% of France's arms exports went to Iraq") and with both Chirac and Saddam referring to each other as "Dear friends". Of course, it is true, that at the time Saddam had warm relations with many world leaders. For example, as noted by theBBC News, Donald Rumsfeld was another Western political figure with question marks over his head concerning his dealings with Saddam. Certainly,Donald Rumsfeld's article includes an image of him meeting on what appears to be friendly terms with Saddam in 1983 and a section detailing the meeting and the fact that Rumsfeld "brought many gifts from the Reagan administration. These gifts included pistols, medieval spiked hammers even a pair of golden cowboy spurs". To include this kind of information is not unique to the Chirac article.
If you feel that there is an undue weight issue, then please, feel free to write more about Chirac's period as Prime Minister between 1974–76. However, the relationship which developed between Chirac and Hussein during that period has been discussed extensively in the worldwide media. I understand you are French, or that you live in France, and it is possible that you are not fully aware of the extensive international news media's coverage of Chirac's relationship with Saddam when he threatened to use France's veto in the UN Security Council and in the lead up to and in the immediate aftermath of the war. I feel Y was correct to revert your removal of this section, but I would encourage you to consider writing more about Chirac's period as PM. Also, please note that the English Wikipedia does not take its lead from the French Wikipedia. That the French Wikipedians have chosen not to write about this is of no consequence to en-WP, nor is the coverage in other biographies you may have read. Though, I can tell you that if you google both names together, you will find thousands of articles which reference their relationships. As well, Chirac was questioned directly by the Western media on numerous occasions and there are various transcripts of these interviews available on the internet.Sarah20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like Chirac, he was a corrupt president, but I am not sure the American people hate him for good reasons. I think this section is misleading. One could believe that these France-Iraq deals are the reason of Chirac's opposition to the second gulf war. It should be put into context: France sold about $12 bn worth logistics/weapons from 1974 to 1988, while only from 1984 to 1987 the Reagan adm. provided Saddam with $40 bn aid to buy logistics/weapons and sent him $billions more to keep him away from the Russians. The arms were bought indifferently from the US, UK, France, Russia. (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein, and details in the National Security Archivehttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/) while the French provided a nuclear plant, the Americans provided chemical weapons... what is worse...? tie? There is no mention of all this in the Reagan biography (why ?) Therefore one could think that France was the main, or worse, the only weapons supplier (it was the main supplier... after the US and Russia !). I think we should add a paralel of this section in the Reagan Bio, if not, recall here that Saddam had even more military help from the US and particularly the Reagan adm.
One should also recall that in 1990 Chirac strongly backed the US and the first Gulf War and the dismantle of saddam's regime. He regretted that Europe had not a stronger stance against Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait (see for instance "Jacques Chirac : une certaine absence de l’Europe", Georges Suffert, Interview de Jacques Chirac, Le Figaro 12&13 janvier 1990, page 6). Now you can quote the seemingly friendly words of Chirac to Saddam in 1975. But remember that in French diplomacy, you have to use "cher ami" (dear friend) for an ally, whoever he is, since in French "ami" (ally/friend) is the natural opposite of "ennemi" (enemy). And of course Saddam was considered an ally by the US, France, UK...against Iran.
Sarah: of course if you google it, you will find thousands of articles about a "saddam-chirac friendship", as well as thousands articles saying that the french have forgotten what the US did in WW1&2. Now come back to reality: these articles were all written after 2003 by Americans/Australians (international coverage, eh ? The same journalists would try to prove there were WMDs in Iraq). Of course, if you go to France and ask around you (as I did), everybody still remembers that the US freed them twice. Similarly, looking back at the unclassified docs of National Security Archive and at the news coverage in the 1980s, it seems that the Reagan-Saddam ties were stronger in 1986 than the Saddam-Chirac ties ever were in 1975 (when Saddam was not yet the dictator and the mass murderer he became a few years later).
