Talk:The Camp of the Saints

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

SPLC declares themselves to be protectors of immigrant rights
Thus we must conclude they are pro-immigrant. That they are left-wing may be more debatable, but considering there positions are adopted by the left-leaning parties and politicians in the United States, a very good logical case can be made. 208.102.198.209 (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's original research and not allowed, however logical it may be, nor is the use of a source to describe the SPLC that doesn't even mention the SPLC. Doug Weller (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Camp of the Saints. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913401,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Restored material which had been vandalized
I restored the following section, which had been vandalized on 09:08, 12 August 2017‎: «William F. Buckley, Jr. praised the book in 2004 as "a great novel" that raised questions on how to respond to massive illegal immigration.[14] In 2005 the conservative Chilton Williamson praised the book as "one of the most uncompromising works of literary reaction in the 20th century."[15] ». In case anyone feels this well-sourced material does not belong in the article, please reach consensus before deleting again. XavierItzm (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * First, don't call other people's edits vandalism unless they really are vandalism. That's a personal attack.
 * Second, it was removed because Buckley makes this comment in passing and given the context it's not even clear if he's not being his usual sarcastic-Buckley self.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It is highly subjective and improper to remove material on the basis of your personal interpretation of the writings of a major author. Completely unjustified.  Material restored. I ask you again to reach consensus prior to deleting again.  XavierItzm (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's a side comment is not disputable - not a subjective opinion. Whether he was being sarcastic or not is hard to tell, but since we don't know we should't include it. And it's actually up to you to get consensus for inclusion, or else, find further sources to back up your claim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is also a WP:PRIMARY source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the text was there for 9 years and user Volunteer Marek arbitrarily deleted it. It is up to user Volunteer Marek to seek consensus for deletion.  The text is not primary as it is the reaction of a noted public figure.  And by the way, I have added a second source that demolishes Volunteer Marek's personal speculation that Buckley was being anything other than straightforward.  XavierItzm (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no status quo bias on Wikipedia so it doesn't matter how long it's been there. And it is primary source for Buckley's statement. The second source also only mentions Buckley in passing. And it's also from National Review.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. You asked for a second source, the second source is a well-known author who has his own wikipedia page.  You got what you wanted, which is a WP:RS proving that Buckley was being straightforward.  XavierItzm (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a non-National Review source which confirms it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you have Buckley himself praising, and a notable second author, a decade later, noting that Buckley praised, and you still think your personal speculation that Buckley could have been jesting should prevail? NR is a magazine.  By definition, articles from different authors spaced a decade in between constitute separate WP:RS.  XavierItzm (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still pretty weak sourcing - since both comments are made in passing - but for now I'll let it go. It would be helpful if you found an independent source though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Revered by white supremacists"
Cited source for this (SPLC article) isn't a study confirming this. It's an unbased opinion mentioned in one half-sentence of the so-called source. Unbased claim like that has no place in leader paragraph. Kekmon (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * SPLC is a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * SPCL source doesn't describe methodology acquired to reach that conclusion. It is completely unbased claim, and should in fact be removed entirely from the wikiarticle as untrustworthy. Kekmon (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Just look at the "source" you are pushing as "reliable": https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2001/racist-book-camp-saints-gains-popularity. There is no methodology whatsoever presented behind statement "Today, The Camp of the Saints is widely revered by American white supremacists" in it yet. Explain your reasoning why it should be in leader. Kekmon (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Kekmon, do you know how many times I have tried arguing your exact point on a variety of topics across Wikipedia? When it comes to political correctness, Wikipedia chooses to ignore the neutrality, see WP:NAZI. I admire your dedication though 75.130.248.250 (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

conspiracy theory?
the splc doesn't say "conspiracy theory" & it misleads the reader. the turner diaries sounds like a conspiracy theory novel - the federal government is secretly controlled by a vast jewish conspiracy. but judging but the plot summary, there's no conspiracy in Camp - there's just an invasion, which is the opposite. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The source says "The premise of Camp of the Saints plays directly into that idea of white genocide". And yeah, that's a conspiracy theory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * googling "camp of the saints" "conspiracy theory" just brings up this article. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The book itself, by the way, does posit a conspiracy, by various "globalists" who facilitate the "invasion".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * source please? and why does the praise in the article body get no weight in the lead? NPalgan2 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

