Talk:François Mitterrand

Picture
I think that the picture used to represent him is quite awful, it actually looks like it was cropped from a way bigger picture. I can see that it's the default picture used in other languages (like french) but that's no excuse, the pictures used in the spanish page is much better, and even a quick google images search would turn up something more suitable.

Germany's reunification
Why isn't mentioned that he threatened Germany's chancellor Kohl with war if Germany would reunite? This was just stopped because he heard about an european currency and therefore wasn't scared of the economic power of united Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.220.97 (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Germany paid. Kohl determined with Mitterrand that France's elf Aquitaine should get the Leuna/Minol complex in the former East Germany. In the end, so the expert Dr. Rainer Karlsch, Germany spent 50 billion (DM I suppose) for creating a viable business for elf.
 * It was not in one go, Mitterrand demanded more money at each step of the way. But Mitterrand was also directed by the US. David Brooks said on PBS during the Arab Spring "and this time we have no Mitterrand to help us". Why do I know this? I lost my family's heritage when they 'stole' our Minol allotment in Berlin Prenzlauer Promenade 191 - they had to get money somehow to please Mitterrand, elf Aquitaine, and the US. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:75DA:A10:AFDA:D5AD (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

Toubon law
On the downside, his Minister of Culture Jacques Toubon proposed a law that was supposed to protect the French language (March 1994). The law, later known as "Toubon Law" would impose hefty fines on businesses using English words or language in their advertising or slogans.
 * Factually false. David.Monniaux 10:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Taking a lesson from Quebec's Bill 101? The mother country learns from the child... Trekphiler 16:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Besides, I fail to see how a Toubon proposition could in any way be a "downside" point about Mitterrand. The "downside" is your perception of a law which is not followed by everyone, and I can't see how it would be a "downside" of a person. "Supposed to protect" is pov. - Worst of all Mitterrand has very few responsability for a law that was proposed by a mininister and voted by a parliament that were both opposed to him. Ericd 23:59, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

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

Spelling
This article appears to be in the wrong place. François Mitterrand is not the usual English way of writing Francois Mitterrand, even though it's correct French. Barring objections, I'll move it to the place our normal practice says it should be at. Jamesday 15:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * How did you did you determine the usual English way of writing? Looks like Wikipedia always spelled it François Mitterrand, and many English sources spell it that way, unless they don't have the ç in their charset. I'd leave it at François Mitterrand where it is since article names can include ç as well. --User:Docu

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


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

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

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

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


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

02:21, 19 Feb2006 (UTC)

His wife, Danielle Mitterrrrrand, is a left-wing militant. is POV to me. Not changing it since i am not familiar with her history. pamri 13:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it's a fairly accurate assessment about Danielle Mitterrand. David.Monniaux 11:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


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


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

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

Mitterrand first denied but later admitted receiving the francisque. Not sure of the chronology here. I read somewhere, in a book or in an interview by Jacques Laurent (possibly in Jacques Laurent's autobiography) (Jacques Laurent is a French writer who was close to Vichy, known for his right-wing views and who could not be suspected of caring to protect Mitterrand) that Mitterrand had accepted the francisque as part of his "resistant" cover. It is believable. Others had done the same. What makes Mitterrand's francisque potentially more than just a cover for his underground activities is his post-war relationship with the French nazi Bousquet, who was fiercely antisemitic and with whom Mitterrand maintained a friendship. (Patrick Toche, 24 May 2006)
 * François Mitterrand n'a pas nié explicitement qu'il ait reçu la Francisque, il a nié l'avoir « arborée ». Il répondait à une interpellation du député gaulliste Raymond Dronne, qui l'accusait aussi d'avoir milité à l'Action française (ce qui est complètement faux) : Pierre Péan, Une jeunesse française, p. 15.
 * Vous confondez René Bousquet, secrétaire général de la police de Vichy, avec Pierre Bousquet, ancien Waffen SS. René Bousquet a appliqué la politique anitsémite de Vichy, mais il n'était pas personnellement antisémite. Il s'entendait très bien, après guerre, avec des juifs comme Pierre Mendès France ou Évelyne Baylet (directrice du quotidien La Dépêche du Midi).
 * Pardon d'écrire en français, mais je préfère ne pas écorcher l'anglais.
 * I recall that 3,000 Francisques were awarded; can some French expert please supply us with the number? - it could be more or less. It puts its rarity in context.86.42.202.69 20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Should articles be sources in the entry itself?

