Talk:Renaud Camus

Biography / Original Research
I'm not sure whether the issues here fall under NPOV NOR or V. The sentences in question include:

"Although he has a growing base of faithful and fervent readers, he is not read widely. This is partly because of the difficulty of some of his work and partly because of his alienation from the literary establishment, in which he is well known, largely because of his journals. This alienation derives from his no-holds-barred approach in his journals and his adamant insistence on expressing his convictions – political, moral, personal – in his writing (some shun him because they fear being described and/or quoted)."

This largely reads like promotional material.

In particular, there is no evidence of his readership, whether growing, fervent, faithful or otherwise. If he is a notorious pariah within the literary establishment, can anyone find a discussion of this in secondary sources? Maybe there is an article about him somewhere that could help? (There's a New Yorker article/interview, though I'm not sure it helps here.)

The most promotion-like assertion is the portrayal of the subject as a literary outcast due to his "no-holds-barred approach in his journals and his adamant insistence on expressing his convictions". This is a subjective opinion, but not sourced. Any suggestions on improving this? Perhaps a secondary source that describes his work in these terms?

I think it would improve this article a lot if anyone could find discussions/reviews/critiques of the subject's writings in other media. This might shed more light on whether he is "shunned" by media/publishers/promoters etc., and for what reasons. (After all, there are plenty of essayists/controversialists who express their convictions forcefully, but who are not necessarily shunned by media or critics, so this cause-and-effect would need explaining.)

Thanks to anyone who can help illuminate the subject further! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josip888 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is NPOV issues with this article, but the one you mention is a minor one. E.g. "Conspiracy Theorist" isn't a profession and should not be even mentioned in the intro. What may be done is to mention that he has been called that or that theses promoted by Camus are considered "conspiracy theories" even if they obviously aren't. I don't see the identification as "White Nationalist" neither or can anybody prove programmatic support?! Saying someone is a White Nationalist, because he opposes replacement of his ethnicity is like saying someone is a Communist, because he opposes exploitation. 105.0.2.77 (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We just follow definitions: Camus is a White Nationalist because he endorses a racial conception of the nation (excluding citizenship based on ethnic origin). He is also a conspiracy theorist because he has been writing books that many academics describe as conspiracy theories (not the 'demographic replacement' part – which is at worst a wrong observation – but the alleged involvement of the 'replacist elites' – see Taguieff's quote in the first section of the article Great Replacement, which is also used as a source here). Azerty82 (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I write on behalf of Camus' American publisher and would like to make two points here. First, in defending your practice of referring to Camus as a "White Nationalist" and "conspiracy theorist", @Azerty82 states, "we just follow definitions". I would invite him and others to see my remarks regarding Camus' supposed "White Nationalism" below on this page: if you just follow definitions - as indeed you should! - then there is no sense in which Camus is a "White Nationalist", for he does not "endorse a racial conception of the nation". Much the same can be said of the "conspiracy theorist" charge. That "many academics" describe him as such does not make him so; many academics say many things, and many of those things are false or stupid. In the event, the most important source of all for this discussion - to wit, the primary sources to which it refers - do not support this charge. Here, too, see below for my discussion.
 * My second point concerns an entirely separate matter: the first sentence of the first paragraph of Camus' page states that he is "a French novelist, conspiracy theorist, and white nationalist writer." I discuss the second and third claims - both false and indeed, under the circumstances, quite possibly libelous - below. But the first claim also bears scrutiny: over the course of his long career, Camus has published over 150 books in various genres. Of these, only 9 have been novels. Surely to describe him as first and foremost a "novelist" is misleading and doesn't speak well of the editors' familiarity with his oeuvre. 24.177.76.98 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)--24.177.76.98 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not reply to a four-year old comment. If you have something to say about the current article, please create a new section (see WP:TP). Don't tell us who you represent. Just quote some text in the article and explain what you think should be changed and why. Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent IP edits
Pinging and : FYI, I've undone the IP edits a little further due to them breaking wikilinks. Further, per BRD it is now on the IP user who believes conspiracy should be put in quotation marks to argue their case.

