Talk:Nicolas Sarkozy/Archive 1

Cecilia's ancestry
"great-granddaughter of composer Isaac Albéniz and of a Russian father" What is that supposed to mean? Great-granddaughter of a Russian father? Does it mean ...and daughter of a Russian father? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.0.194 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What is meant by "Pro U.S."?
On CNN they were saying that pro American candidate Sarkozy is in the lead, etc but BOTH candidates were against the Iraq war. So what makes him pro American compared to the others?

-G

Answer: relations between France and the USA are not only about the war in Iraq. Anyway, while Jacques Chirac followed the tradition of General De Gaulle, i.e. complete independance towards the USA, Nicolas Sarkozy seems to want a closer relation and collaboration with the US government. Also, it is well known that both men are rivals and since Chirac was strongly against the US foreign policy, Sarkozy could not completely agree with him. Since he is the new president of France, we will have to wait and see what happens next.


 * I figured it would deal with economic activity... So something like U.S. having influence over French interests? (industries, projects, contracts, etc?).

-G

Family
Why was the article entirely silent about Sarkozy's own family (including his well-known marital issues)? It is bizarre that almost the only mention of Cecilia Sarkozy on English Wikipedia was in the article on censorship in France.

Is Wikipedia running scared? WikiFlier 04:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

24 April - Incredibly there was no mention of Sarkozy's first Marriage, his Divorce and later Separation to Cecilia. Clearly some Sarkozy supporters do not want to know that Sarkozy has had a tumultuous family life.

INSERTION BY ZBIGNIEW MAZURAK: Tumultous? Hardly. He has loved Cecilia ever since he's seen her for the first time, so it's obvious he married her. She did dump him for a short period but later returned. Most importantly, his private life is his own affair.

That is a contrast to the public image that he wants to give.

ZM: Hardly. He did not say he's perfect or that he never experienced marital problems. He did say, however, that now that his wife has returned, he's bound to her forever. This is not a lie.

I have pasted it back in. Given this is controversial, I put it all under Controversies (there were two short references to his marriage with Cecilia uncer Personal Life and Controversy), and labelled it 'Marriages, Divorce and Separation'. If there is yet another attempt to delete all reference to his divorce, I think we should request that the page be locked. CCKKAB


 * If what you say is correct, I agree with you. Chivista 14:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: Catholicism prohibits second marriage after a divorce. His second marriage is inconsistent with this rule. Either he is not catholic, or his second marriage is illegal. I think an explanation should be given in this article since anyone (me for example) may wonder about this paradox. Pictureuploader 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

REPLY BY ZBIGNIEW MAZURAK: If he is a Catholic, then it's obvious his Act of Marriage to Cecilia Sarkozy is civilian, not religious (you can marry a woman secularly and then religiously). It's irrelevant though, because according to French law, only civilian Marriage Acts are legally binding. French registrars copy only these documents.

meaning of the name: land among marshes
I'm told Charlie Hebdo magazine found out his name means "in the mud" if pronounced properly and "in the shit" if pronounced in the usual french way.Can someone check that?

Here is the text I saw (in french): Dans le dernier Charlie hebdo, l'article "Sarkosy fait se marrer les Hongrois" nous apprend de bien belles choses sur notre petit grand-homme-que-le-monde-entier-nous-envie. Lancés dans une grande enquête d'investigation : les journalistes de cet hebdo sont allés voir les ressortissants hongrois vivant dans notre pays afin de trouver la réponse à cette épineuse question : que signifie "Sarkosy", notre héros étant, comme chacun sait, d'origine magyare. Eh bien, la réponse n'est pas piquée des hanetons. On apprend d'abord que son nom se prononce "char-kö-sy" en hongrois et signifie littéralement "dans la boue". Il proviendrait de la ville hongroise de Sarköse, bâtie effectivement sur des marécages, le "y" final indiquant une origine noble (son nom complet est en fait Sakosy (de) Nagy-Bocsa). Si son papa n'avait pas quitté la Hongrie en 1946 ou 1947 lors de l'instauration du régime communiste, notre phare de la pensée serait peut-être aujourd'hui un hobereau hongrois vivant confortablement des revenus de son domaine; dès lors, on comprend mieux qu'il ne soit que modérément gauchiste, sauf quand il s'agit de faire référence à Jaurès et Blum dans le vain espoir de grapiller quelques voix à gauche... Mais ce qui fait le plus marrer les Hongrois interrogés, c'est la prononciation de son nom à la française : "Sar-ko-sy". En effet, le phonème "Sar" signifie "merde" en hongrois (qui s'écrit en fait "szar"). Et l'on apprend que "Sarkosy", prononcé à la française, signifie littéralement "dans la merde" en hongrois... Véridique ! De là à dire que si notre idole accède à la magistrature suprême le 6 mai prochain, ce seront quelques millions de personnes - Français et étrangers - qui seront "sarkosy" jusqu'au cou...

As I said I'm not sure... Does someone have the latest Charile Hebdo (might actually be an earlier version!!!)?


 * U better turn to a Hungarian speaker rather than to magazines :-) Translating the name makes no sense as "Sárköz" (see hu:Sárköz) is a small region in Southwest Hungary (+"-i" or "-y" which means "from"). If you take the region's name into pieces, it is true that "Sár" means mud and "köz" means "between" - but if they are put together, Sárköz means something like: "land between muddy lands" or "land amid marshes". Bests, --Korovioff 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

older entries
man that is sure a seriously an ugly pic i mean can any politicians take good pictures nowadays i wouldnt even let them publish that mess


 * OK what do you think of the one at [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy]? We could see about the permissions on that one and use it instead... Politicians aren't movie stars, remember...


 * --Kessler 13:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

1337
According to french newspapers, Sarkozy has the numbers 1,3,3 and 7 engraved on the back of his wallet. Need verification on this.


 * Sarko's a l33t fan? Or is he thinking about the Hundred Years War? --politicslovr 06:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Frenchify
There is no such word in English. It should be something like "Francosize" or "Franconize', or perhaps "Franconise", I am not sure, but definitely not Frenchify. If I did know, I would have changed it.


 * wouldn't it be "turned French" instead? by the way he acquired French citizenship and his name was officially Frenchified into "Paul Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa" are you sure the accent was kept? This "ö" character is not used in French language (though "ô" & "ë" exist). Considering the French usages (common/traditional way of doing things) I think the character would had been replaced by "o", hence the Minister is known as "Sarkozy". Not using the particle is common in some French noble/bourgeois (bourgeois: particle acquirer) and as nothing to do with "ô". Shame On You 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

wouldn't the proper term be "gallized?"

try "Gallicize" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Gallicized

Photo
Man, that is one ugly photo for some guy who likes to get in view a lot. Seems to be a trend here, bad photos for politicians.
 * Obvious reasons for this:
 * We don't have access to such people. They are generally behind barriers/reporters/police/bystanders/supporters/opponents. Only accredited journalists and photographers have a chance of getting good photographs, in general. The few Wikipedians that meet high-level politicians for work/official purposes (yes, that happens) don't want to look like "weirdoes" by taking photographs.
 * We can't use the photos of accredited photographers, with few exceptions (Agencia Brasil or US government, but not every politician makes top-level official visits to the US or Brazil).
 * So we use the photographs on, say, their official parliamentary site or similar. Perhaps the parliament services take these photographs from the same mug shots as the acces badges? David.Monniaux 17:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the part about copyrights. I happen to live in France, and this guy seems to have his face everywhere, so the example shown on the page seemed subpar to his standards. Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. Apologies


 * Oh, my feathers are not ruffled! I'm thinking of simply emailing all major parties and ask for authorized photographs of their leaders. If they refuse, we'll stick with crappy photographs. David.Monniaux 19:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Talking about photos from official political party sites... This photo and this one are from u-m-p.org and are far more Sarkozy's style... Exaton 02:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Much better foto, this new one on the site... :-)


 * --Kessler 17:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The caption "Sarkozy points out the riffraff" seems inappropriate for a non-biased article. JamesKotecki 15:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The photo of the Karcher is unecessary.

Studies
Overtranslation: I did not know that you could obtain a "bachelor's degree" in France. I guess he obtained a "License", which then could be said to be the equivalent of a "bachelor's degree" in America. Not to confuse with the baccalaureate degree, equivalent to the American high-school diploma, only a lot harder. --WhiteEcho 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

careful, it's "licence" -- not with an S.--ponyboy 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In the studies section, the sentence describing using his family law background to divorce his wife is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, for it conveys a negative social bias

Caution
Nicolas Sarkozy is a probable contender for the next presidential election in France. He has attracted much attention from the national and international press, with some evident bias for or against him. This, I think, should incite us to prudence when relating information about him.

I have strived to provide precise factual information, quoting articles in the mainstream press. On some occasions, I have removed vague statements (like things about Sarkozy confronting France's powerful unions), because they do not mean much. David.Monniaux 16:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Minister of Interior again in 2005
I hesitate to update the page myself, as David.Monniaux seems to be pretty protective of it (and undoubtedly rightly so), but after President Chirac's official speech at prime time this evening, it is practically official that Sarkozy is Minister of Interior again, in addition to having the honorific title of Minister of State (as already indicated)... Exaton 02:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I admit that I'm somewhat protective, because Sarkozy is quite a controversial personality and lots of biased things are written on him in either direction.
 * So far, Chirac has announced that Sarkozy would be minister of State (honorific title), but his exact attributions are yet unknown &mdash; remember that Sarkozy has already been twice in Finances, once in Interior. It is rumored that he is again at Interior, but nothing public is known for sure.
 * That's why I think we should stick to our current formulation: he's going to be minister of state (sure) and he's rumoured to be in charge of Interior. David.Monniaux 15:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Living in France, I can assure you that what with the political situation, with Sarkozy (and his own goals for the 2007 presidential election) battling the new Prime Minister de Villepin (forever a Chirac supporter) for the choice of other ministers et al... There really wasn't ever any doubt on the inside, only from the outside -- it's been as official as it was going to get, because he (Sarkozy) has very simply maneuvered himself into a quasi-Vice Prime Minister position :) Anyway, now it is official, since we're going to be such sticklers : http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/francais/actualites/a_l_elysee/2005/juin/nouveau_gouvernement.30037.html for example. Exaton 20:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added the relevant information. I'm sure there will be discussion about this sentence : His collaborators do not all agree that his return to the government in June of 2005 will help him in this, although it is widely recognised that his position, influence and popularity currently make him the third man at the country's head.. Now, that is perfectly true and neutral. Some excellent editor might want to make it appear more so, however. Exaton 20:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jewish origins
I'm not quite sure that Sarkozy's mother is a Jew. I read she had Jewish origins &mdash; but this may simply mean her father was a Jew. David.Monniaux 18:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Jewish law, a Jew is someone whose mother was a Jew; there is no dispute about this. However, if only Sarkozy's mother's father was a Jew, then neither she nor her son were Jews by Jewish law.  By the way, did Sarkozy's mother have a name?  Right now the article makes it appear that the the father was the only parent who had a name, and that the mother was merely an anonymous egg donor. Jayjg (talk)  18:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * These sources indicate that she is a Greek Jew: Jayjg (talk)  18:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, these sources don't say that his mother was a Jew. I quote: his mother is of Greek-Jewish descent. Being of Jewish descent means being a descendant of Jews &mdash; perhaps only from the father line. Deriving from this that she was a Jew is an audacious step.
 * As for her name, I really don't know.
 * I see one good method for settling this: how about asking Sarkozy himself? David.Monniaux 18:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, I've removed all speculations about Sarkozy being a Jew, because we do not have any source saying his mother was a Jew. David.Monniaux 18:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "Greek-Jewish origin" means Greek Jew in English idiom. I'm restoring it. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That's simply not true: it could easily mean that her ancestry was part Greek and part Jewish (Sephardic, Ashkenazi, whatever), with the source of the "parts" unspecified. --Saforrest 23:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