in the article (in addition to the criticism) there're 10 people with wiki bios praising it as a novel + shriver praising it as a novel but saying it's racist. lead should summarise article. can't see why kirkus reviews comparing it to mein kampf + splc comparing it to turner diaries is more notable than the other sources. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that section accurately sums up the general opinion of this novel. It's a grab-bag of random commentators weighted in favor of the novel.  You could find 20 people with wiki bios and quote them saying "yeah, it's racist".  Professional sources like Kirkus and Time and the SPLC should be weighted more than the opinions of randos.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Randos"? Anouilh was one of the most famous French writers of the 20th century. But a Kirkus Reviews freelancer and an SPLC intern deserve more weight? NPalgan2 (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead
Dispute between me and. On its publication, The Camp of the Saints was praised by prominent French literary figures - the dramatist Jean Anouilh, members of the Académie française, et al. This is noted by several RSs:


 * Sociologist Jean-Marc Moura "has experienced many translations and, in France, a favorable critical reception" ... "distinguishes itself from this "stomach" paraliterature by the reception it has received from the ensemble of literary critics".
 * Historian Yvan Gastaut "received a favourable welcome from literary critics."
 * Jeffrey Hart of Dartmouth College writing in National Review: "Respectable, comfortable reviewers in the Times Literary Supplement, the New York Times and elsewhere have been reduced to sputtering, even as their predecessors were by Ulysses and Tropic of Cancer. In freer and more intelligent circles in Europe, however, the book is a sensation and Raspail is a prize winner." Hart says that the two English-language outlets have condemned Raspail the way that the English-language books Ulysses and Tropic of Cancer were condemned in the past, contrasting the positive reception which the Camp of the Saints has received "in Europe" (note that this agrees with Moura's "in France" language).
 * A Time magazine review makes it clear that the reviewer would prefer to ignore the book, but thinks that it has to be responded to due to the plaudits it has received: "This bilious tirade would not be worth a moment's thought if it had come off a mimeograph machine in some dank cellar. Instead, The Camp of the Saints arrives trailing clouds of praise from French savants [note plural], including Dramatist Jean Anouilh" (Gamaliel has described Anouilh as a "rando"; he was one of the most famous French writers of the 20th century.)
 * Le Spectacle du Monde, French literary and culture magazine: "The Camp of the Saints finally obtained an impressive reception, not so much by the number (which was nothing compared to any showbiz memoir) as by the quality of those who praised it. They are called Anouilh, Bazin, Cau, Clavel, Deon, Dutourd, Fourastie, Maulnier, Pauwels ..."

In summary, Camp of the Saints received a positive reception from French literary figures; this was an important aspect of the book's reception as it lead to the book being picked up by a major English language publisher and is stated as a fact by observers like Moura, Gastaut and Time who clearly disapprove of the book; language noting this should be in the lead. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey there . It looks like this is the first attempt at talk page discussion about the dispute. I am removing the 3PO request until this discussion has had a chance to resolve the issues over the page. If after some reasonable attempt at discussion here you or Gamaliel feel that a 3PO would be useful it can certainly be relisted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hart and Moura do not discuss widespread acclaim by literary figures. Moura quotes some pull quotes from the book jacket.  Yvan Gastaut just cites Moura in passing.  Hart makes exactly the opposite point, that it was rejected by mainstream figures. You know very well I did not call Jean Anouilh a "rando"; this is part of a disturbing trend on your part of you reading quotes as what you want them to say and not what they actually say.  NPOV means we must be neutral, but it doesn't mean some kind of false balance where we present two arbitrary sides with equal weight.  Sure, a couple people, randos or not, praised the book, but you're taking a handful of passing references to that and are attempting to spin that into a narrative of imaginary widespread critical acclaim in order to create this "balance".   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Moura quotes some pull quotes from the book jacket." No, Moura makes the SYNTH judgement that the novel received "a favorable critical reception" and then Gastaut repeats his language. "Professional sources like Kirkus and Time and the SPLC should be weighted more than the opinions of randos." NPalgan2 (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note the lack of the words "Jean Anouilh" in that sentence. Please also note the difference between "a favorable critical reception" and "praise from prominent French literary figures".  The former includes randos while the latter does not.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Please check a little bit your revert the ended up in a result with an improper grammar. On the other hand, see the discussions in the talk, is there a consensus for the book to be described unanimously as racist (or just that, since it is more complex to summarize it on one denominator)? I'v re read the sources, they make apellation that the work received such critics or has been described like so, while as well other opinions emerged as the lead further properly summarizes this. So, until this is discussed we should stick to a more neutral descriptor, or just ignore labeling, as the critics are already present.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC))