In conclusion, Chirac had corruption scandals, which has to be strongly emphasized. But when it comes to Iraq, you cannot pick a few facts here and there and forget others, in order to suggest that he supported Saddam's dictatorship more than everybody else in the western world. What Chirac said about Saddam during first Gulf war say it all. Either say nothing, or say everything.ɝ—Precedingunsigned comment added by201.17.96.214 (talk)08:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chirac "used personal relations" to get his army commission and posting to Algeria. Does this mean he "used his relatives' influence" or he "used personal connections (with people who presumably weren't relatives)"? Probably not written by a native English speaker - somebody who knows the answer should correct it.—Precedingunsigned comment added by171.192.0.10 (talk)10:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inthe last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT (talk)09:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As part of my cleanup iof the article, I have today removed the quote by Chirac expressing his admiration foe Saddam. I feel that this is not directly relevant to the narrative of Chirac's biography; his friendship is already well described in the article. Chirac's comments are part of the flowery diplomatic niceties permitted of a French president, and I am certain many examples of his expression of admiration of other leaders exist, and is thus no reason for inclusion of any such quotes in this article.Ohconfucius (talk)03:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This was most likely just diplomatic niceties. And such a reference would need to be put in context vis-a-vis Western support for Iraq against Iran at that time to avoid violating NPOV.JanvonBismarck (talk)18:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I came across a couple of sources today saying that Chirac is a Mason. One is here:[2][3], the other is[4], page 86. Any objection to including that information?Jayen46620:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should mention the fact that Chirac was a chain smoker until the late 1980s, since this is almost certainly what caused his stroke in 2005. (92.7.28.205 (talk)20:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
This title should be changed as well as the whole section should be re-written. This section makes him look like he's anti-islamic. But for real, not only hijab has been banned under his rule, also turbans are banned,[6] which serve religious, traditional importance towards millions of people.Bladesmulti (talk)11:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to beWP:BOLD and delete this section. It is unreferenced, but deals with a controversial topic that could damage Chirac's image to certain readers. In that vein, it either has to be solidly verified or it should be gone. Plus, it is just tagged in there and doesn't fit in any way with the flow of the article, like an afterthought. If solid, reliable sources can be found to verify that Chirac is against the wearing of islamic headwear, then it can be readded in the article in a better way that better flows. (I do understand that Islamiphobia is rather widespread in France right now). Until then I felt that removing this section was necessary perWP:BLP.69.14.38.40 (talk)01:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link onJacques Chirac. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online02:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links onJacques Chirac. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)07:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links onJacques Chirac. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{dead link}} tag tohttp://www.capital.fr/Actualite/Default.asp?source=RE&numero=270226&Cat=GENWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)22:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links onJacques Chirac. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)19:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at thenomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk)20:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a discussion/!voting showing that editors find this article missing quality, to be linked from from main page (Recent deaths). Whatever, I invite each and every editor toimprove this article to make it acceptable (even while we don't know what that standard is, I add cynically). -DePiep (talk)21:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have upgraded this article to class-B[7]. See alsoWP:ASSESS. Those who wish to challege this, are invited to discuss. IOM, this implies the article is suitable for mainspace linking (WP:ITNRD). -DePiep (talk)21:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not B-class, not that it really means anything when it counts for adherence toWP:BLP. IfDePiep (or anyone else for that matter) is keen to get the article to B-class (a noble pursuit) and keen to get it posted at RD (also, a noble pursuit), they should, as a minimum, address thedozens of unreferenced claims in the article. Until that's fixed, we have a very poor C-lass article with multiple BLP violations which iscompletely unsuitable for the Main Page.The Rambling Man(Staying alive since 2005!)06:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They should ...-- Why not "someone", or "we"? -DePiep (talk)09:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If [x] is keen to get the article to B-class ... and keen to get it posted at RD ...they should ... address the dozens of unreferenced claims in the article. My response was, of course: why not you yourself? -DePiep (talk)20:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
missing the whole point, it is replying to your actual posts here. Youdid write that "someone else" should edit, not "we". Is what I pointed out. -DePiep (talk)21:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