First, if his mother is a Jew, then he is a Jew; and she is a Jew if her mother was a Jew. There's no dispute about that. I found a source here but don't know how authoritative it is. Does he say anything about it in his book? The article I found says:

"Sarko’s father, Pal Nagy Bosca y Sarkozy, was a Hungarian aristocrat who fled Budapest in 1944, settled in Paris, acquired French citizenship, married a Parisian lady whose father was Greek and mother was Jewish. SlimVirgin 18:51, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)"


 * Hem. The "source" quoted is an article that is an obvious editorial piece (with an open anti-French feeling). I would not consider it a source of information. David.Monniaux 19:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't look particularly authoritative. SlimVirgin 19:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * His mother's name seems to be Andrée Mallah. A lot of the stories I'm finding say that Sarkozy refers often to his background, because he wants to stress that he himself has an immigrant background, so he's likely to have mentioned it in his book. I've also found a couple of sources saying that his mother's father was Benedict Mallah from Salonica, who emigrated to France in the early 20th century and converted to Catholicism, but again it's hard to judge how authoritative these sources are. David, do you have a way of e-mailing Sarkozy to ask him?  SlimVirgin 19:56, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Sarkozy is the head of a well known party, with a web site and a surface mail address. On the other hand, in this country, inquiring about one's religion and personal details is often considered to be rude. An alternative should be to read Sarkozy's book (is that the one where he discusses faiths and the republic?). David.Monniaux 05:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, in English it would be Republic, Religions, Hope, and I believe it's a collection of interviews he gave to Thibaut Collin, a philosopher, and Philippe Verdun, a monk. It doesn't seem to have been translated into English based on searching Amazon (U.S., UK, and Canada). SlimVirgin 06:17, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Benedict Mallah" doesn't sound like a very Greek name to me. It should be remembered that, before World War II, Salonica was a city with a (Sephardic) Jewish plurality. Seems plausible that the Mallah's were Sephardic Jews from Salonica. john k 02:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The thing is, we so far haven't seen anything saying his mother was a Jew. Serious sources say "of Greek Jewish origins", which is very vague &mdash; for instance, the Debrés (Jean-Louis Debré, Michel Debré etc.) are of Jewish origin, yet are not Jews themselves. David.Monniaux 06:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the information brought in by Hardouin (kudos!) settles it all: Nicolas Sarkozy's mother's father was a Jew, but not his mother's mother, and thus his mother is not a Jew, and thus he is not a Jew. (See what I was saying: "Greek-Jewish origins" does not mean "Greek Jew".) David.Monniaux 20:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone continue adding the category French Jews and Sarkozy to a list of French Jews despite this being 1/4th of his racial ancestry, and none of his cultural or religious background. Can someone help stop this? It is giving off the impression that Sarkozy is Jewish by religion as well.

"However, his grandfather, a Sephardic Jew who converted to Roman Catholicism and married a Roman Catholic woman, was said never to have passed on his own religious roots to his grandchildren, having turned his back on his Jewish roots when he migrated to France in the beginning of the 20th century."


 * Just saw this discussion. Two points.  One is, lacking any further information, if a good source says "of Jewish origin," why not say what the source says.  No need to extend it.  This is actually a point that resonates with me, peculiarly, because of other discussion that have involved me.  There, we knew that the person was Jewish.  But other editors kept on insisting that we not write that, but only that they were of Jewish origin.  Or from a Jewish family.  Anyway, I agree that we can only go so far as the source goes.  Second point.  This entire discussion ignores the fact that in Reform Judaism it is possible to be Jewish by paternal descent. Thus, under Reform Judaism, it is possible for him to be Jewish even if his mother is not.--Epeefleche 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotes and such...
Let's all do our best to make this article as neutral as a politics-related article can be! Gambatte! Shinobu 21:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "cozy with big business" - If that's what they say then quotes are in order. Question: does Wiki prefer curly quotes? (And if so, what kind?)
 * ...in France. - Cut the sentence because only everything before the dot appears to be a ‘fact’ (quote from article).
 * They also state... - this implies that the rest of the sentence is the opinion of the left-wing opposition. The rest of the quotes are therefore unnecessary and can be misinterpreted as ‘sarcasm quotes’ (sorry for the disfortunate term).

Reverting Origins section
I am reverting the Origins section at the beginning of the article, for the sake of chronological order. For the most part, this section is just a translation of the French Wikipedia article, where the Origins section is also at the beginning of the article. The argument that people are more interested in his political career than in his past is a bit fallacious. After all, if people are not interested in the Origins section, they can just skip it. That's why there's a summary table at the beginning of the article, so that people can access directly the section they are most interested in. Also, note that the Origins section is important to understand some key aspects of Nicolas Sarkozy's personality and mentality. Last but not least, this article has already attracted a lot of people wondering about Nicolas Sarkozy being a Jew or not, and surely there will be still more people in the future coming in the article just for that Jewish question. The Origins section answers that Jewish question quite clearly, so I think that's another reason to leave it at the beginning of the article. Hardouin 15:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * One option for writing articles is to order things by decreasing importance. This section on origins contains some undoubtedly interesting bits, but also contains some pathos as well as some revelations about Nicolas Sarkozy's father that sound like out of the tabloid press. Indeed, I wonder how much about this is from authoritative sources; whether Nicolas Sarkozy himself acknowledges it; etc. Are Wikipedia readers primarily interested in Paul Sarkozy's philandering? David.Monniaux 16:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decreasing importance is totally POV. Different people may have different ideas about what's important, and what's not. Chronological order, on the other hand, is NPOV. Another NPOV ordering would be reverse chronological order, but so far I have never seen any Wikipedia article adopting reverse chronological order. As for Paul Sarkozy's "philandering", as you call it, it is a word I'm sure many native English speakers don't even know the meaning. If you mean Nicolas Sarkozy father's abandonment of his family, it is certainly important in the sense that it helps understand Nicolas Sarkozy's personality today. I would totally oppose the mention of the father's behavior if it wasn't relevant to understand the son's personality. But in this case it is important.Hardouin 16:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Philandering" is a polite term for "womanizing" or, more vulgarly, "screwing around". Google for "Clinton" and "philandering", you'll be enlightened. :-) David.Monniaux 16:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have lived for many years now in English speaking countries, with only English speaking friends and English speaking relatives around me, and I have never ever heard the word "philandering", not even once. So it must really not be a very frequent word. Hardouin 18:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've never heard it spoken. It tends to be used as a kind of hypocritical, polite term... David.Monniaux 18:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the sources are not fuzzy as you seem to impply. Quite the contrary, they are public and available to all: official état civil records which show the various marriages of the father, and the books of Nicolas Sarkozy himself, where he talks about his childhood and his family situation. Hardouin 16:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Official records certainly don't say Paul Sarkozy was a "Don Juan". Was this information found in a book written by Nicolas Sarkozy, or by "investigative" (i.e. muckracking) journalists?
 * ("Fussy" is not the word I would have used here. "Dubious" is probably better.) David.Monniaux 16:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the word Don Juan, feel free to replace it with another word. There are plenty of choices in English: womanizer, woman chaser, Casanova, masher, flirtatious man, etc. Let's not have one tree hiding the forest from our view. The fact remain that this man was a womanizer, and we are not here to libel him, but we are here to explain a family context in which Nicolas Sarkozy grew up (a family context that Nicolas Sarkozy has fully disclosed in his books). Hardouin 18:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's the answer I wanted to hear: Paul Sarkozy's womanizing was explained by Nicolas Sarkozy himself. That makes it worthy of being mentioned on Wikipedia (I would have hesitated if it were material from the trash tabloid press). David.Monniaux 18:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I think the origins section is probably a bit long, I find it annoying that people are simply reverting back to the older version. There's a lot of information there, and there should at least be discussion here as to why it shouldn't be in the article. If some of it is to be removed, I'd prefer a fine-tuned approach rather than simply reverting to the old version. john k 04:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I myself didn't revert to the old version - just moved the section down the article. David.Monniaux 07:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nagy-Bosca
Are you sure about this Nagy-Bosca thing? I mean, the article says the name was originally Nagy-Bocsa, and then Paul changed it to Nagy-Bosca. This sounds strange to me, is the name more French-looking just because he switched the s and the c?--80.98.236.197 20:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There was an error. In the French name it is Bocsa, c preceding s, as in Hungarian. I have corrected it. The difference between the Hungarian and the French name is that in the French name there are no more accute accents, and also Sarközy precedes Nagy-Bocsa, and finally "y" was replaced by "de". Hardouin 22:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Style
Hi all. I tried to make the article flow a little more smoothly without altering the meaning of the text. I would much appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable would check for me on this. Thanks. Psp 23:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Separate article for Paul Sarközy?
I just looked up this article after reading about Mr Sarkozy in the news, and my view as a neutral observer is that the background section is more about his father than himself. His father appears to have lead an interesting life, so perhaps he deserves his own article. --JRawle 13:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Paris riots
I appreciate that the article is incredibly informative, which is why I was hesitant about editing - and admittedly, I haven't yet read the article all the way through. I didn't even know who Nicolas Sarkozy was until I saw the recent media coverage of the Paris riots.

Normally Wikipedia is incredibly good for in-depth commentary on recent news events, as is evidenced by this article in The Register. However, I was frustrated about not being able to find anything about the Paris riots until recently. I haven't checked the history of the Paris Riots redirect page - but I know that, for whatever reason, I was struggling to find information at first.

But I did find this article on Nicolas Sarkozy. I thought I'd find out more about his response to the Paris riots - so, rather than reading the whole article, I thought I'd do a Mozilla/Firefox find-as-you-type for the word riot. I didn't find anything. It surprised me that such a long article about Nicolas Sarkozy might not mention the recent riots.

Now I appreciate that there is some controversy over what to call the event - is it a riot, is it civil unrest, is it urban violence? I believe that the discussion to resolve this issue is useful and I don't wish to discourage it. However, the word most commonly splashed over the English media headlines is riot, and I believe that many other people might use CTRL-F or find-as-you-type to try to find the word riot in the Nicolas Sarkozy article.

So, even if we don't actually call it a riot - it is very important that the word riot appears in the article close to any points where the recent unrest is discussed. So I have edited the article accordingly.