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

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


 * I actually think the investigation (on New Zealand's end) was quite thorough, as for France on the other hand, well that was a total Dog and pony show, the passing of the buck all these years was idiotic. I think that this article needs more bearing on the sinking as it was in the same field as te 9/11 attacks, just on a smaller scale.


 * - (♠  Taifar  ious1  ♠) 05:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this the first time since Waterloo (then a part of the Batavic Republic) that France made an attack on Dutch territory? Given the fact that the vessel carried a Dutch flag. 85.164.222.169 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

prominent POV quote removed
Removed:

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


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


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

No time to translate, but here is the source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miterrand was not particularly antisemite or anti anything he was very pro Mitterrand! In his young days he was pro anything which he considered would improve his chances of making a name for himself rather than pro principals - hence his fitting in with his catholic rightwing upbringing before the war and his foot in each camp approach to Vichy and the resistance. He was seduced by Petain's authority and demeanour but at the same time revolted by the treatment of the POW's and escapées. The French language Wiki pages on Miterrand during the war and in connection with the far right make this clear with plenty of references to support the arguments. in latter life he was influenced by his wife in terms of socialist principals but only to the extent that he could use them to further his political career rather than because he was believer. He used divide and conquer to keep power once he got it and kept up friendships with anyone he though helpful to him rather than through genuine "amity". again there are plenty of references on the french language pages to back this up.Mjchesnel (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * it seems sometimes that after 1945 every frenchman was in resistance ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * a bit like every American sheds a few patriotic tears when reminiscing about WWII and the hero that their daddy or uncle was as he liberated Europe ; when in fact the number of Americans having truly a direct relative that landed in Normandy is around 0.5%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.178.123 (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

This article is a whitewash
Just like the French press. 131.107.0.86 19:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Ksnow


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

128.239.212.172 13:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

Last Meal. Michael Paterniti's Esquire article about the "famous" last meal doesn't really blow my skirt up. Who are these guests he interviewed two years after the fact? How did he locate the cooking staff and the servers? Who cares? Mitterand is easy to recognize as the stereotypical "decadent European." Esquire's article doesn't do much for either side of that viewpoint. It's just another rumor given wide credence by the tasteless American press. Move on.
 * Some details about the "last meal" may have been exaggerated, but the meal itself (with the ortolans) is real: it was narrated in a book by George-Marc Benhamou, who was there (cf ) and apparently confirmed by Roger Hanin. It probably deserves one or two sentences, no more. Thbz 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Princegeorges 13:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * However the article about the bird here on Wikipedia clearly says that hunting of ortolan was banned in France only in 1999, which is 3 years after Mitterand expired. So it is perplexing why it says here that it was illegal at the time. I have no clue which of thee two is true, but they cannot both be -- that is obvious.
 * Also, I cannot understand why people would consume meat of mammals and birds at all, and especially in this barbaric fashion (with bones and intestines and whatnot), but that is just me.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.147.61 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Princegeorges 17:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The article by Stanton says nothing about François Mitterrand (except that he is Jean-Christophe Mitterrand's father), so I wonder why you want to use it here. See Rwandan genocide instead, or something like Role of the French government in the Rwandan genocide. Besides, in 1994, Mitterrand was ill and the Government belonged to th opposite political side! So don't assume that he was responsible for all French actions then. Thbz 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. But the Economist isn't a respectable enough source so I wasn't going to reference that.  I'll find a better article.Princegeorges 13:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Economist is very respectable indeed in the anglosphere, and perhaps the is the problem. If FM reserved defence and foreign policy to himself, then Rwanda fell into his responsibilities on both counts. If he was ill, he would delegate his work. In terms of 'respectable sources', wikipedia expects a variety of views, giving sources in each case. Then the reader can make up his/her mind.86.42.202.69 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So, coming back to the "last meal" I saw some support above for "one or two sentences, no more". It does seem to have some genuine value as contributing to the definition of Mitterand's cultural identity. On the above basis I have drafted a single sentence which seeks to capture the essentials and inserted it into the article. Nandt1 (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ortolan really did not seem to be banned in France before 1999 (according among other sources to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortolan_bunting )! Beyond some claims by Paterniti and one or two other web sources, there is no sign anywhere of any ban laws enacted before Mitterrand's ceremonial last meal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.contesi (talk • contribs) 18:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