 * I have fixed the typo. As for the book's status, I do not think it is appropriate or neutral to merely describe this book as "controversial". This is too simplistic to be meaningful. It is not "controversial" in the same way that Harry Potter was controversial, or The Celestine Prophecy was controversial, it is controversial because of it's aggressive fear-mongering and dehumanizing contempt for non-white people based on their ethnicity. In other words, it is "controversial" because it is racist. If you want to discuss how to properly explain this in the lead, go ahead, but WP:EUPHEMISMs are not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Grayfell. I am the author of the second paragraph that I wrote back in December. After looking at various other Wikipedia articles(some of which are more developed), I believe that rather than place an adjective such as "racist" or "controversial" that no adjective of this nature should be placed at all in the lead sentence. Pieces of literature that are seen as racist or controversial are typically not explicitly stated in the lead sentence of each respective Wikipedia page. For instance, the Turner Diaries wiki page(a book that is certainly racist with a capital R) lead sentence simply describes it as a novel from the year 1978 by the author William Luther Pierce. Similarly, in the two examples you give as controversial("Harry Potter" and "The Celestine Prophecy"), are not labeled as controversial in their lead sentences for their wiki pages. When I was researching articles on this book, I took the time to read and add each one for support as part of an elaboration that is currently the second paragraph of this wiki page and the general consensus that the sources come to. I believe that we should avoid redundancy as it would be described as racist twice within the introduction. To understand my intent in regard to formatting and syntax, I would suggest looking at the introduction paragraphs for the The Birth of a Nation wiki page and the syntax that is used in this "good" rated page. I can see that both of our edits have been put libel to vandalism edits, and that there are some that despicably wish to hide this book's nature. I want to ensure you that my proposed edit is not of a place of malice or want of concealing the unpleasantness of this book but that of ensuring the syntax is of the highest quality. AdvancedScholar (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced claims and weasel words in the introduction
The introduction makes vague, unsupported statements claiming that it has been "widely dismissed." What sources supports this assertion? If anything, the sources currently included on this article (and the article itself) state that it has received both praise and criticism from multiple public figures and that it is regarded as a politically significant book. See the dictionary definition of "dismissed" in this context (OED: "treat as unworthy of serious consideration"). These statements either need to be sourced or removed. Dionysus1886 (talk) October 26 2018


 * I dont see the justification for the inclusion of the word "racist" to describe this book in the sources provided. None of the 3 sources used to justify this description provide much except for moralistic subjective bleating from people who dont have the final say over whether anything is or is not "racist". Its clearly just being included in the description for political and biased purposes, and is against the neutral spirit of this website. Please can Grayfell provide solid, *unbiased* reasoning for continuing to edit it in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.83.28 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Edit: by all means, keep in the description that it has been denounced as such, but dont include the description as indisputable fact. It is still, in essence, unsourced claim when presented as such — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.83.28 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should the lead sentence state that the book is "a racist 1973 French dystopian fiction novel"?