I would appreciate it if someone could check that it still conforms to a Neutral Point of View, and make any necessary amendments - but without removing the word riot in the process. Thanks. Squashy 11:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I neither finished reading it... in a way i think it should be possible to make it a bit shorter. However, what also should be mentioned is that recently, after the death of two "ghetto" kids, there were minor riots again. In a later interview, Sarkozy said he will punish all this scum and drugdealers, which I believe clearly shows his attitude towards certain problems in his country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambitions for the Future
Is it just me or is this section (particurlaly the last paragraph or so) inanely repetetive? It is unnecessary to repeat one politcal observer's opinions twice, as if presenting new information?
 * Its not new but more importantly its not infomation from any reliable source, someones blog predicting the future isn't worth the paper its not printed on.


 * I think this section "A political blogger(see []) predicts a defeat for Nicolas Sarkozy against the socialist candidate in a second round showdown of the next presidential election held in 2007. Julien Tolédano asserts that Sarkozy has no "economical programme at all" and that most of the far-right National Front voters will swing to the left because of the defiance of its leader toward the classical right since the mid-1980s." should be removed as its speculation on the future based on a single opinion.

The whole article seem imbalanced with a large amount of anti Sarkozy material. Certainly doesn't feel neutral POV at allAlci12 11:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, removed the bit about the blogger. --RaiderAspect 11:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the article seems to have used negatively charged words instead of the preferable neutral words in describing Sarkozy's views, to the point where it seemed that the negative words were added as an after thought, possibly by another editor. I'd actually try to balance the article myself, but it is very, very late for me.

--4.154.6.244 07:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Things missing
David.Monniaux 13:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The intense rivalry with Dominique de Villepin.
 * His reactions to CPE.

ZM: And a para about that Sarkozy once invited Paris Match columnists to his house and allowed them to photograph it and told them about Cecilia. Please write about it and provide a link.

urban gangsters
"Many of his speeches and interviews are famous for their frankness, humor and plain-spoken character; opponents, however, contend that he uses demeaning language,especially when the epiteths he uses against urban gangsters (notably calling them "racaille," or "scum") are interpreted as targeting youth from poor urban areas in general" this sentence is as pov as it gets. can this be said in more neutral way, without the term urban gangster for example? trueblood 07:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Sarkozy uses such terms himself, no, not without edulcolouring reality. Rama 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

i don't think he used the term urban gangsters, also as you can see in the quote from the article above, it was not quoting sarkozy, it used the term as a manner of speach. what is edulcolouring? trueblood 07:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * edulcoloring means to whitewash, or to water down.


 * and i agree, while he does use "racaille" and "voyou" frequently, this is not within a quote. the sentence could certainly use rephrasing, otherwise it comes off as less than neutral (since the article then is throwing around the phrase "urban gangsters"). furthermore, urban is problematic in that it denotes race in a PC (or edulcolored) way. if we want to say that they're not white, we should just say it.


 * NB: i believe the correct translations are as follows: for racaille = rascal/gangster, and voyou = hood(lum). "hood" covers both well.--ponyboy 01:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

recent changes early life
Similar to his maternal grandfather, his father Paul Sarkozy never taught him or his brothers Hungarian, or made any effort to teach them about their ethnic background. Sarkozy says that his father wanted the children to be fully assimilated into French society, considering Hungary too small a country, and, said he, the Hungarian language and culture useless in the modern world. Thus, despite its heterogeneous ethnic origins (50% Hungarian, 25% French, 25% Ottoman Jewish), the Sarkozy family can culturally be described as a mainstream, middle class, Roman Catholic family, albeit one without a father, i found these recent changes badly written and cannot see what sarkozy father's ranting about hungary are doing in this article. this passage needs to be rewritten or deleted trueblood 12:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

in fact there is more in this section that i want to delete. this whole analyzing of sarkozy's ambitions being compensation for his youth ... did sarkozy say this himself? otherwise i am going to delete it. trueblood 11:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sarkozy wrote so in several books. Don't delete things before discussing them here in the first place. This article has seen enough of back and forth. Hardouin 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

how about discussing before adding larger bits. can you come up with a quote and put an exact reference. trueblood 18:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

criticisms
This whole section is unsourced, and the whole article is as well. A lot of the crictism reads like a character hit piece. Sep 20 2006
 * All these events are well-known by anybody follows French news. I agree, though, that the article may lack sources suitable for foreigners. David.Monniaux 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What's his position to USA and EG?
What's his position to USA and EG? Did he made any clear comments about that? Greetings GC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.23.126.20 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

(83.76.45.51 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC))


 * What is EG? Apart from that, Sarkozy is often characterized as "Atlantist" - that is, in favour of a closer alliance with the US. David.Monniaux 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * EG is german for European Union: Europäische Gemeinschaften. Sometimes running a whois on the IP of the poster can give a hint about his/her country. Here "whois 212.23.126.20" shows a .de domain, ie. Germany. The question should had been self-explanatory (USA being often compared vs. European Union).So good question: position of Sarkozy about European Union. AntonioB 01:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

UMP is not a conservative party but a liberal party...
 * Liberal has widely different meanings depending on the country (while at least conservative can imply resistance to social change)... David.Monniaux 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Un liberal" in french its a guy like Hayek or Milton friedman i.e : an ECONOMIC liberal. UMP is a conservative party from the right-wing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.103.217.218 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Suggest delete/replacing "quotations" section
I find the "quotations" sections in the Sarkozy article problematic for a couple reasons: on what basis does one decide which quotes should be included and which shouldn't? Furthermore, listing them out of context can confuse the reader. The Ségolène Royal page does not have such a listing; quotes are added in sections and subsections of the article with an explanation.

This point is no gimmick. The media have paid a lot of attention on what each candidate has said in these quotes, and it is biased to have a quotes list for one candidate and not for the other.

There should be a "Policies" section, divided into relevant topics such as healthcare or foreign policy, and each quote should be recopied with an explanation in a relevant subsection.

Any thoughts? Scotchorama 13:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Racaille" scum/rabble?
I have just replaced the word "rabble" with "scum" in the first part of the 25 October 2005 quote, as "scum" was already used in the second part by Sarkozy. I find "scum" to be more accurate that "rabble" as it contains a strong negative connotation. If someone disagrees, please revert or change it, but change in both what the woman and Sarkozy said, as Sarkozy's choice of words was a repetition of the woman's word. Alternatives could also include "punk" or a dual "scum/rabble" as used in the Guardian. Scotchorama 13:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It means 'rabble' really, 'scum' being too strong. I'll leave it, though, lets have another opinion.
 * yep it's more "rabble" or even "scoundrel". racaille is an almost obsolete word. Louis R14 23:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rabble is too soft, I find, as the banlieue youth find pride in calling themselves racaille. Also, considering the mediatic hurricane that surrounded the us of the word, maybe scum appropriately contains the harshness of the meaning. Were rabble used to qualify youth, it would not shock the way racaille did. Scotchorama 08:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think part of this reclamation is linked to the word having been considered outmoded by decades before Sarkozy put it back in the vernacular. So a major point is that it's a word that was resurrected, which to me is as important or more important than the severity of the word, and "scum", while an old insult indeed, is still used in English while "rabble" has definitely long since fallen out of favor (just as "racaille" had before 2005). "Scum" also falls to convey "racaille"'s idea of "teeming masses" quite as well as "rabble" does. "Scoundrel" and "rapscallion" sound too goofy to consider seriously. The harshness is not a big problem to me; if a prominent American politician were to refer to city youths en masse as "rabble" it would certainly cause a measure of controversy as being highly insensitive. It is a fine point but I think if we are going to stick with a single word, every point is in "rabble"'s favor. Andrew Levine 16:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro-US/American French politican?
Tell me again...what made Nicolas Sarkozy to have more pro-Us/American views than most politicans in the French government? He's a conservative, just like president George W. Bush in the US, but Sarkozy would appear more of a left-wing person if he was a politican in America. The French conservative movement isn't exactly allied with the American conservatives and the UMP wasn't for the US involvement in Iraq, but never bashed the heck out of the Bush administration. I've heard back in (last) Nov., Sarkozy visited the US to meet president Bush and then he's called back to France after president Jacques Chirac disliked Sarkozy made too much pro-Bush comments. So far, Sarkozy wants to improve diplomatic relations with the US and Sarkozy admires some of the Bush administration's economic policies, reduction of federal spending (the national budget deficit) and revamping social welfare programs. He has a powerful opponent, Segolene Royal from the socialist left and she isn't comfortable with the US, like most of the French government in the last 5 years. What the Franco-American relationship needs is Sarkozy, since he admires alot of good things about the US and his anti-war stance is never been harsh (he respects the US' decision is not France's business, but the US could thought twice on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, then again this is brought upon Saddam Hussein who may or not been associated with 9/11.) + 63.3.14.1 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's not so much that he's pro-US (he's no more than his fellow partners in the French government). However, there is no denial that he is pro-Bush administration. Some of the current US administration's policies (invasion of Iraq, deregularisations, to name a few) are seen as very conservatives even from a North American point of view. However, one would note that France was standing alongside its longtime US ally over the first Gulf War (with a Socialist French president), and the war in Afghanistan.


 * Totally out of subject, but "Saddam Hussein [...] may or not [have] been associated with 9/11" would have been open for discussion back in 2002, but in 2007 even the Bush and Blair administrations have admitted they got that one wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.67.158.128 (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

cleaning external links
i had to clean the numerous external links including by creating subsections and adding language info. also i have posted a highly relevant video interview, in english, which is now available in its full version.
 * Charlie Rose show 02.02.07 (video interview at Place Beauvau, Paris with PBS journalist Charlie Rose, 30.01.07)

Louis R14 23:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Motorcycle story
This article (by Conrad Black, no less) makes reference to an event where, as Interior Minister, Sarkozy apparently deployed a massive police dragnet to recover his son's stolen motorscooter, involving lots of DNA testing on motorcycle helmets. This seems interesting enough to mention somewhere. --Saforrest 15:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Zbigniew Mazurak: Before it can be mentioned it must be clear which one of his two adult sons, Pierre or Jean, allowed that thief to steal his scooter.