In fact, there is at least one web source which explicitly claims the bird was not illegal to hunt at the time of Mitterrand's 'last meal': http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-1309634/The-songbirds-slaughtered-Frenchmans-supper.html#axzz2KOZ8ABl3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.contesi (talk • contribs) 18:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

But, actually, this article from 1997 suggests ortolan hunting was prohibited before 1999: http://next.liberation.fr/vous/1997/01/09/le-paradoxe-de-l-ortolan-apprecie-de-juppe-et-mitterrand-l-oiseau-n-est-ni-chassable-ni-protege_194679 — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.contesi (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The article specifies however that the law was not clear at the time (1997): although ortolan was not included in the list of animal species that could be hunted, it was not in the list of protected birds either! — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.contesi (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Agnostic
As a quick search proves it, he was definetely an agnostic and not a Roman Catholic anymore. Here one of these sites :[:http://www.denistouret.net/constit/Mitterrand_Franc.html]85.242.237.97 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As does this PBS transcript, which is why i've updated the article to reflect the same. COGITO ERGO SUM 20:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajcheema (talk • contribs)

Withdraw of Nazi collaborator
François Mitterrand had worked at Vichy but he was not a nazi collaborator. There is a very big difference ! During some months, He thank Marechal Petain should save French honor and finaly he decide to work for french resistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.119.172.116 (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Suicide(?) of François de Grossouvre
Now I'm not one for conspiracy theories, and I admit it is by some far stretch of the imagination that someone COULD PERHAPS MAYBE shoot themselves in the head 2 times, having 2 bullet wounds to the head makes the label "suicide" questionable at best right? Should we change the section to the neutral "Death of François de Grossouvre" 75.83.67.181 (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Did Mitterand remain a fascist all his life?
If Mitterand continued placing flowers on Pétains tomb all his life, does not that mean that he remained a fascist till his death? --Oddeivind (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All the presidents before him (De Gaulle, Pompidou, Giscard) put flowers on Pétain's tomb as well. By doing so, they were paying tribute to the winner of Verdun (first world war), just like Mitterrand. Chirac was the first to break the taboo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.2.242.166 (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Rwanda Quote
I removed the genocide "quote" attributed to Mitterand for two reasons. 1) It was not quoted but attributed. The way it was presented in the article made it appear much more reliable than its sources could verify. One could rewrite the sentence to indicate that this is not a direct quote of some public statement. 2) Even still, given the extremely shocking nature of the quote, I maintain that it doesn't belong in a wikipedia article unless it can be verified. One could locate a public speech or comment where he says this (or something similar). Or, one could locate evidence to corroberate the claim that Mitterand said this (or something similar) in private. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.171.253 (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. The question, per WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME and especially WP:DIACRITICS, is whether the cedilla in Mitterand's first name is generally used in reliable English language sources. The assertions to the contrary have been substantially questioned by evidence of wide use of the cedilla in academic sources (see John K) and present-day news sources (see Biruitorul). There being no clear evidence that the cedilla is generally not used in reliable sources, there is no consensus for the article to be moved (indeed, the consensus if anything is for the article to remain where it is). Mkativerata (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