Just done a bit of research and an anti-racist charity as well as a French newspaper with which I am unfamiliar appear to be reporting that Camus has been given a suspended sentence and ordered to pay 1,000 Euros. Because one of those sources appears to be one of the litigants, it would be difficult to use it for inline verification. The only English-language sources reporting on this are far from reliable, for example this. Unless reliable English sources report this, I'm not confident enough with my relatively basic understanding of French to use French-language sources to cite it. Perhaps a native speaker could provide input and maybe find the original court documents which would be considered reliable?

Many thanks,

 SITH   (talk)   13:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . That's weird because only French far-right websites are reporting recent Camus's conviction too. I hadn't heard of it until now. Il Giornale wrote an article about it and is the most reliable source I found. ps: La Dépêche is a reliable local newspaper but the article hasn't been updated since last November. Azerty82 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Citations on the term "white nationalist conspiracy theorist"
The lede describes Camus as a "white nationalist conspiracy theorist" which is very loaded terminology that doesn't appear to be supported by the inline citations. Specifically it doesn't appear to be said in the citations that he himself is a white nationalist and the term "conspiracy theorist" doesn't appear to be one widely applied to him. If nobody objects I'll be removing that descriptor from the lede due to the WP:BLP policy. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "White nationalist" may be too far, sure, but we are still plainly saying that he is the creator and propagator of a conspiracy theory – yet calling him a "conspiracy theorist" violates BLP? What kind of sense does that make? WP Ludicer (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling him a "conspiracy theorist" in the lede implies that's his primacy occupation in life. Additionally, the overall conspiracy theory of the Great Replacement isn't supported by Camus. While he did coin the term and write the first books on the subject (adequately covered in the lede), he's strongly disassociated himself from the Nazis who currently are the main face of the theory as well as the prevailing anti Semitic view that the Great Replacement is organized by Jews. He may be the creator of the theory but he's no longer the main propagator of it.
 * Many sources I were able to find on the subject describe Camus as the creator of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, but take care not to apply the label "conspiracy theorist" to him.  Maybe he is a conspiracy theorist and I'm sure a lot of people would agree that's something he's very well known for. But our personal views on the subject don't factor into play here and with contentious labels like "conspiracy theorist" we need to have reliable sources that actually apply that label to Camus instead of our own editorial judgement. Since it's not widely agreed upon that Camus is a conspiracy theorist I removed the label. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * But we're still calling the thing a "conspiracy theory" and attributing it to him. You don't see the disconnect? I'm not even disagreeing with the edit (I agree that the label is unnecessary in the lead), but with the rationale. His being a "conspiracy theorist" is still implied, and not even subtly, which would still be a BLP violation if it were actually unverifiable. This reasoning should logically lead to him being removed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theorists, which would be absurd. Unless we're going to stop calling the Great Replacement a conspiracy theory? WP Ludicer (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm following what the practice of reliable sources is. They're pretty consistent in not referring to Camus himself as a conspiracy theorist. What you're proposing is WP:SYNTHESIS and we really shouldn't do that in general much less with BLPs. And yes, you're right. Camus should be removed from that category considering the very loaded title of it. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 01:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As Camus' English-language publisher, I can assure you that Camus is not a "conspiracy theorist" and the "Great Replacement", as he has deployed the idea over the past 14 years, not a conspiracy theory. This can be verified by reading his political essays, now for the first time available in authorized English translation. See Enemy of the Disaster: Selected Political Writings of Renaud Camus, edited with an Introduction by Louis Betty, Vauban Books (2023) ISBN 979-8988739906, and The Deep Murmur: Preceded by Elegy for Enoch Powell, Vauban Books (2024) ISBN 979-8988739913. Any number of citations support my claims above. The most apropos, however, is perhaps to be found in the text of his 2010 speech, "The Great Replacement", which launched that expression and is included in our anthology. Writing of Algerian President Houari Boumediene's 1974 speech at the UN, wherein Boumediene promised that North Africa would conquer the Northern Hemisphere by immigration, Camus remarks: "It must be acknowledged that his remarks are a godsend for those who attribute the ongoing counter-colonization of France by Algeria and of Europe by Africa and its former colonies to a concerted plan. I do not take this path. I am not sure that, one fine day, some individual or assembly of strategists said: 'We’re going to conquer Europe.' I have no idea. [...] Little matter, then, whether what is occurring is the result of a duly deliberated plan or no. The important thing is to note that it is indeed occurring." This is the only occurrence in the text of any suggestion that what Camus calls the "Great Replacement" responds to a deliberate plan or conspiracy and it is only evoked to dismiss it; Camus does not endorse the notion that the Great Replacement is a conspiracy and regards the matter of no importance in any case. 24.177.76.98 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)--Vauban Books (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Camus is of course himself aware that he is commonly depicted as a "conspiracy theorist", what he sometimes refers to as the "conspiracy theory theory". He has addressed this claim in many places. Here is one such, from The Deep Murmur (pp. 43-44): To observe its reality and put a name on it is in no way a theory, and even less a conspiracy theory. It is to offer a chrononym, a name for an era, our own, on the basis of its most striking phenomenon: one says the Great Replacement like one said the Great Plague, the Great Schism, the Great Disturbance, the Great War, or the Great Depression. [...] But the fact that phenomena are not conspiracies does not mean they are not crimes, that is, that there is not a will at work behind the scenes, the will of men, of groups of men, of nations, of social and economic forces, of financial mechanisms, of machines, and of machination. The Great Replacement is not a conspiracy; it is a machination, in the most comprehensive sense of the term, the transformation of man into machine, at once producer, consumer, and product." Vauban Books (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, "white nationalist" is quite a bit too far! Camus is not an opponent of immigration nor does he offer a racialized theory of national belonging. Rather, he is an opponent of mass immigration, which he sees as threatening the cultural continuity of historically constituted peoples. In Enemy of the Disaster: Selected Political Writings of Renaud Camusedited with an Introduction by Louis Betty, Vauban Books (2023) ISBN 979-8988739906, he writes, "Individuals who so wish can always join a people out of love for its language, literature, its art de vivre or its landscapes. But peoples who remain peoples cannot join other peoples. They can only conquer them, submerge them, replace them" (p. 109). In The Deep Murmur, Vauban Books (2024) ISBN 979-8988739913, he writes, "France has always done a wonderful job integrating individuals from other civilizations, other peoples, and other races. She has given them much; they have given her much" (p. 49). The notion that any individual, of whatever race, can become French hardly seems the sentiment of a "white nationalist", at least if those two words, when conjoined, are to actually mean anything. 24.177.76.98 (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)--Vauban Books (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