"Catholic/Jewish mother"?
The article reads "Catholic/Jewish mother". I understand the slight complexity of his background, but someone cannot be both Catholic AND Jewish... It could read "Catholic mother of Jewish descent", or any other variation, but "Catholic/Jewish" is simply not logical. Scotchorama 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There is no source in the article that says his mother is "Catholic/Jewish", nor any that says Sarkozy is a French Jew. In fact, Sarkozy's mother's father was a Jew who converted to Catholicism. His mother was Catholic, as is he. Neither he nor his mother are Jews by Jewish law or tradition, and neither of them appear to have identified as Jews. I know some people go by the "one drop rule", but Wikipedia relies on WP:BLP and WP:ATT. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why people are trying to do their best to hide the fact that Sarkozy is an ethnic Jew, or at least half Jew. First of all, there is nothing wrong with that. Second, it is obvious that his mother is a sefardic jew from Saloniki. This makes him automatically a Jew even if his ancesstors were converted, etc etc blah blah. We are not buying these old games. He is a Jew let him be a Jew. What is really concerning is the fact that at the moment when racial and ethnic tensions are at stake in France, where so many left behind, born in France arabs are ready to riot,electing a president of a Jewish origin will not bring any benefit to France. Whatever he does, the Arab youth will consider it as an anti arabic action led by a pro Israeli or pro Jewish or pro Bush president. I feel for them.
 * If you learnt to read you would see that his mother was not "a sefardic jew from Saloniki"- her father was from a Greek Jewish family (that ironically originated in France) and converted to Catholicism on marrying her mother who was a French Catholic. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And you are another "von" aristicrat who supports Sarkozy. FYI the Jewish population of Saloniki is Sefardic. They can trace their ancestry to Israel or France or Spain or wherever, the fact is that Saloniki Jews were kicked out from Spain and they are Sefardic Osmanian Jews. I see you are brainwashed very well, but that is fine, since the whole French nation is brainwashed these days. The last normal country in Europe is going to fell to Anglo Saxon model of free liberal market where money and power is everything, human dignity is nothing. I have a perception that you in Europe elect Ambassadors to Israel and not presidents. The next British PM is probably going to be anther Jew. I feel very sorry for the entire French nation. But I also suppose that they are just out of their minds, kind of euphoric.FOr this messy situation I blame president Chirac and Dominique de Villepin. Villepin would have been a good president in case the French do not want to elect a socialist. I dont see why they dislike Mitterand's party. Didnt he do enough for France. But again, they think that Sarkozy will bring them American dream. Intead of taking their asses and going to work they blame immigrants for their failures.--armenianNY 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure this is the most appropriate place to post all of this? I would recommend you to go onto a forum or a blog to post all of this, not on an encyclopedia. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 22:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Armenian is just babbling away like a lunatic so I'd ignore him. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen you Zouvaman Le Zuan, I think you voted for Le Pen, if no, then you made a mistake, people with your name and mind should get Le Pen as a president. Do not tell me what to do and where to say what. This is a discussion place and we can freely express our views.As for mt Schickelgrubber or von Papin or von Humpzelschnizel i would say shut up dickhead! Another brainwashed imbecile. I hope the entire French nation or at least 46 per cent of it is not still insane.--armenianNY 05:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

One cannot be an "ethnic Jew" because Judaism is a religion not a ethnic group. Therefore a Jew is a follower of a religion and not a member of an ethnic group. So where the article says; "There is no evidence suggesting that there was an attempt to educate the Sarkozy siblings about their paternal ethnic background." It should say, "paternal grandfather's religion". 86.139.26.49 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is Jewish ancestry and Judaism the religion--one can be either or both, it is entirely possible to be of Jewish ancestry and not follow the Jewish religion.--Gloriamarie 05:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Jews are a nation, and not solely a religion. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens.  Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people."  Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. but are also a nation. --Epeefleche 20:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it's not that unusual- Parsis are a religious as well as an ethnic group, no doubt there are others also. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Hey, can someone tell me why everyone is changing the picture so often? I think the 2005 picture is really good. The one where he speaks at UMP makes his head go all skinny. And the new one that was just put up I have never seen on commons or anywhere... Shouldn't we get this straight? Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 17:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture caption
Someone has slipped a joke into the caption below the picture of Sarko pointing at something. It reads, "Sarkozy pointing out the riff-raff." Can we get rid of this? In fact, can we get rid of the picture itself? There are enough images of him in the article, and this one isn't linked to any particular event in his career. Alex cap 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. ladyPolitik 06:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

About his father's name
Hi,

It seems a revert war is about to begin between Godefroy and I about the name and the nationality of Sarkozy's father. See here to compare our two versions:. In order to avoid it, I'll try here to explain my edits.
 * 1) Godefroy says I'm trying to hide the fact Sarkozy's father was a Hungarian immigrant. I don't think my verison of the text is more equivocal than Godefroy's one about that fact.
 * 2) I've just read today this sentence in the article: "He returned to civil life in Marseille in 1948 and, although he asked for French citizenship only in the 1970s (his legal status was that of a stateless person until then), he nonetheless gallicized his Hungarian name into "Paul Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa"." I must admit I didn't know that fact that even doesn't appear in the French version of the article. What is the source for this fact? I've never heard about it before.
 * Un pouvoir nommé désir, by Catherine Nay: . Godefroy 11:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) About the Hungarian spelling of his nobility name, a lot of versions exists. However nagybócsai is not a part of a name itself. It's an adjective, sometimes written with a lower case first letter, indicating a place of origin, or sometimes an old fief. It respects the ordinary spelling of the place name, even when it changes... and Hungarian languages had a lot of spelling reforms, even in the 20th century. So I see no reason to state that Sarkozy's father's name was Nagy-Bócsay Sárközy since a spelling reform imposes a i as the ending for adjectives (the word Sárközy is not concerned since it's a family name). For exemple, you can read in this article the name of nagybocsai bocsai Sárközy Tamás Ottó Gyula József, who, I suppose, is a distant cousin of him.
 * Here at Wikipedia, we are not in charge of saying what's correct and what's not. All we do is report things that exist. Here it's quite clear that there exist two different versions of his Hungarian name (lower-case and capital, -i and -y), just check on Google, so we report them. You can add a footnote if you want, stating that the version with lower-case n and -i ending is the one best conforming to Hungarian modern orthography. Godefroy 11:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) So what about Paul? Since he was a stateless person, as the article states, he was no longer a Hungarian citizen and no longer concerned about Hungarian spelling. His idedntity papers must have been edited by the French authorities, using the French spelling Paul Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa (it has long been a custom to partially Frenchify foreign names of certain countries) and that explains why Nicolas can legally bear that name since his birth in 1955. So I find a bit insidious (not volontarily, I don't accuse Godefroy of anything, it's just a matter of wording) to say his father was a Hungarian immigrant whose name was Pál Sárközy de Nagy-Bócsa when he was in fact a stateless person whose name on his identity papers was Paul Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa. I would even like to know (and have an evidence) that he used the name Pál Sárközy de Nagy-Bócsa once in his life!
 * The only reason why I put the "internationalized" version of his Hungarian name was because 99.9% of English readers are not familiar with Hungarian names, grammar, and subtleties, so the native Hungarian name would just confuse them (I put the native Hungarian name in parenthesis). The "internationalized" version of the name allows for a more flowing reading of the article for English speakers. It's the same "internationalized" version of Hungarian noble names that is used in all Wikipedia articles dealing with Hungarian aristocratic figures. Godefroy 11:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) About the hyphen in Nagy-Bócsa: as far as I know, composed Hungarian city names are written without a hyphen. I've never heard about such spellings as Székes-Fehér-Vár or Hódmező-Vásárhely. I can't see why there would be or have been a hyphen in Nagybócsa. I may mistake, but I actually think it has allways been written without a hyphen in Hungarian language, and the hyphen was introduced in the French spelling only. About the acute accent on the o, I've read somewhere in a Hungarian article (unfortunaltely I'm unable to find it again) that both spellings with it or without it are possible. The modern example given above about Támas make me think it's better to write the name without the acute accent on the o.
 * If he put his name with an hyphen in French when he gallicized it, it's quite probable that he also used the hyphen in Hungarian, otherwise why would he have done that? So I think it's best to leave his "internationalized" Hungarian name with the hyphen as well. As for the accent, I am 100% sure there's an acute accent on the o of Bócsa. The title comes from the village of Bócsa. There's even an article about that village on Wikipedia, see: Bócsa. If you're not convinced, there's a picture in Catherine Nay's book showing Sarkozy and his father visiting the village of Bócsa a few years ago. They are photographed next to the road sign at the entrance of the village showing the name "Bócsa" with the accent. It's interesting to note that on his family trip to Hungary Sarkozy went to Bócsa but did not go to Alattyán, so for him the real birth place of the family is Bócsa it seems. Godefroy 11:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) A last small remark: Godefroy says Sarkozy de Nagy-Bocsa is the "westernized", or "internationalized", version of his Hungarian name. In fact, it's just the French version of his name where the "belonging" is markes by de. This French version is usually used in English too, as it's stated in the article. But that's all. In German, for example, von is used instead, that explains the form of German conductor Christoph von Dohnányi's name. If he were French or English, his name would be de Dohnanyi or even de Dohnany.
 * Not just French and English. The Hungarian aristocratic names with "de" are also used in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and many other languages, even Russian (check Хорти, Миклош where they use "de" written in cyrilic alphabet). Don't forget that French was the international language of aristocracy for many centuries. The names with "von" are only used in German speaking countries really.Godefroy 11:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope all these comments will help to explain my point of view and permit to write a compromise version sticking to the facts acceptable by all.

Švitrigaila 13:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Gypsy roots
why is there no mention of Sarkozy's gypsy descent ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deceik (talk • contribs) 08:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

I guess because he hasn't got any. This rumour must come from a well-known Hungarian novel in which the gypsy figure's name is Sárközi. But this is not a roma name in Hungary, though it can be. Moreover, the family of Sarkozy's father had no roma roots and it was nothing less than impossible in historic Hungary for a gypsy to become an aristocrat. --192.165.213.18 10:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sentence removed
"Sarkozy's marriage was the subject of heavy hints by Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the right-wing Front National."

I don't believe that Le Pen was hinting at Sarkozy's marriage, maybe at his marriage troubles? That would need sourcing anyway, so I've removed it. Pstuart84 Talk 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

ZM says: Lepen did indeed claim (falsely) that the Cecilia+Nicolas marriage is no more. But everyone knows he was wrong. You can mention that, but you will only embarass Lepen, not help him.

Red Army in 1944
Can we write that the Red Army occupied Hungary in 1944 when in fact it defeated a Nazi ally? After 1945, we can talk about occupation, but before that, it should be seen as liberation.


 * This is an ongoing debate in Hungary as those who were saved by that from death like that part of the Jewish population who did not perish, tended to see it as liberation. But some of the Jews who came back from nazi concentration camps almost directly get into camps in Siberia and for most of the population this was simply a replacement of one occupier by another. Don't forget that nazi ally as it was, in March 1944 the Germans occupied the country whose leader Horthy wanted to make peace with the Allies, and decades of Soviet occupation and deadly Communist rule followed. Occupation is not a rong word, especially in the context of an aristocrat immigrant who did not really want to taste the type of "liberation" represented by the Soviet army. --192.165.213.18 11:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

All of this matters why? This was before he was born. I know my menshevik great grandfather killed cossacks, would that matter if I ran for public office? --Exander 05:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

War in Iraq
Does any one has a better citation for justifying (or not) the claim that "Nicolas Sarkozy is one of the few French politicians to have supported the US led invasion of Iraq[30]" ? [30] refers to an article in Leberation, in 2006, but no link is provided to this article. Even without seeing it, we can guess this is an indirect reference, since it is sais that he stop supporting the war later : a reference of 2003 would me much better. Or perhaps the claim is simply false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.47.59 (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
 * The claim probably stems from a declaration by Sarkozy in 2006 at the Franco-American Foundation during the commemorations of the attacks of the 11th of September 2001:
 * "Il n'est pas convenable de chercher à mettre ses alliés dans l'embarras ou de donner l'impression de se réjouir de leurs difficultés." ("It is ill-behaved to try and put one's allies in trouble, or to give the impression that one is rejoicing from their difficulties")
 * This declaration was a direct attack against Chirac.
 * Sarkozy has been accused of supporting the war, one of the arguments being his links to Klarsfeld (beware, this is a website of well-known lunatics). The Iraq war is deeply impopular in France, so associating Sarkozy with it could be a way to torpedo him. In fact, Sarkozy also made statements saying that the "war in Iraq" was a "wrong" ("une faute" ).
 * Analysis by serious people differ on what Sarkozy actually intends. Some say that what he really meant was to attack the flamboyant style of Villepin, while others analyse this as a genuinely different policy towards the USA. Rama 09:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