François Mitterrand → Francois Mitterrand &mdash; The clear majority of English-language sources use "Francois" over "François". Therefore, the title should be changed per WP:UE, WP:DIACRITICS, and WP:COMMONNAME. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Related requests currently under discussion at Talk:Gerhard Schröder and Talk:Lech Wałęsa. —   AjaxSmack   00:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support; most English-languages sources do not include the diacritic. Powers T 03:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Request is to move it to the usual English usage. Jamesday (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Per nom.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, per nom. Flamarande (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose slavishly following newspaper style guidelines. This is not a newspaper. 216.8.134.7 (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "ç" is not an outrageously unfamiliar character in English. john k (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's also not the argument being put forth by proponents. No one claimed it was outrageously unfamiliar.  Powers T 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, proponents haven't put forth an "argument" All there has been is an unsubstantiated assertion about "the clear majority of English-language sources". john k (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then refute that assertion, not a straw man about people being unfamiliar with a particular character. Powers T 14:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, my feeling is that diacritical characters that are reasonably familiar in English (ones in Romance languages, German, and maybe the Scandinavian languages other than Icelandic) should be used in article titles, while those that aren't (for Slavic languages, Turkish, Icelandic, Vietnamese) should not. At any rate, Britannica uses "François."  So does Gordon Wright's standard textbook history of France, France in Modern Times, 5th ed. (New York: Norton, 1995).  So does Felix Gilbert and David Clay Large's standard textbook history of 20th century Europe, The End of the European Era: 1890 to the Present, 5th ed. (New York: Norton, 2002).  So does John Merriman's likewise standard textbook History of Modern Europe: Volume 2: From the French Revolution to the Present (New York: Norton, 1996).  That's just among books I have at home that mention Mitterrand.  Biographies of Mitterrand on Amazon generally seem to use the cedilla - note the covers (not the Amazon text, which appears to remove diacritics) here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.  Is that good enough? Journalistic sources may often not use diacriticals.  But Mitterrand belongs less and less to the world of journalism, and more and more to the world of history.  And historical sources in English absolutely use the cedilla whenever appropriate, including what appears to be the vast majority of works about Mitterrand. john k (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Neutral as nom. Here's my evidence. WP:DIACRITICS suggests that we look at several places to determine usage of diacritics in English-language sources. First, to the sources used in the article itself. Here, that's problematic, since nearly all the sources are French. So that's of limited help. Second, looking at a Google Books English-language search since 1980, "-francois mitterrand françois" yields 22,600 results - but of the first 100 results, 18 were still in French, despite the language filter. If that holds true across the entire search, then about 18,500 English-language results used "François". Meanwhile, a search for "francois mitterrand -françois" yields 66,100 results. That's more than 3.5 to 1 in favor of "Francois" over "François". Third, we look at other reference works. They're split (for example, Britannica and Oxford U. Press use "François", while many news organizations use "Francois"). Overall, it seems that a clear majority of English-language sources use "Francois". (john k has correctly pointed out some serious flaws in the ability of Google Books to weed out the cedilla, and I haven't gone back through the evidence enough myself to see what the results are. Thus, I'm changing my own position to neutral.) Dohn joe (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the use of "François" by most English language biographies of Mitterrand play no role? Beyond that, I'll just say I'm dubious of google's sensitivity in distinguishing "c" from "ç" - several of the sources that come up when you do a google book search for "francois mitterrand -françois" actually use "François"  - see here, here, here, here, and here - which are, in fact, simply the first results that have text available on your search.  So your google books search is deeply flawed and cannot be used to prove anything. john k (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Interesting. While looking at only the first four or five results out of 66,000 doesn't prove that the search is "deeply flawed", it does bear further investigation. Dohn joe (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When the first few results from a search meant to exclude usage of the cedilla all use the cedilla, that ought to show that google is incapable of distinguishing and that your search is meaningless. john k (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see your point, but I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that Google is incapable of distinguishing a "c" from a "ç". What it shows is that Google Books is imperfectly capable of distinguishing a "c" from a "ç", which makes sense given its OCR technology. But it does get it right some percentage of the time, right? If we can figure out that percentage, we can apply it to the results, and get a better idea of the true "Francois"/"François" split. So the search isn't quite meaningless, but it does require refinement. And I'm open to whatever the results may be. If it can be shown that "François" truly predominates in English-language sources, then that's where the title should be. Dohn joe (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that "François" is his proper name, I'd think it should be up to those pushing for a move to demonstrate that "Francois" truly predominates in English languages sources, not the reverse. The burden of proof rests with you here. john k (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:John K, User: 216.8.134.7, and Pierre Garçon. Mitterand is notable for activities in France and his name there is François.  Strictly speaking, he doesn't have an "English" name.  There are just some sources that can't type diacritics or have style manuals that prohibit diacritics.  Wikipedia does not and, for those readers alarmed by unusual typography, the ç can be "read through". i.e., those unfamiliar with it can ignore the cedilla.   Wikipedia is a reference work and not a newspaper.  No compelling reason given for a move and no need for dumbing down.  —   AjaxSmack   01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose' I agree with what AjaxSmack says. This would be unencyclopaedic dumbing down.