May 2022
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting#Alleged_manifesto

This mentions him and the manifesto. I know it says it's alleged...so would we wait till more evidence/confirmation/sources to label anything about it, whether fact or fiction? Or put in a note about the ongoing investigation and a possible connection, if you know what I mean? 2603:6011:9600:52c0:c170:225c:a7b3:60c1 00:04, May 16, 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect we'll soon have enough RS to include it. BTW, I added your signature and timestamp. Please sign all comments with four tildes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

He did not "create" the replacement theory
He merely revived it.

According to the WSJ:

"Replacement theory can be traced to early 20th-century French nationalist writings, including those by Maurice Barrès, but it was revived in 2011 by French critic Renaud Camus, according to the Anti-Defamation League. He wrote an essay called “The Great Replacement” that has since been widely cited in white supremacist rhetoric. "

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-is-replacement-theory-what-we-know-about-the-conspiracy-theory-linked-to-the-buffalo-gunman-11652811621?page=1 Alcmaeonid (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed, he did not, not least because the "Great Replacement", as Camus formulates it, is not a theory at all; it is an observation. What we are dealing with here is a media echo chamber, in no small measure maintained by this grossly misleading Wikipedia page. What happens is that people who have never read Camus repeat what other people who have never read Camus say about him on the basis of what yet other people say (some of whom may indeed have at some point read him but are of unspeakably bad faith). Yes, Camus did write an essay called "The Great Replacement". Thanks to Vauban Books, which I represent, it is now for the first time available in authorized English translation. See "The Great Replacement," in Enemy of the Disaster: Selected Political Writings of Renaud Camus, edited with an introduction by Louis Betty, Vauban Books (2023), pp. 103-140 ISBN 979-8988739906. Not only is the "Great Replacement" not a "theory" but there is no evidence of any kind that Camus drew upon previous writers among French nationalists in formulating his observations regarding it. This sinister genealogy is purely and simply an invention of journalists. 24.177.76.98 (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)--Vauban Books (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove section 'Influence'?
Camus is not responsible for what others do with his theories, so section 'Influence' has no place in his biography. The problems are --Wickey (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Out of scope of the article, being a biography. This includes believe in the "Great Replacement" and its influence on other's (conspiracy) theories;
 * 2) Suggesting that Camus is responsible for others theories and even for mass shootings.


 * Strongly disagree. Beliefs and public statements, when well-sourced, are definitely in-scope. As for influence:
 * Many entries have a similar section, sometimes called "Legacy". See eg, Albert_Camus, Louis-Ferdinand_Céline.
 * Responsibility for others' actions have nothing to do with it. As long as reliable sources show others borrow from his ideas, eg by using the name he gave these ideas or his own name, the influence is there.
 * The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Poor arguments. A biography is supposed to be about a person's life. Not everything stated in reliable sources should be used in an article, especially when it has nothing to do with the subject. Wickey (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * TCWPWTS's arguments are excellent ones. Your personal opinion that a biography should exclude the subject's beliefs and influences has no basis in Wikipedia policy or practice. NightHeron (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wickey, your idea is totally against multiple PAG and long-standing practice here. When RS connect two subjects, we document the connection (in this case "influence") in both articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Quote from his book?
How does he himself define Replacism (and the capitalist elites who spearhead it)? I'm curious, and the current state of the article isn't enlightening at all, it's more like a journalist piece written in a rush citing other pieces but not the actual work in question itself. Serious lacking could be solved with quotes from Camus himself. 178.59.227.111 (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I represent Camus' American publisher, Vauban Books. We have recently brought out two collections of his essays. See Enemy of the Disaster: Selected Political Writings of Renaud Camus, edited with an introduction by Louis Betty, Vauban Books (2023) ISBN 979-8988739906 and The Deep Murmur: Preceded by Elegy for Enoch Powell, Vauban Books (2024) ISBN 979-8988739913. For a discussion of Camus theory of replacism, see Mary Harrington, "Nomos of the Airport: Global Replacism as Moral Framework", https://reactionaryfeminist.substack.com/p/camus-part-2-nomos-of-the-airport?utm_campaign=comment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=substack&utm_content=post. Here is a Camus quote regarding replacism, from his speech, "Appeal of Colombey", in Enemy of the Disaster (p. 201):
 * "A specter is haunting Europe and the world. It is replacism, the tendency to replace everything with its normalized, standardized, interchangeable double: the original by its copy, the authentic by its imitation, the true by the false, mothers by surrogate mothers, culture by leisure activities and entertainment, knowledge by diplomas, the countryside and city by the universal suburb, the native by the non-native, Europe by Africa, men by women, men and women by robots, peoples by other peoples, humanity by a savage, undifferentiated, standardized, infinitely interchangeable posthumanity." Vauban Books (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPN discussion
Greetings. I am following up on a lengthy WP:BLPN post from (according to the username) the subject's publisher,. I've invited that user to participate in discussions here as the best forum, and closed the BLPN discussion. Because this user only recently registered, I do not expect COI edit request notices to be used in discussions, if they happen, but now we are on notice. If the BLPN OP does post here, I look forward to discussions of content and policy that will bring us to a consensus. JFHJr (㊟) 00:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