'Controversies'-section
Why does this article have its own 'controversies'-section while other leading politicians such as Jacques Chirac and Ségolène Royal does not? Also, is this statement really appropriate in the intro: "Critics have accused him of being an authoritarian demagogue, ready to trade away civil liberties for political gains.[1]."? It does not state who these critics are (in reality most likely his sworn enemies), and could thus be seen as weasel words. I can find no references to criticism in the intros of other leading French left-wing politicians either. Of course, most politicians are the subject to controversy and criticism, that's in nature. As it stands, this article is a quite good illustration of the general left-wing bias on Wikipedia. /Slarre 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarkozy is very controversial. I am agreed that in general the presence and content of "controversy" section is often debatable, but I find your jumping to conclusions from this particular example to a supposed systematic problem of the entirety of Wikipedia quite weak. For your information, personalities of the Centre have made similar statements about Sarkozy. Rama 17:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He is only controversial to those who disagree. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, so about 70% of the population. Rama 11:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well he has been the clear front-runner since January so he mustn't be that controversial. We will see exactly on May 6 how many people are against him. I do think, as well, that this article is a classroom example of weasel words. Hektor 08:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think that just because people are democratically elected they cannot be controversial, you are living in a strange world. At least it must have been a long time since you've heard of Israel or of the USA. Rama 09:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Bush-- many people think he was NOT democratically elected, and that's what has caused much of the controversy around him from the start. He lost the popular vote and the case was decided by the Supreme Court.  Sarkozy clearly won the popular vote in this election.--Gloriamarie 00:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because he received the majority of the popular vote does not make uncontroversial. You forget that just under half voted for Royal over Sarkozy. The democratic system is not perfect as it does not express the universal will of the people, only the majority will. This problem is known as the Paradox of Democracy. Also, although the the 2000 US election results by supreme court ruling are highly controversial, in 2004 Bush was re-elected with both the electoral and the popular vote by a similar margin that Sarkozy received just recently. Now try to argue that Bush isn't a controversial figure in both international and domestic politics just because he revived the popular vote. (Mrutter 11:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
 * I just saw this and will respond on your talk page.--Gloriamarie 05:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikipedia has a pronounced leftwing bias that shouldnt exist.Many articles,not just Sarkozy,but global warming,anything pertaining to Israel,the articles on the USA, articles on Communism,and many others could use modification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raspberrysnapple (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I took out 'dregs' as a translation of racaille as dregs is usually only used in the phrase 'dregs of society'.. as far as i know. --  maxrspct  ping me  23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

specializing in French business law and Family law ?
Many sources are saying that he's lawyer specializing in "Droit immobilier" (Real estate law ?) see Ericd 21:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Centre-right or right ?
"centre-right party UMP" : that is false. UMP is a right party.
 * "centre-right" means "right-wing" by opposition to "Far-right". See Centre-right. Rama 11:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Accoring to Centre-right article, I understand that Centre-right is both Centre and Right. As UDF is center, PS left, UMP should be considered as right, at least under french standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.89.44.229 (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Moreover, it is intersting to note that the "Far-right" leader Jean-Marie Le Pen defined himself as being a man from the ceter right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.89.44.229 (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
 * As a proof of this, extract from the french wikipedia:
 * Partis parlementaires de droite : Union pour un mouvement populaire (UMP) – Mouvement pour la France (MPF)
 * Parti parlementaire du centre : Union pour la démocratie française (UDF)
 * Partis parlementaires de gauche : Parti socialiste (PS) – Parti communiste français (PCF) – Parti radical de gauche (PRG) – Les Verts
 * (see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Parti_politique_fran%C3%A7ais ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.89.44.229 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

The "faute" of Sarkozy over Iraq
In the words of Chirac, "faute" does not mean simply error, otherwise he would have said "erreur", or "bêtise", or "bévue". Here what Chirac meant is much MUCH stronger, it has a strong moral value, it means almost "sin". I'll give an example in a French sentence so people can better grasp the usage of "faute" here:
 * L'abandon de la Tchécoslovaquie par la France et l'Angleterre en 1938 a été une faute impardonnable.

and another example:
 * L'aide apportée par le régime de Vichy à la déportation des Juifs est une faute qui restera à jamais comme une tache dans notre histoire.

That's exactly how Chirac meant the word "faute" in his private comment about Sarkozy's speech. So "error" is too light, and "offense" is completely contrary to what he meant. Can American and English speakers think of a better translation than misdoing? There's also misdeed, misconduct, misdemeanor, I don't know... Godefroy 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe adding an adjective to a word like "error" could work. For example: "important error". I don't know, this is just an idea. Or also, we could use the word "failure" or "misstep". Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 22:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think failure and misstep carry the meaning of "faute" here. I propose "shameful act" which I put in the article. Here is an article from Libération in which they use the word "faute" exactly the way Chirac used it. The article is called Assad à Paris: une faute morale, une erreur géopolitique. Have a read, and let us know if you can find of a better translation than "shameful act". Godefroy 13:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Shameful act" is to strong. What's the English translation of "mea culpa" ? Because it's exactly this "culpa". Ericd 16:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I translate it as "wrong", which has both the connotation of "error" and of "morally wrong". Rama 12:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

laws
Ther is no fact about the laws ha contributed to set, and their negative effects. For this reason, this article is clearly unpov.

President or not
I suggest we wait 6:00 PM UTC (20:00 French time) to update the article acordingly. -- lucasbfr talk 17:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, even if we rely on them for some coverage of current events. We can wait another fifteen minutes... Physchim62 (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And here we are, Nicolas Sarkozy is the next president. Rama 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because the exit polls indicate that he won doesn't mean he did. Royal still has a chance of beating him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The monkeyhate (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

It's now 21:23 Finnish time, which means 20:23 French time. So is Sarkozy the new French prez or not? I'm afraid he is. J I P | Talk 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean I'm afraid? Looney Socialist

SARKOZY PRESIDENT!

Well, Royale just conceded so I guess she belives he won. For all practical purposes he is the next president of France.Apupunchau 18:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarkozy is the president, why take off the incumbent part? He's gonna swarm in anyway.
 * Officially, N. Sarkozy will become the new President of the republic on May, 16th when J.Chirac's the second mandate is completed. A french one, 21h58(Paris)


 * The results at 20:00 are not official results, they are estimations of the total results by means of statistical samples taken from fraction of the effective vote. The official count will be issued by the Conseil Constitutionel in a few days. However, the results which are now available are very unlikely to change significantly over the count of the ballots. Sarkozy is now "elected president", while Chirac remains president in office until the passation of powers. Rama 20:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"...will be the next President of France"
This is an extreme likelihood, but not a certainty. Suppose he gets run over by the proverbial bus? "...was elected President of France" or (somewhat inelegantly) "...was elected as the next President of France" - either of these would be better.66.183.165.57 00:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On what date is M. Sarkozy ascending as President of the French Republic?
Currently, the opening paragraph says 16 May 2007 when he will assume his new office. I have not seen this date mentioned on the French Wikipedia site for M. Sarkozy. Is this date for taking office accurate? Dsf 00:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe N.Sarkozy will reach to the post of president of the republic at the latest on May, 16th. So it means that it can be possible before and likelihood (like former presidents). A french one 19:05 (Paris)(if i have commited mistakes, say me please) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.237.168.199 (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
 * The passation of power is scheduled for May 16; I guess one can say that he will "take office" as such on the next morning. Thermaland 21:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a strange interpretation. You 'take office' the minute that you take on the authority, not the morning after. The date came from French presidential election, 2007 but is not sourced there so perhaps we need a citation. Peeper 21:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is your citation, it's the proclamation of the result by France's constitutional council of the result proclaiming Nicolas Sarkozy President de la republique Francaise "from the moment of the cessation of the function of M. Jacques Chirac, which due to article 6 of the constitution will before the 16 may". -- Esurnir

Mistake
There is a mistake in the summary box in the top-left corner of this page : sarkozy was Minister of the Interior for the first time from 2002 to 2004, not from 2000 to 2002 as mentionned in the box. The Socialists were in office from 1997 to 2002, and the rightists didn't get back in charge until the 2002 presidential election. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.101.166.240 (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Outside Links
The article "French Choose The American Way" is now updated and located at: http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2766&cid=3&sid=76

The old link is gone.

Iran
What's this guy's view on the Iran situation? I couldn't find mention in the article. The Behnam 06:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When he debated with S.Royal, N.Sarkozy said that the country isn't dangerous but it is its leaders who are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.237.168.199 (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

IPA pronunciation
The IPA pronunciation of his name was corrected, then reverted. The o's can be open in the middle of French words (e.g.: bicolore ([bikɔlɔʁ];, ), décalcomanie ([dekalkɔmani]; , ), encyclopédie ([ɑ̃siklɔpedi]; , ), etc.). I think [nikɔla saʁkɔzi] is the correct transcription. Korg (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Korg. First of all, I'm French and a phonetics freak. Let me start with a basic example of why "standard" phonetical French is not real spoken French: the personal pronoun "je" ("I") is traditionnally transcribed as [ʒə] in most dictionaries whereas the substantive "jeu" ("game") is transcribed as [ʒø]. In reality, "je" and "jeu" have strictly the same pronunciation. Why two transcriptions then? Simply because the 'e' in "je" disappears when placed before a vowel sound ("j'habite") and the 'eu' in "jeu" never changes. It's just a practical way of telling foreigners when an [ø] sound may be elided in French. For similar reasons, the "o" sound in "Nicolas", despite definitely being an [o] sound, is often transcribed as [ɔ]: this is because the "o" in the feminine form of the name, "Nicole", is open. Remember the IPA is basically meant to help foreigners, not natives. Technically speaking, an open vowel in French ([ɛ] or [ɔ]) only occurs when followed by a consonant sound at the end of a word. This way, the word "sot" ("silly") is pronounced [so] but its feminine, "sotte" is pronounced [sɔt] because the final "e" is mute and there only so that the written "t" gets heard. Of course, there are exceptions but the general rule is this. I hope my explanation was clear enough. Now at least you will understand why transcribing real French may be a little confusing for your average French student :-) Any further questions, I'll be glad to answer.--AnPrionsaBeag 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Korg is right on that, so I restored the IPA with open o. AnPrionsaBeag, please do not make changes single-handedly, especially since there are already two users disagreeing with you. What you wrote above is personal opinion. You're free to believe that "je" and "jeu" are pronounced the same, in fact most people would not notice the difference when they pronounce it, but it is indeed pronounced differently, as proved by scientists using accoustic wave recorders and other such instruments. Better leave this subject to scientists rather that trust our personal opinions here, and if the dictionaries say that Nicolas is pronounced with an open o, then that's what we should write in the article. Godefroy 22:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The IPA symbols have not primarily been designed to indicate elisions or spelling subtleties, but to provide a way to represent a precise kind of sound. If you think that "je" and "jeu" have exactly the same pronunciation, then I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. For example, the sound 'e' is not the same in "jeudi" [ʒødi] and "je dis" [ʒə di], or in "feutrine" [føtʁin] and "fenêtre" [fənɛːtʁ]. The sounds [ø] and [ə] are quite close, but different. If you're not convinced, you can compare Image:Close-mid front rounded vowel.ogg ([ø]) and Image:Schwa.ogg ([ə]).