--Paul Marston (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there seems to be a dumbing-down campaign on at the moment as regards foreign diacritics - this doesn't serve any purpose, it just makes the encyclopedia a bit worse at delivering information. Particularly with the French ones, I'd have thought, since educated English speakers ought to be very familiar with them.--Kotniski (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons I outlined at Talk:Lech_Wałęsa (short: diacritics are helpful and more correct, dumbing down of titles is not). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This has less to do with an intentional dumbing-down and more to do with readers' familiarity with newspaper style guidelines. I've even seen a few bad examples this tendency to journalese in our prose. 216.8.171.180 (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current form is completely recognisable and is his actual name. No need to dumb down. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. A valid case has been made above that in English, the cedilla is most often omitted. The only argument against this appears to be the soapy claim that this is somehow incorrect, and that people should put in the cedilla. Perhaps they should (I'm not saying, either way), but it's not our place here to force them to. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything? If we include diacritics, people have the choice of whether or not they themselves want to use them. If we omit them, people are possibly misled into thinking that there aren't any to be used, so it's that situation (if any) in which we could be said to be depriving people of choice. We're here to deliver information, not to slavishly imitate others who have different priorities.--Kotniski (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the general tenor of the oppose argument. Disagree that anyone will be misled by our choice of article name, provided we follow the existing policy. They will undoubtedly be influenced, that's why this discussion is important and heated. Some like diacritics, and feel that we aren't being accurate without them. Some don't, and feel that English is better off avoiding them. And our policy is not to take either side. Andrewa (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim that the cedilla is most often omitted is unbelievably weak. Did you notice that the google books search is totally bogus?  That biographies of Mitterrand in English all use "François"?  john k (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit this startled me a bit, so I have (re)checked your claim regarding Google books, as much as I can from the scant information you provide to support such a serious charge. Apart from the fact that the term bogus fails to assume good faith in favour of attack, your allegation also appears to me to be false. Suggest you provide a wikilink, together with a rationale for any differences from the exact search you claim is bogus, and a rationale for any differences in the way you interpret the results compared to the interpretation you dispute. Then we can all see what the problem is. Andrewa (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to read my comments above? I was not trying to make any accusations about Dohn Joe, who I'm sure made performed the google test in good faith, but google's own algorithm doesn't seem to work in this case.  Many of the results you get when you try to exclude "François" actually use "François".  Thus, the much larger number of results for '"Francois Mitterrand" - François' actually include many books that use "François" - I gave links above.  Once this has been demonstrated, I don't see how we can view those google results as evidence of anything.  Moreover, I just discovered, a search for '"Francois Mitterrand" François" that I just typed in accidentally actually gets 1/3 the number of results of the version excluding François.  Pretty clearly google books is not giving us any useful information. Here, BTW, are a bunch of other results that come up when you search for Francois Mitterrand and exclude François.  And here's a few more.  Literally every result I've looked at in the search - and I've gone through all the books with text in the first four pages of search results - uses François.  I have yet to find any results in google books that actually use Francois, even when using a search parameter that is supposed to only include results that use Francois.  What evidence has so far been presented pretty strongly backs the idea that books use "François" and do not use "Francois."  17:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Another personal attack. They do your cause no good IMO. Yes, I did read your comments, but I'm afraid I have now wasted enough time on them. My Google book searches based on yours (your first search above) do come up with instances without the cedilla (my fist hit). Your charge of bogus appears unsupported and I doubt that the closing admin will have any more patience with you than I have (they may, or perhaps even less, it's up to them). Sorting out your rhetoric from your logic may appeal to some but I take the view that if you need the rhetoric, you probably know the logic is faulty anyway so why waste time on it. If you don't want to waste your time, keep your comments brief, to the point and relate them to policy. And abide by it. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your link is meaningless - there's no text from the book, so we have no idea whether the book uses François or Francois - the google books results often convert François to Francois in their version of the title and text. You have to look at the actual pdfs of the book itself to see what they use. john k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked you to be specific about your claim that the google books search is totally bogus, and suggested you supply a wikilink to the search in question. You replied with a long list of links with no clue as to what they might mean. The first of your links indicates that Google books - who surely are themselves a reliable source - don't always use the cedilla, and you now confirm that they often omit the cedilla even when describing books that themselves use it. Correct? Andrewa (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Google Books itself seems to frequently omit the cedilla. I'm not sure why - my guess would be that the optical scan frequently misses the cedilla and just records it as a regular "c", because if you do the search for "François" excluding "Francois", you get a bunch of results where the Google text does use the cedilla.  At any rate, my long list of links is to the various books that come up when doing this search - more or less the one that Dohn joe did.  It comes up with an impressive looking array of results that supposedly do not use the cedilla.  But when you actually click on pretty much any of the books that come up on that search, it turns out they actually do use the cedilla.  