PS. I also removed a nearly contemporaneous addition of two Vauban Books publications, done by an IP in the rather tight geographical vicinity of the publisher. The addition was not supported by anything reliable, and also looked like the publisher's self-promotion. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was responsible for that edit, having entered it before realizing that I should probably register an account before proceeding. And, yes, I've noticed that you've since deleted my entries. In supplying bibliographical information relating to our publications, my interest was not "promotional", much less financial, but, if you like, epistemological. Here we have an entire paging devoted to a man and his (French language) writings, much of it extremely tendentious and ill-sourced. How could pointing readers in the direction of the most relevant English-language primary sources on the subject, which have only lately become available, possibly be contrary to the rules or spirit of Wikipedia? Vauban Books (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I also noticed the WP:BLPN report. Please be patient and slowly explain any problems, one small step at a time. Start with anything that you think is incorrect in the article. After dealing with that, is anything misleading? After that, is anything WP:UNDUE? Then, what should be rearranged or added or whatever. Be precise: what wording is tendentious? What would be better? Why? Please stick to one or two small points at a time. If too much is tackled at once, nothing might happen. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Renaud Camus, "French novelist"
I have several edits to propose. This one should be the least controversial. The page's very first sentence states that Renaud Camus is a "French novelist, conspiracy theorist, and white nationalist writer." Bracketing the last two assertions, one might wonder if "novelist" is the most operative term here. Yes, Camus is a novelist: of the over 150 books in various genres that he has published over his long career, 7 have been novels. But it's a bit like describing Hemmingway as primarily a journalist or Strindberg primarily a painter on the grounds that, yes, one also wrote journalism while the other made some paintings. Better, in my view, to simply describe him as a "writer", for that is what he is. The edit I am proposing, in other words, is to delete "novelist" and replace it with "writer". Easy enough to do, even if it means depriving "white nationalist" of that particular modifier (but then so what, since that part of the description should also be jettisoned - Camus himself would certainly deny that he is a "white nationalist"!). Vauban Books (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Between 1978 and the mid-1990s, it appears this subject was best known as a novelist. 15+ years is a biographically significant chunk of career time. In 2019, the subject's most-translated work was a novel. He would probably be separately and independently notable just for novel writing if he had done nothing else. The present text shows no apparent WP:UNDUE weight. It appears first in the lede because of its chronology. Please go ahead with your other concerns, other than what the subject would consider himself, because we rely on secondary sources for that kind of characterization. JFHJr (㊟) 03:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is untrue. If one must identify the subject with one genre above all (rather than simply describe him as a "writer", as I say one should) then, in the period you specify (1978-mid-1990s), that would probably be "experimental writer" and/or "memoirist", at least in France. The strongest case is for the latter, since his work was first brought to the attention of the French general public by the Camus Affair of 2000, which focused on remarks recorded in his (published) journal for 1994, La Campagne de France. The same holds for his reputation in the English-speaking world: Camus' most translated work - indeed, his only work to have appeared in authorized English translation until last year - was Tricks, which is not a novel at all, but rather an experimental memoir of the author's homosexual encounters. To date, not a single work of fiction by the author has been translated into English. If Camus had done nothing else but write novels, in other words, he never would have been known in the English-speaking world at all. On these questions, Camus' French-language Wikipedia page is much more balanced and accurate. The first sentence of that page reads: "Renaud Camus, né le 10 août 1946 à Chamalières (Puy-de-Dôme), est un écrivain et militant politique français d'extrême droite" (trans.: "Renaud Camus, born August 10th, 1946, in Chamalières (Puy-de-Dôme), is a French writer and far right political activist"). Cf. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaud_Camus 24.177.76.98 (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)--Vauban Books (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the French wikipedia entry for Renaud Camus (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaud_Camus) characterizes Tricks as a "chronique" - that is, as a "chronicle". His "novels", the last of which was published in 2009, are listed under a separate heading ("romans"). Vauban Books (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Renaud Camus, "White Nationalist"