In the same way, the sound 'o' is pronounced differently in "police" [pɔlis] and "pauvreté" [povʁœte]; also, some words contain the two sounds [o] and [ɔ], such as "copeau" [kɔpo] and "cautionner" [kosjɔne]. Sound samples can be found at Image:Close-mid back rounded vowel.ogg for [o], and Image:Open-mid back rounded vowel.ogg for [ɔ] (though the difference isn't obvious, or the recording quality is quite low), or at http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/ipa/full/ipachart_vowels.html or http://web.uvic.ca/ling/resources/ipa/charts/IPAlab/IPAlab.htm. I'm not a linguist, so I may be wrong, but I'd like to hear otherwise. Korg (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. Once again, my transcription was right but I'm not here to wage a foolish war. And my opinion is not mine only: it's that of the French linguists I studied and the ones who taught me at Toulouse Mirail University. Anyway, I don't suppose you know my language better than I (and they) do: I speak, read, hear and study it every day. Furthermore, one more significant detail to prove me right: unlike English, for instance, syllables in French basically end with a vowel, except for final syllables and double consonants. "Coloriage" will be decomposed as co-lo-riage (or ri-a-ge in the South) or, phonetically: /ko lo rjaʒ/. As I said, open o's and e's occur mostly in final positions and before double consonants (given the first one is either an l or an r). As for "Nicolas", as the audio file clearly shows, we have ni-co-las, with "-co-" pronounced [ko]. Try to read the "-co-" in "Nicolas" as an English word. You'll get [kəʊ], not [kɒ], won't you? Plus, the short form form for "Nicolas" is "Nico" ([ni'ko]) and that for "Sarkozy" is "Sarko" ([saR'ko]). As for "je" and "jeu", once again, get your facts right: they ARE pronounced exactly the same. Read papers, watch TV and you'll come across that very usual play on words: "Double Je" (for "double-jeu"). It's even the title of a popular song here by Christophe Willem. Check for yourselves. Anyway, as I said, I'm not here to discuss things forever. So if despite my explanation and examples, you still refuse to admit I'm right, then keep your IPA the way you want but just be aware it's incorrect. ;-) PS: For further evidence, I posted a question on the French Yahoo! Answers. Check the results: http://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070508040754AAzRbMf&r=w PPS: Just another very common "standard" phonetical nonsense, just in case you're still not convinced. The "-un-" sound in "brun" is not pronounced [ɶ~] as your favourite dictionary reads, but [ɛ~] as in "brin". "Brun" and "brin" have strictly the SAME pronunciation. Find me a French person who actually says [brɶ~] and I'll make sure you get the Légion d'Honneur! AnPrionsaBeag 11:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation, but I'm still not convinced. Just some comments.
 * Though the word "coloriage" can be represented when decomposed as you did above, it is transcribed [kɔlɔʁjaːʒ] when the syllables are connected. In the audio file, the first "co" is pronounced [ko], I agree, but I'm not so affirmative for the three last ones; anyway, this does not indicate that's the standardised pronunciation. Regarding the "un" sound, I agree that [ɛ̃] and [œ̃] tend to have the same pronunciation; however, differences still exist in some regions.
 * Your question on Yahoo Answers is interesting, thanks. Just out of curiosity, do you pronounce "gauche" and "chose" with a close 'o'?
 * To get back to the pronunciation of the name "Nicolas Sarkozy", I think that the two sounds 'o' are the same as those contained in the French words "nicotine", "écolier", "décollage", "chocolat", "sarcophage", "sardonique", or "cosy". The IPA transcription [nikola saʁkozi] makes me think of the spelling "Nicôlas Sarkôzy" (or "Nikeaulas Sarkeauzy").
 * Again, I may be wrong. We're not here to keep things incorrect, but to correct them. I'll ask other people for comments. Korg (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Korg. Just out of curiosity: are you French? How much do you know my language (and that of those who answered my question on Yahoo! Q/R)? All the words you gave ("nicotine" etc) just confirm what I said: all those o's are closed. I'm sorry to shatter your certainties there but I'm afraid your ears betray you. The difference between an [o] and an [ɔ] is more than obvious to a native's, as my little poll shows. As for your stance on the pronunciation of "coloriage" being different when syllables are connected, this is hardly logical, let alone true. I decomposed the word precisely to show you the way you understand French phonetics is wrong. Now as we say: "Il n'est pas de pire aveugle que celui qui ne veut voir" (There's no blinder than the one who refuses to see). I'm aware that phonetics can be hard to understand when you're not familiar with the intricacies of a language but much as I hate to tell you, your transcription is definitely wrong. As for "chose" and "gauche", they're both closed o's but in the southernmost parts of Occitania (I'm from Limousin, Northern Occitania), due to the influence of "la lenga nòstra" in which closed o's do not exist ("o" & "ó" are pronounced [u] and "ò" is [ɔ]), people tend to replace them with open o's. So I see where you're coming to but this is irrelevant here as this special pronunciation doesn't apply to Limousin people. ;-) AnPrionsaBeag 05:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am French. Having lived and spent time in several regions, especially in the northeast and the southeast of France, I'd say the pronunciation differences (and errors, too) are easily distinguishable. In this way, your poll shows it quite well.
 * You're stating that all the words I gave above contain close o's, but dictionaries say they contain open ones (see the TLFi for example). Korg (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What my poll shows quite well is that 90% of people say it's a closed "o". Read again. I entered this debate thinking you were willing to discuss and learn but as is now clear, I believe you're too proud to admit you were wrong in the first place and this bears a name: bad faith. I proved my points, even confirmed them with a Yahoo! poll but still you keep denying your mistake. Then again, if you're French, and so did I move a lot all over France and Occitania, and still are not able to tell an open "o" from a closed "o" as in the audio file, there is unfortunately nothing I can do. Stick with your certainties and outdated phonetic transcriptions that are but a mere convention and not a phonological reality. I value truth and Wikipedia is about facts, not personal opinion and ego. This "debate" leads nowhere and is not even amusing me: I'm off. Adieussiatz! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnPrionsaBeag (talk • contribs).


 * Please do not misinterpret what I'm saying; read again my comments, and you'll see I only tried to answer your arguments. You're free to end the discussion. I must concede I'm tired of it too; I only continue here to find the correct transcription for the benefit of the encyclopedia.
 * Well, regarding your poll now, I'd say it has several flaws. First, you asked people how they pronounce a word, not how it should be pronounced correctly. Questioning people pronouncing open and close o's indentically could produce bad results. Also, comparing two different words is probably insufficient; more examples should produce better results. I requested third-party opinions on the French Wikipedia, where one user thinks that /ni.kɔ.la saʁ.kɔ.zi/ is the correct transcription (see fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/10 mai 2007), but I'm seeking others.
 * I tried to find some words very similar to the names "Nicolas" and "Sarkozy" ("nicotine", "chocolat", "sarcophage", etc.). If you're still around, could you tell me why all dictionaries indicate that these words contain open o's? Thank you for your cooperation. Korg (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

achievements
While in post as Minister of Interior, Mr Sarkozy dotated French police around the country with a new weapon, namely the Taser (US brand for electric weapon). 600 of these are now being in use in the French police force. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.239.14.98 (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
 * And ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.237.168.199 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I supposed this is worthy because Tasers are often seen as saving lives, rather than using guns.--Gloriamarie 05:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

POV introduction
As with the article on the French presidential election, this article has got some problems with POV. Take the introduction, stating that "Sarkozy is known for his conservative stance on law and order issues and his admiration for a new economic model for France, suggesting that the country should have a more liberalised economy. Critics have accused him of being an authoritarian demagogue, ready to trade away civil liberties for political gains." For an article to be NPOV, it could be expected that the view of both supporters and critics would be given. Having just the critics' view in the introduction to the article on the next French president is neither NPOV nor favourable for Wikipedia. For this reason I have removed the sentence even though it is sourced, but if somebody wants to rewrite the introduction to include the views of both supporters and critics, feel free to do so. Dusis 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Isn't the pronunciation rather fast ? Does it need re-recording ? Thanks. Wildpixs 10:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Move Protection
Does this page need move protection, or is that only called for after more than one instance of move vandalism? --BlackTerror 14:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

what is the point of view
well i am a student and i am doing research on pres. Sarkozy of france. And what i was wondering was his point of view on iseral, and what is going on in thw war...and i am going to keep researching this until i find the answer i am looking for. If you have anyidea on his point of view contacet me in anyway possible. please. (Thequestion101 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Sarkozy sees himself as a supporter of Israel, and he sees Israel as an allie. He respect the Jewish settelers in Israel. He supported Sharons plan, but because he thought it would be good for Israel (He didnt understand that this plan helps to arabic terrorists). He supports Israeli fight against terrorism, and he often critisezed the "palestinian" (No such people by the way) "leaders" for doing nothing against terror. He is awar that Hamaas and Hizzballa are terrorists and hes against negotating with them. He sees Israel as an answer to the Jewish question. M.V.E.i. 19:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To what "Jewish question"?--Gloriamarie 05:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Malta holiday
What does Sarkozy's Malta holiday have to do with his first presidential term? If he were to take a holiday during his presidency, I no doubt think he would have been compared to George W. Bush, now he is just an "extravagant" politican, or so the text seems to imply. There are parliamentarian elections coming up in France, can't this man get a rest? Intangible2.0 12:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Zbigniew Mazurak: Everyone holidays - because everyone needs to. The mention of Malta is purposeless.

Is this really relevant?
Someone added the following info to the article:

" In 1917 a great fire destroyed parts of Salonika and damaged the family estate. Many Jewish-owned properties, including the Mallah’s, were expropriated by the Greek government. Jewish population emigrated from Greece and much of the Mallah family left Salonica to France, America and Israel."

and

" During the Holocaust, many of the Mallahs who stayed in Salonica or moved to France were deported to concentration and extermination camps. In total, fifty-seven family members were murdered by the Nazis. "

Is this really relevant in an article about Nicolas Sarkozy? By the time these events happened his grand-father had already left Salonica, and it's making the family background section way too long compared to the rest of the article. It would be better to create an article dedicated to the Mallah family where this (interesting) information could be placed. Godefroy 15:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Dusis 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Date of transfer of power
Please don't revert the date to May 17. This is not the United States, there is no binding legal time like "January 20 at noon" for power transfer between the two presidents. The time is chosen by mutual agreement between the two presidents. And the time is May 16 in the morning. Not May 17 at 00:00.