The search is worthless for purpose of comparing how frequently the cedilla is used if all of the checkable early results for the search excluding the cedilla turn out to use the cedilla.  As far as google books itself, I don't see any reason to view it as a reliable source for any purpose, and in particular for this purpose, where the omission of the cedilla may be the result of poor optical scanning or some other process that we do not understand.  The books themselves, or at least the ones with text available, all seem to use "François" - I went through the first seven or eight pages of results and the only example I found that did not was from an article in Jet magazine.  The impressive google book results for "Francois Mitterrand" appear to be entirely a mirage.  Why do you think Google Books is itself a reliable source, to be compared with scholarly books and articles, major English language biographies, mainstream journalistic sources, and general reference works?  john k (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, Google Books is not generally "describing" books in the text that omits the cedilla. It is giving excerpts of the text.  When we compare those excerpts to the pdf of the text itself, we see that searchable text created by Google Books has omitted a cedilla that was in the text it is supposedly quoting.  I'm not sure I understand why you think that this is evidence that we should omit the cedilla.  If anything, it is evidence that Google Books, qua Google Books, is not a reliable source on this subject.  john k (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The close examination of the source text that john k carried out is precisely what is required, and what is sadly so often missing in the presentation of "evidence" in these discussions. The results he highlights are strongly indicative of both the use of the cedilla, and the utter uselessness of Google at distinguishing between the cases with and without diacritic.  The time when the average participant in these discussions is aware of this second fact can't come soon enough. Knepflerle (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral. This appears to be a borderline case; in my experience the cedilla has a small place in even conservative English convention, similar to French and Spanish accents and so forth. There are quite a few citations either way; it seems like an example of split usage/unclear convention to me.Erudy (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - a brief resume of what sources use. 1) news organizations are split: the New York Times, Time, and others use "François."  The BBC, Washington Post, Daily Telegraph, and others use "Francois."  Probably Francois is more common, but some of the most reputable sources use François.  2) general reference works use François - Britannica does, as does the Columbia Encyclopedia.  3) books use François, as I think I've demonstrated pretty comprehensively above. john k (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as this is the English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is indeed the English language Wikipedia, and ç is commonly used in English texts.  Skinsmoke (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wikipedia uses diacritics generally, and there's no compelling reason to dumb it down in this case. François is even used routinely by the English-language press: The Economist, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The Irish Times, The National Post, The Globe and Mail, The Mail & Guardian, The Daily Nation, etc, etc.
 * I'd also like to point out that the trend is for diacritics. For instance, look at the NYT: while he was alive, they used Francois, but in recent years, they use François. If we are to have diacritics at all for any foreign name, and I take it as a given that we should, we ought to in this case. - Biruitorul Talk 19:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've changed my position above, but would still note that academic sources are split. Dohn joe (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It seems to me that news sources represent the English language as it is often read, online and offline, by a typical English-language Internet user, i.e., a typical en.wikipedia reader. The more scholarly sources on the other hand — which we consider superior as far as sources for article content — are more likely to include the cedilla, and less likely to be encountered by more casual readers. This situation creates an interesting dynamic tension of priorities: We want to present information in a way that follows our sources; we want to present information in a way that is authoritative as far as accuracy of content; and we want to present information in a way that is easily accessible to our readers. I'm leaning slightly towards opposing the move. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're getting to the heart of the matter. I'd add that Wikipedia is changing. In particular, we are becoming more conservative, and making subtly different calls as to what sources are reliable and relevant, and leaning more to the academic and away from the popular. The argument that Wikipedia always uses diacritics would have been ridiculous a short time ago; Now it's been seriously proposed in several recent discussions and I'm guessing that it will in time become policy. But it's not yet, and it's a guess. Andrewa (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:UE is all about sound evidence of usage, and the evidence of john k and Biruitorul is clear. Oppose Knepflerle (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on François Mitterrand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130514193530/http://www.oecd.org/gov/publicsectorinnovationande-government/2537279.pdf to http://www.oecd.org/gov/publicsectorinnovationande-government/2537279.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on François Mitterrand. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413170546/http://elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/interventions/discours_et_declarations/1995/juillet/allocution_de_m_jacques_chirac_president_de_la_republique_prononcee_lors_des_ceremonies_commemorant_la_grande_rafle_des_16_et_17_juillet_1942-paris.2503.html to http://elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/interventions/discours_et_declarations/1995/juillet/allocution_de_m_jacques_chirac_president_de_la_republique_prononcee_lors_des_ceremonies_commemorant_la_grande_rafle_des_16_et_17_juillet_1942-paris.2503.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929084136/http://doc-iep.univ-lyon2.fr/Ressources/Documents/Etudiants/Memoires/detail-memoire.html?ID=310 to http://doc-iep.univ-lyon2.fr/Ressources/Documents/Etudiants/Memoires/detail-memoire.html?ID=310
 * Added tag to http://fr.news.yahoo.com/13032007/290/carole-bouquet-retablie-comme-victime-des-ecoutes-de-l-elysee.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article542620.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130212035706/http://media.tipsimages.it/MediaNews/Logo/RDA00028436.jpg to http://media.tipsimages.it/MediaNews/Logo/RDA00028436.jpg