According to the first sentence of this page, Renaud Camus is "a French novelist, conspiracy theorist, and white nationalist writer". It is the third of these claims that I wish to address here. Unlike the (also false but widely reported) claim that Camus is a "conspiracy theorist", the claim that he is a "white nationalist" is presented without attribution or support in the secondary literature, nor is there any support for it in Camus' published writing. In defense of it, @azerty82 asserts above, on no authority but his own, that "Camus is a White Nationalist because he endorses a racial conception of the nation (excluding citizenship based on ethnic origin)." This is patently false. Camus' conception of national belonging is cultural in nature and, on multiple occasions, he explicitly denies that citizenship should be predicated on racial or ethnic origin. I've quoted some of these passages above. I will do so again: "Individuals who so wish can always join a people out of love for its language, literature, its art de vivre or its landscapes" (Enemy of the Disaster: Selected Political Writings of Renaud Camus, p. 109). "France has always done a wonderful job integrating individuals from other civilizations, other peoples, and other races. She has given them much; they have given her much" (The Deep Murmur, p. 49). "For the French, one of the advantages of their race is that it has very few ethnic characteristics. This is why individuals and lineages that are foreign to it have always been able to harmoniously join and merge with it over the course of history" (The Deep Murmur, p. 14). One could continue, but that should be enough to demonstrate that characterizing Camus as a "white nationalist" is in clear violation of WP:BLPN. As before, my suggestion is that the editors suppress this first sentence and replace it with the far less scurrilous introductory sentence from this page's French counterpart, which, translated, reads: "Renaud Camus is a writer and French far right political activist." Vauban Books (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Renaud Camus, "Conspiracy Theorist"
Still on the very problematic, to not say objectionable, first paragraph. As I note above, "Camus is of course himself aware that he is commonly depicted as a 'conspiracy theorist', what he sometimes refers to as the 'conspiracy theory theory'. He has addressed this claim in many places." You can see my quotes above for more. Here, I would merely like to draw attention to the meagerness of your sources for this claim, particularly in light of its gravity, and ask that at the very least you add some nuance to your presentation by referencing other sources that contradict it. In support of the claim that Camus is a "conspiracy theorist", you cite two authorities: Pierre-Andre Taguieff's 2015 book on nationalism and a passing reference to a 2019 book by Korte, Wendt, and Falkenhayner, the language of which bears a striking resemblance to this wikipedia entry. It is to be noted that the first of these two sources merely refers to a poorly translated passage that appears to be distinguishing between the Great Replacement, as Camus presents it in the text of the same name, and his subsequent "theory of global replacism" (which as its name suggests is indeed a "theory", if still not a "conspiracy theory"). At most, then, it can be taken as supporting the claim that, while the Great Replacement may merely be an observation, that observation fits into a larger conspiratorial-theoretical framework. Taguieff is wrong here, as it happens, but this should on its own be enough to call into question the characterization of the Great Replacement as a "far-right conspiracy theory". If there is a far-right conspiracy theory to be found in Camus' work, it is not in "The Great Replacement" that you will find it. Thanks to our anthology, Enemy of the Disaster, which includes the original text of "The Great Replacement", others have now been able to verify this for themselves. As David Sexton writes in The Spectator, "The Great Replacement is simply an observation, offensively named" https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/enemy-of-the-disaster-selected-political-writings-of-renaud-camus-reviewed/ On her Substack, Unherd staff writer Mary Harrington makes a similar point: "Camus sees this 'Replacement' as both real, and emphatically not a sinister conspiracy or form of covert racialised animus. In his view, it’s an emergent phenomenon, driven by 'driven by obscure movements in the depths of the species, subject to the very laws of tragedy, starting with the first of them, which has it that the wishes of men and of civilizations whose disappearance is foreordained shall be granted'" https://reactionaryfeminist.substack.com/p/are-we-replaceable-part-one. A responsible edit would thus eliminate the assertion that Camus is a "conspiracy theorist" from the first paragraph and, in a section specifically dedicated to his theory of replacism, distinguish between the "Great Replacement" and the theoretical framework that Camus subsequently developed to account for it (global replacism). At the very least, that such a distinction exists should be noted, as should the fact that at least two prominent journalists are now on record disputing the claim that Renaud Camus is a "conspiracy theorist" or the Great Replacement a "conspiracy", all the more so as they may be the only English-language journalists who have commented on the matter to have actually read the relevant primary source material. Vauban Books (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Renaud Camus in (English) translation