Sarkozy will be president when he is presented the Grand Master collar of the Legion of Honor. Hektor 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly the presentation of the grand master collar is ceremonial and is not a constitutional act. The official proclamation of the result by the constitutional council only mention that Nicolas Sarkozy will become president "as soon as Jacques Chiraques cease his function". Then give a deadline. The constitution only says that the president is elected for 5 years (article 6) Here is a video of the Miterrand-Chiraq transition. -- Esurnir 06:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Regularisation of Immigrant Families
Half of this section sounds like OR, with a bunch of weasel words for good measure. It needs a citation, or failing that removal. The offending section is:

"Most of the files were refused because the minister had fixed, beforehand, a number of "about 6000" files to be accepted, whatever happened. The remaining 20,000 or so people have however been carefully registered in police files, including their personal address and child's school (one of the criteria was providing school certificates). Some consider the situation to be a possible 'trap' for integrated immigrants."

Edit: Goddamn bots. --163.1.165.116 14:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OR as far as I know there was a rumor of maximum number that emerge from the existence of an estimation of the number of people that would be regularised before this particular circular came into existence, but it was only an estimation and there is no trace in any circular of a particular number. -- Esurnir 06:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section
Now that Nicolas Sarkozy has been elected as the President of the French Republic, I think it would be better to strongly decrease the size of the controversies section. Indeed, that section seems too opinion-oriented and not enough factual. Probably this section should be summarized as a paragraph in the candidacy section. What do you think ? Metropolitan 15:35, 18 may 2005 (UTC).


 * Alright, as no one answered me on this. I consider that no one disagree. Hence, I'll try to work out this page in order to make it more a "president" page when I'll have time. Metropolitan 16:14, 19 may 2005 (UTC).

Simply being the President of the French Republic does not give him the right to immunity from criticism.Dr. Wikipedian 13:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, however, I don't see George W. Bush for instance having a third of its article dedicated to make a list of all the controversies around him. The current structure of the page is not efficient and doesn't appear objective. After all, if all the critics are grouped in one chapter, why not grouping all of Sarkozy's achievements in another chapter ! I guess you see well how all this leads to nowhere. Metropolitan 14:11, 23 may 2005 (UTC).

Yes, you're right. George W. Bush doesn't have a third of an article dedicated to criticism. Criticism of George W. Bush has it's own seperate article plus a section in the main article that it just as large as the section Sarkozy has. If you were seeking to make Mr Sarkozy's article more like Mr Bush's, you'd have to add to the criticism section instead of trying to compact it into a paragraph and sweep it under a rug in the candidacy section. Dr. Wikipedian 23:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section isn't done in a skillful way. Many of the "accusations" are uncited, and they don't give both sides of the story. It would be better to place these in, perhaps, a "Political Positions" section showing what he thinks and how people criticize him. --Gloriamarie 06:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

MODERNISATION
Saying that Srakozy "stressed the need for modernisation in France" is non NPOV because it assumes he is right. I would suggest he declared that France needed "modernisation".90.11.203.220 16:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Official photograph
PLEASE DO NOT UPLOAD AND LINK THE OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPH unless it becomes Free and compatible with the GFDL.

In France, official documents by the State are not in the Public Domain.

Wikipedia allows Fair use, but not at any cost. In this case, Free images of Sarkozy are perfectly available (we have a bunch of these on Commons), so any Fair use rational for the use of official images would be totally irrelevant. Rama 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Worse, the photograph was not produced by the government, but by a well-known press photographer who is not a government employee! The government most probably only has bought the right to use it for official purposes, not to redistribute it under a free license! David.Monniaux 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT!
Why did he fail his Sciences-Po exams? Please write about it.

Looking this up, I could find no references to it besides Wikipedia, so I removed it. The reference said this was in an unofficial biography. If anyone can find a source for this, you can add it back in. I instead found a few articles which say he failed his entrance exam to Sciences Po, because his English wasn't good enough, so I added that instead. That also seems to make a lot more sense.--Gloriamarie 05:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

6th co prince of andorra

 * This is wrong, he is not the 6th co prince of Andorra, there have been co princes for centuries... Hektor 17:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed "controversies"
I removed the two most recent additions to the Controversy section. If it was admitted that Sarkozy didn't know about the illegal immigrants, that's not a controversy at all. The drunk accusation was taken back by the journalist, and including the incident is a case of recentism at work. It's not on the level of other things included in the section.--Gloriamarie 06:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet
The section headed "Sarkozy's Cabinet" does not give members members of the Cabinet at all, it gives members of Sarkozy's personal staff. Intelligent Mr Toad 12:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what "cabinet" means. This is an article about French politics. "Cabinet" and "government" are not the same thing. Rama 10:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The French military
Did Sarkozy perform military service? If so, when and at what base? Not that I'd want to condemn him if he did cos I did not serve myself, but he was legally obliged to do so according to French law, which says all presidential candidates must perform military service.
 * Rumour has it that he did in 1977, near Paris, in an intelligence service of the Army. I wouldn't call this information reliable, though. Rama 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One website says he was a French Army soldier 1978-1979 and while he was, he guarded Ayatollah Khomeini. Is this claim true or false?

Professional history
When did Sarkozy work as a lawyer? He began studies after he obtained his BAC (1973); 4 years later he was elected Councillor. He graduated from Paris X 29 years ago; 5 years later he became mayor of Neuilly so then he surely stopped working as a lawyer. So when did he work as an AVOCAT?

Birthplace
This article states 2 different birth places: Paris and Budapest, both at more than 1 place. Which is correct?Twerbrou 14:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only that, the lead paragraph says that he was born in Wien (Vienna), Austria! So, which is it? -- Kimon talk 14:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

his admiration for a new economic model for France[2].
The text «his admiration for a new economic model for France[2].» is in the introduction. does this mean anything? If yes, what does this mean?

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~). Take a look at the reference given after the sentence (#2 in the article) and it explains this statement: he wants adjustments to the 35-hour workweek, lower taxes, and concessions from labor unions. Basically, he is making more free market changes rather than socialist ones. The text is a bit awkward in its current state (perhaps written by a non-native English speaker?) so perhaps I can do some rewording. This is important, though, and does belong in the intro.--Gloriamarie 00:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

he has promised closer cooperation with the United States.[3]
The article syas «he has promised closer cooperation with the United States.[3]». This seams false: He did promise improve relationship with Africa, and he were recently in Sénégal and Lybie. He did promise an euro-mediterranean union ( union euroméditerranéenne). But I do not remember of anything related to America or United-States, except that according to him, he wants to help Airbus against Boeing, and that the euro(€ - EUR) is too much strong against the US dollar (US$).

America and France did not really "get along", as was at least often reported by the press, under Chirac. Chirac went against the US on Iraq, yes, but he also, for instance, showed up at a dress-casual G8 summit in a suit and tie whilst every other leader arrived in jeans and button-down shirts. He gave the appearance of going against the US not on principle but because he just didn't like America. Because of this, Sarkozy is exceptional for saying that he wants to cooperate with America and that he has a great admiration for America. Many people have said he is an American-style president. The Washington Post article cited for that assertion says that Sarkozy has promised "reinvigorated ties" with America. That is re-phrased as "closer cooperation" in this article. There are many media reports on this, at least in the English-speaking press. Perhaps in France it has not been mentioned as much, or perhaps in France Sarkozy talks about other things.--Gloriamarie 00:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

decreased taxes
''«After winning the election, he has decreased taxes to make GDP growth faster, but did not reduce state expenditures. He was criticised by the European Commission for doing so. Sarkozy intends to gather larger tax receipts, possible only if GDP grows faster, and finance state expenditures rather than reduce them.»''

Which tax(es), if any, might have been reduced?

Moreover the article should explain who did it, as Sarkozy is not a member of the government.


 * Mainly inheritance taxes, tax decreases on overtime plus a "fiscal shield": You cannot pay more than 50% of your income in direct taxes. The law has been passed two weeks ago and it was direct implementation of his programm so I doubt it is useful to add who is the Finance Minister (i.e. Christine Lagarde)--Bombastus 13:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

REPLY: The inheritance tax has been abolished and the tax limit as a proportion of personal revenue of any French taxpayer has become 50% (previously it was 60%). And although Sarkozy is not a member of the government, he directs, de iure, the government. The PM is, de iure, merely his subordinate.


 * okay. I am not very sure this will reduce taxes for more than one percent of people, but I recognize taht I did not remember that in english the word tax include the concept of impôt.
 * You wrote «tax decreases» on overtime, when I understand that there is no income tax on work declared as overtime.
 * This was voted in 2007, and will be applied in 2008. 87.89.44.229 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Related to the de iure, I assume you made a lapsus, and you mean de facto (assuming these two locutions have the same meaning in english as in latin languages):
 * President of the French Republic is not a member of the government, he does not direct, de iure, the government. The PM is not, de iure, his subordinate.
 * Sarkozy is not a member of the government, he directs, de facto, the government. The PM is, de facto, merely his subordinate.

REPLY: No, it was not a lapsus. The PM is, de iure, the President's subordinate. The President is not a member of the cabinet but he directs the cabinet.


 * According to, you should write that the president directs a cabinet, but this might not mean he directs the government (from a constitutional point of view).
 * If you mean he directs the government, I do not understand why you write such a thing. I did not see any such subordination described in the constitution (article 8 and 10). What is your source? (NB: I do not say that President has no power, in facts, he has a big influence power, mainly due to the fact he choosed, as president of his party, members of parliament.)
 * Article 8
 * The President of the Republic shall appoint the Prime Minister. He shall terminate the appointment of the Prime Minister when the latter tenders the resignation of the Government.
 * On the proposal of the Prime Minister, he shall appoint the other members of the Government and terminate their appointments.


 * Article 10
 * The President of the Republic shall promulgate Acts of Parliament within fifteen days following the final adoption of an Act and its transmission to the Government.
 * He may, before the expiry of this time limit, ask Parliament to reconsider the Act or sections of the Act. Reconsideration shall not be refused.
 * While the president has to sign all acts adopted by parliament into law, he cannot refuse to do so and exercise a kind of right of veto; his only power in that matter is to ask for a single reconsideration of the law by parliament and this power is subject to countersigning by the Prime minister.


 * An alternative could be: «After his party win the election, he has made the government decrease taxes to make GDP growth faster, but did not reduce state expenditures. He was criticised by the European Commission for doing so. Sarkozy intends to gather larger tax receipts, possible only if GDP grows faster, and finance state expenditures rather than reduce them.»
 * The meaning of these sentences is not fully clear. What was the European Commission upset about-- the decrease of taxes OR the decrease of taxes + no accompanying decrease in state expenditures? Why was he criticised? This certainly needs further explanation. Was he praised by anyone for these measures?  It must be written in an NPOV manner.--Gloriamarie 00:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Image of Sarkozy"
I removed the following from this section; I didn't understand the assertions, which are sourced to French-language publications. The allegation that for some reason he preferred to travel in a car with his stepdaughters rather than his sons for no reason other than image is kind of a serious one, which doesn't make sense anyway. That will need multiple, reliable sources to confirm.--Gloriamarie 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On the eve of his election, he preferred to have Cécilia's fair-haired daughters (with her first husband, TV presentator Jacques Martin) rather than his own two sons in his car.
 * One of his counsellor in political marketing, Bernard Rideau, declared that he had largely borrowed to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's attention to his image. Sarkozy has also been compared in this to Tony Blair, who had as one of his spin-doctor the journalist Alastair Campbell: the new French President has included several journalists in his presidential team.