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Mitterrand vs. the banks
In 1982, Mitterrand's government nationalised a number of major banking institutions, including the Banque Rothschild. As far as I am aware this is not mentioned in the article at all under the economic policy section. There is an article about it on the French Wikipedia. Is it worth translating? Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on François Mitterrand. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930230243/http://www.lexpress.fr/info/france/dossier/mitt/dossier.asp?ida=418472 to http://www.lexpress.fr/info/france/dossier/mitt/dossier.asp?ida=418472
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130303143326/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FRsocialist.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FRsocialist.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706182535/http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2730430.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2730430.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930230431/http://www.lexpress.fr/info/quotidien/actu.asp?id=9840 to http://www.lexpress.fr/info/quotidien/actu.asp?id=9840
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104193143/http://www.info.gov.za/aboutgovt/orders/recipients/1994.htm to http://www.info.gov.za/aboutgovt/orders/recipients/1994.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Attendees of Funeral
What's the use or notability of listing all attendees of his funeral? Shouldn't this part be scrapped? Most if not all are not even sourced. The list is way out of proportion to the rest of the article anyway. -- fdewaele, 6 August 2021, 21:20 CET

Extreme shortcomings
In competently-written English, one states a person's full name, and then subsequently refers to them by their surname or a pronoun. In this article, though, "François Mitterand" appears more than a hundred times in the text. It appears more than once in some sentences. Why is the article written in this way? Ponymouse (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)