I speak for Vauban Books, Renaud Camus' English-language publisher. I am thus obviously an interested party. However, if one is to assume that Wikipedia is a good faith operation (still an open question: see my several unanswered topics above) and its editors primarily motivated by a desire to produce accurate and truthful entries, then the present page should clearly be amended to acknowledge that two books by Renaud Camus now exist in authorized, English-language translation: Enemy of the Disaster: Selected Political Writings of Renaud Camus, edited with an Introduction by Louis Betty (2023), and The Deep Murmur: Preceded by Elegy for Enoch Powell (2024). Both books are widely available for sale and the first has received multiple reviews, including some by prominent journalists. These are real books, published by a real publisher. They have ISBN numbers. They may be found in the holdings of the Library of Congress as well as in those of numerous public and university libraries. But you wouldn't know any of this by reading Camus' Wikipedia page as it stands. Instead, one is given the impression that, with the exception of Tricks, his memoir of homosexual life, first published in English 43 years ago, the only thing by him to have been translated is his "Great Replacement Theory" [sic], which apparently exists in samizdat form on "far-right websites" (a claim that goes undocumented here, by the way). It is in this connection significant that my first encounter with the editors of this page followed my effort to add a reference to our books, under the heading "political writings", to its list of selected works. My edits were immediately suppressed and I was banned from making further changes to the page. So be it. And yet what does it say about Wikipedia and about you, its editors, when you can't even bring yourselves to acknowledge that your subject's most controversial writings, commentary on which supplies the better part of his entry, now exist in authorized English translation? To do so would seem the lowest minimal threshold of intellectual honesty. Not only have you have travestied your subject's views, but you refuse to acknowledge that the relevant primary sources may now be consulted in translation, presumably for fear that your readers might then judge for themselves and see this page for what it is. Failure to address these points will be just further confirmation that this is indeed the case. Vauban Books (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't necessarily object to those additional translations being mentioned. However, you must understand that what we are is an encyclopedia.  We are not an advertisement or promotion for authors and their works.  Just because something exists does not mean it is worthy of inclusion (Note that I'm not saying these are not worthy of inclusion, but that in general, we don't include everything).  The nature of an encyclopedia is to summarize the topic, not present minutia.  Since the section of his works is a "selected writings" section, that would tend to indicate that it is not all-inclusive.  On what basis are these two translations of existing work notable for inclusion?  You've given no answer to that question other than "they exist, therefore they are worthy of inclusion" which is not a supportable position.   Butler Blog   (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Side note: you'd be better served to focus more tightly on the topic at hand, without the drift into unfounded accusations of the motivations of various editors involved. We're all volunteers and doing the best we can with what is available.  You could have cut this down by more than half if you leave out the unnecessary soapboxing.   Butler Blog   (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine, noted. I would not be "soapboxing" at all had there been any response to my previous posts - first and foremost the one in which I show that the justification for primarily characterizing Camus as a "novelist" fails on its own terms (no fictional work by Camus has ever been translated into English). Vauban Books (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course. So allow me to answer your question. What justifies mention of our books? Principally, that much of the page has to do with Camus' text, "The Great Replacement", and its ancillary developments, together with the controversies they have inspired. Well, until now, you couldn't read "The Great Replacement" in English. Thanks to our anthology of Camus' political writings, Enemy of the Disaster, now you can. It is also worth mentioning due to the useful Introduction by Professor Louis Betty of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, which surveys as no other English secondary source has done Camus' career and the reception of his writing in France and beyond. The Deep Murmur, I grant you, is less important from this point of view, but certainly no less important than the awkwardly composed "You Will Not Replace Us!, which you do mention in the bibliography. Vauban Books (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)