Anti-Sarko
Previous picture about Anti-Sarko sittings was a photography of demonstrators drinking beer, with hidden faces, like shaming on them. I think this is completely in conflict with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. A better photography was already in Wikipedia Commons, so I put this one instead. Od1n 13:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not against Wikipedia policies, unless you are suggesting that the photograph was doctored. NPOV is not a policy of representing people as they would like to be represented. Rama 13:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Link to Hungary
Oughtn't the link from the word Hungary link to the country entry rather than the Hungary during WW2 entry? -- HasanDiwan 01:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Gaullist candidate
I have some doubts about Nicolas Sarkozy succeeding Jacques Chirac as "Gaullist candidate", since Sarkozy is not explicitely gaullist. For now, I put Chirac as not being succeeded in that capacity. What is your opinion ? Wedineinheck 13:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Gaullist challenger was Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, who actually failed to fulfill the requirements to run the election. Rama 13:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

claims of mossad involvement
Would somebody like to refute the ridiculous and libellous claims that Sarkozy is a mossad agent? The claims have been made by Al Ahram, an egyptian newspaper, and supposedly were made in Le Figaro, a french paper.

There are a lot of idiots in the world and they need to be helped 89.243.183.240 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Le Figaro merely reported that an anonymous person sent emails around to top cops, purporting to be from the secret services, making the claim you mention. Al Ahram basically  lied about the content of the Le Figaro article.  There is no point refuting something that correctly did not make it to the article. Mezigue 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Categorization "People with Jewish Descent"
How can Sarkozy be classified as "People with Greek Descent" even though his Greek descent is from Sephardic Jews? Even if Sarkozy's grandfather converted to Roman Catholicism that does not cancel his Jewish descent. That is like saying that Napoleon's Italian descent was cancelled once Corsica became part of France or once he became the Emperor of France. Or to give another example regarding the ethnicity of Charles Bukowski; how can his Polish ethnicity be discarded simply because there are Polish surnames in Germany and the Ukraine? There are thousands of Spanish surnames in Italy from Spanish rule of the Two Sicilies. There are thousands of Norman and English surnames in Ireland from the Anglo-Norman conquest of the 11th Century. That doesn't erase a person's ethnicity. It changes their nationality. Pistolpierre (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From the moment his grandfather converted to catholicism he stopped being a jew. Saying that he is of "jewish descent" is just supporting a racist theory in the etymological meaning of the word. There is no ethnicity at all. It is only a matter of religion here. Med (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Jewishness is regarded as an ethnicity as well as a religion but having a category of Jewish descent would cover so many people as to be meaningless. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jews from Poland are clearly the same "ethnicity" as Jews from Algeria. When words become meaningless, better no use them at all. Rama (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, perhaps you could argue that Sephardi, Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews can be regarded as different ethnicities. I think most Greek Jews are of sephardi origin amd most Mizrahi are also descended from sephardi. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Med (talk), did Napoleon cease to be Italian when he became Emperor of France? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk), are you saying that all the lists of "Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Cuban-Americans, Polish-Americans, etc. should not exist? Are both of you saying that Sarkozy's Jewish ethnicity magically vanished when his grandfather converted to Roman Catholicism OR that only a Jewish person's ethnicity is not worth commenting on?  I find it hard to believe that Sarkozy's grandfather would not have considered himself Jewish.  Aren't you always a Jew if you have a Jewish mother?  This discussion is relevant considering Sarkozy tries to portray the Algerian and African immigrants in France as being scum or riff-raff.  Pretty hypocritcal considering his only French ancestor married a Sephardic Jew who immigrated from Greece.  Perhaps there should be a list of "half-Jews" that adds Sarkozy's mother.Pistolpierre (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that more a class rather than an ethnic issue? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I could see why you might think that but alot of that "riff-raff" doesn't even speak French. How is he to prove that his Greek and Hungarian immigrant relatives spoke French when they arrived?Pistolpierre (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarkozy's Jewish ethnicity did not vanish. It never existed. The concept, incidentally, in repugnant, and instantly brings back memories of the Vichy regime. I wish this could be the last time that we hear of it.
 * Furthermore, this talk page is devoted to improving the article about Sarkozy, not trolling about such or such statement he made. Rama (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. His Jewish ethnicity never existed?  Did Ben Stiller's Mom lose her Irish ethnicity when she converted to Judaism?  Did Bonaparte lose his Italian ethnicity when he became Emperor of France?  Did Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky lose their Jewish ethnicity when they became atheists?  Are you denying that Sarkozy's grandfather had Jewish ethnicity?  If the answer is no, that means his mother has Jewish ethnicity.  Are you denying that Jesus Christ, St. Paul, St. Peter, had Jewish ethnicity?Pistolpierre (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Jewish ethnicity" doesn't mean anything. The concept is as absurd as "Shia ethnicity" or "protestant ethnicity". Rama (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. Does Arab ethnicity mean anything?  Does Persian ethnicity mean anything?  Does English, Irish, Italian, Spanish, Polish, French ethnicity mean anything?  Are you joking?Pistolpierre (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is questionable. Scholars have argued that "ethnicity" cannot be properly defined and that the concept should be discarded completely.
 * In any case, you will notice that all the groups you cite share commons cultural, behavioural and linguistic traits. This is obviously not the case of Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Shias, Sunnits, Buddhists and whatever religion.
 * And for the last time, please edit this page to discuss constructive edits to the article. If what you want is a soapbox, you'd be better off writing a blog. Rama (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone is on a soapbox it is you. You make unbelievably absurd claims.  You accuse me of trolling.  Mentioning why this discussion is relevant vis à vis Sarkozy's attitude towards immigrants is not soapboxing.  You continue to avoid answering this question.  Did Napoleon's Italian ethnicity vanish when he became the Emperor of France?  You say that the word ethnicity is meaningless.  You even say that the Irish, Polish, English, and French have common linguistic traits!  LOL.  Do the Chinese and the Scots have similar linguistic traits?  If anybody has common linguistic traits it is the Persians, Turks, Arabs, Kurds, yet these are all considered separate ethnicities by virtue of common sense and the fighting in Iraq between Turks, Kurds, Persians, and Arabs.  If you honestly believe what you are saying, and are not in bad faith, I suggest you delete every single list of "Irish-Americans", "Italian-Americans", "Chinese-Americans", etc.  If there is no such thing as Jewish ethnicity why did the Hebrews make a point of not taking "foreign" wives?  Why was it such a big deal that a foreigner named Ruth converted?  You are not entitled to your own facts.  Sarkozy is a descendant of Sephardic Jews.  Therefore he has Jewish ethnicity.  Napoleon was not French.  He was Italian.  Sarkozy's grandfather was Jewish, not French.  Sorry that you are bothered by Sarkozy's ethnicity.Pistolpierre (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Rama's point is that religion being a matter of faith (thus pertaining to the individual) cannot be a matter of ethnicity (pertaining to the group). You do not inherit your faith with your genes, you are raised in it. Big difference. CyrilleDunant (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why are Jews not permitted to marry foreign wives unless they convert? If what you said were true, there would be no need for Ben Stiller's mom to convert to Judaism from Roman Catholicism AFTER she married his father.  Clearly ethnicity was a big deal to the Jewish priests because they told the story of Ruth in the Bible.  And the early Hebrews made the marriage to foreign women undesirable in the Book Of Genesis.  Until somebody can answer what happened to Napoleon's Italian ethnicity when he became Emperor of the French, this discussion can not be resolved.  Likewise, what happened to Ruth's ethnicity, Moab, when she converted to Judaism?  It appears that people believe that the only way to lose ethnicity is to convert to Judaism.  Yet Jews do not proselytize, so clearly there is pride in their ethnicity.  Therefore, there is zero chance that Sarkozy's grandfather would not have considered himself to be Jewish once he converted to Roman Catholicism.  Especially considering that nobody can deny that Christ and St. Paul were Jewish.  Pistolpierre (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was indeed ethnicity that mattered, converting to Judaism would not allow marrying a Jew. Ethnicity cannot be changed. Religion can.
 * Congratulations, you just defeated your own point. Rama (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In a billion years, the rules of logic will not make your statement make any sense. Please fix it because it is incomprehensible as is.  Converting to Judaism would not allow marrying Jew?  She married him before she was Jewish.  You admit she preserved her ethnicity.  So that means Ruth did as well.  Nobody is denying you can't change your religion.  If anybody defeated their own point it is you.  Sarkozy's grandfather could not lose his ethnicity from your own logic.  Why?  His mother was a Jew.  So you admit that Napoleon never lost his Italian ethnicity?Pistolpierre (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Judaism is not an ethnicity, period. Med (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2007
 * You are not persuasive in the least. In fact, you just admitted that it is impossible for Ben Stiller, a Jew, to lose his Irish ethnicity from his mother Anne, who like Ruth, was a foreigner.  Therefore, Sarkozy has Jewish ethnicity.  Tell me, what happened to Ruth's Moab ethnicity?  Did she keep it?  Yes or no?  You already said yes.  Therefore you have disproved your theory that Judaism is not an ethnicity.  If it weren't, Jews would actively proselytize and not bother to require that women convert AFTER they married a Jewish man.  Pistolpierre (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Shut up. Med (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you a troll?Pistolpierre (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Judaism is not an ethnicity but Jewishness is no doubt an ethnicity, i.e. a group of people that have married together and maintained a culture for thousands of years. See Who is a Jew?. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps people do not want to admit this because of liberal fascists like St. Paul that said "there is no longer Greek or Jew, man or woman" and of course Hitler who would not follow St. Paul's own logic. It seems like common sense yet I guess you can't really blame people for being defensive.  This discussion has been unsettling and perhaps it is best to archive it.  It could always be brought up in the future if Sarkozy keeps up the Napoleon routine in his attitude towards Muslims.Pistolpierre (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "No doubt" ? The article you link to is riddle with "ambiguous", "may vary", etc.
 * What is under "no doubt" is that some people have a racist notion of what a Jew is. This notion, fortunately, has not had currency in mainstream opinion in France since 1944, so we'll leave it outside post-war French topics. Rama (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bring up Vichy, an imposed régime, all you like. This is at least the 2nd time.  The fact is that Napoleon was a racist.  He used nationality to bludgeon every country he "liberated".  Thank God the Spanish resisted.  If he didn't create the Polish protectorate there would of been considerably less bad blood between Britain, France, Germany, and Russia.  The Prussian occupation created the anti-French sentiment that Bismarck loved to exploit.  And of course without Bismarck and Bonaparte III there is no Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.  So you have problem starting with Vichy's 1940 conception of ethnicity.  The problem started with Bonaparte's grudge/inferiority complex towards the French.  He was extremely bitter his entire life.  Towards the Corsican occupation, towards the Spanish resistance, towards the Prussian and Russian resistance, towards Rothschild...ironic that nobody did more for the European Jews than Bonaparte, yet he was defeated by a Jewish banker.  That is a fact.  And Gerson von Bleichröder, Baron James Rothschild, and Oppenheimer all empowered and then defeated Napoleon III.Pistolpierre (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Images
Does anyone else think they are a bit excessive in this article? The more images the better might be good in some articles, but on this there's several where he's just standing in front of a microphone which seems like overkill. One Night In Hackney 303  20:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)