There has been slow edit-warring over this since atleast November 2019 and discussion on a talk page thread. --Pudeo (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No, but cover controversial status in the lead. I think that WP:LABEL is clear with this. Value-laden labels, such as racist, are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The New York Times article is an authoritative source, but even that should be attributed. The lead sentence is in wiki-voice and thus it can't be attributed in-text. Furthermore, it sounds awfully unencyclopedic and simplistic. Can you imagine opening a general knowledge encyclopedia and reading that something is a "racist novel"? Racism and white nationalist following should be covered in the lead regardless. However, a 2011 article in L'Express, while concluding that the book is a "work of the far-right", noted that it had been read and commented by former French presidents Francois Mitterand, Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy, and not least by US president Ronald Reagan while in office. Samuel P. Huntington also met with the author in 2004. So there should not be undue emphasis only on the white nationalist following in the lead, because the influence was wider than that.--Pudeo (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - It's not just the NYT though. There are dozens of other sources like the NYT. Should we provide attribution to all of them? That would be a little silly, no? NickCT (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Atleast the 1994 The Atlantic review does not take racism for granted but instead attributes it to critics: Is this simply a work of imagination or, as Raspail's critics charge, a racist tract dressed up as fiction?, though it covers racist motifs later in the review as well. --Pudeo (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - Ok. So listen, how many sources that use the word in an unattributed way do you think you'd need before saying that we'd hit the "widely used by reliable sources" standard? 10? 20? 100? Where's your bar? Or is there no bar and you just don't like the word? NickCT (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:LABEL specifically addresses the situation in which the contentious label is "widely used by reliable sources", and says that even then it should be attributed because it is a contentious label. I feel like we are going in circles here. --Pudeo (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - So who do you propose we attribute? Do we say something like "According to a wide number of reliable sources...."? NickCT (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, per my earlier comments in the lead section and per nominator.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC))
 * No, I would like to thank Puedo for making this vote so we can end the protracted edit-warring and come to a consensus. The explanation for my decision can be found in earlier conversations on the talk page.--AdvancedScholar (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because it uses Wikipedia's voice for the epithet, even if it brings several citations for it. These epithets, which may or may not have validity, ought to be attributed to those who made them.  On the point of Mitterand (Vichy regime + Socialist Party Leader and President), Chirac (UMP), and Sarkozy (UMP), it goes to show that educated mainstream politicians of all stripes read the book. XavierItzm (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't take your point about "mainstream politicians". I'm educated and mainstream. I've read parts of the book. It's still racist. Educated, mainstream people can read racist literature. In fact, we can read anything that is written in a language we understand. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest - Per sources, the book intentionally dehumanizes non-white people as savages, invaders, and literal shit-eaters. There is nothing particularly controversial about summarizing this book as racist. How widely-read the book is has nothing to do with whether or not it's racist, and introducing its popularity as some sort of defense is absurd. Why on earth would having been read by famous people make any difference here? How is this anything other than a tissue-thin deflection? Good lord. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but cover controversial status negative reputation clearly in the lead per Pudeo. Having never heard of this book until a few weeks ago, I am nonetheless in little doubt that - were I to read it - I would find it repellently racist, whatever its literary merits might be. However, I abhor the WP tendency to want to "stick the knife in" in the opening phrase, I find it both counter-productive and insulting to the reader and believe my position is supported by WP:LABEL, as made clear above. "Racist" is always to some extent a value judgement, partly because it describes intent. Making clear that this term has been a very widespread reaction to the book, is fundamentally different from  saying "is" in WPVOICE in the opening sentence. What seems more weasel-ly to me is "has been described as being popular within far-right white nationalist circles". Surely a clearer formulation for the claim, which appears to be that this book has enjoyed a revival - largely among the Fr & US far right seemingly - could be found. Pincrete (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC) … … … ps I'm  amending wording slightly, because this is not 'conroversial' in the sense of their being 'two camps' who defend/condemn it. Critical reaction is almost wholly negative regarding its values, even if there may be some defence of its literary merit. That is what should be covered fully and clearly in the lead, in preference to a vague, single word 'label' (ie 'racist') in the opening phrase. Pincrete (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - I sorta take the point about the "opening phrase". Counter point though is that, the thing that a subject is primarily notable for should be included in the opening phrase/sentence. If this book wasn't racist, it would probably be a great deal less notable. Possibly so much so that it wouldn't meet notability guidelines. I think you could contend that the book's racist content is what it's primarily notable for, and hence, that ought to be mentioned in the lede. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" clearly applies here. Fact is that we could find dozens of main stream sources that have used the term in an unattributed way. If a dozen isn't enough, how many do we need? NickCT (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That sentence is followed with "in which case use in-text attribution". And you really can't attribute it in the first sentence, which brings us to the main point that stuffing WP:LABELs in the opening sentence is a bad idea in terms of the manual of style. --Pudeo (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - Look, I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but the fact is, some subjects are primarily notable because of a contentious label. If your rule is "we can never put contentious labels in the first sentence", then you're basically arguing that we must bury the lede for subjects that are notable for contentious reasons. That's simply a bad rule.... NickCT (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - The work is famous because of its racism. If it wasn't for racism, the book would have been forgotten about.  The sources either point out its racism or look the other way -- none can argue with a straight face that it's not racist.  The fact that its received praise from certain individuals (not naming names) in what were/are somehow maisntream circles does not mean we should pretend it's not racist.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Who is suggesting we "pretend it's not racist"? Which is more informative, sticking this label (in pole position?), or articulating WHY the book offends so many - which I presume is because of its crude, relentlessly negative representation of all non-Europeans, though the lead doesn't make that particularly clear at present. The choice is not a binary one between label and ignore.Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course we should articulate WHY the book is seen as racist in the body. Then we summarize that in the lead..... NickCT (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We summarise WHY it's seen as racist by saying "it's racist"! ???? Pincrete (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. If the body of the article lists a dozens of sources that discuss why the book is racist and there are no contrary viewpoints, it seems due to simply say "it's racist". I mean, why not? If everyone calls it "racist", and no one is arguing it's not, why not simply say that? Look, I really don't mind if you want to change the language to something like "widely criticized as racist" or "widely cited as racist" or something like that. My only position here is that we don't bury the lead by moving the book's most notable feature out of the lede sentence. NickCT (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What it says at present, in the 2nd of two short paragraphs, after saying dystopian novel, author, date and other basic info is:The novel has been widely denounced for its xenophobic, nativist, nationalist, monoculturalist, and anti-immigrant themes as well as its racist tone". I don't think the proposer, and certainly not I, would want to remove a word of that. My objection is putting this in WP:VOICE in the opening phrase. Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. So maybe we're not too far from consensus. Can you propose wording for how we might include the "racist" descriptor in the lede sentence in not WP:WIKIVOICE? NickCT (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the current wording and position? Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Buries the lead. Doesn't give wp:due weight to what the book is most notable for. Imagine if we took someone like William Luther Pierce and moved descriptors like "white nationalist" and "anti-semetic" into later paragraphs. Would that be OK? Those are definitely WP:LABELs. NickCT (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm UK and had actually never heard of Pierce before today, though I'd vaguely heard about the diaries, so forgive me if I only answer in general terms. Firstly, 'white nationalist' is a great deal more precise than 'anti-semitic', which in turn is a great deal more precise than 'racist'. White Nationalist is a - fairly definable - belief, the latter two relate to the speakers intent or my reaction and suffer from being much more loosely thrown around and vague even when appropriately used. That isn't however my main objection, but is worth pointing out.
 * We only seem to have this problem on WP with certain negative 'labels' including 'racist' and 'antisemetic', but also at the opposite pole on the right-left spectrum with terms like 'Muslim extremist', which I usually find equally uninformative. No one would even think of saying what a heroic/inspirational figure Mandela/Gandhi/King was in the opening phrase, or how beautiful woman X or painting Y was, nor how great a footballer/boxer Pele or Ali were ... even if all sources were wholly, totally agreed of these people's iconic status. We would not even consider starting off an article in that way. King Lear is not a brilliant play, it's just a play and if you wan't to read about its reputation, you'll have to read a sentence or more into the article. For some reason, certain negative labels can never wait a sentence or two till the purely neutral, factual info is imparted. That is what we actually start most articles with, especially ones about books, films etc, basic factual info … name, original name if foreign, genre or subject matter if factual, year and country first published, author or director/stars if a film. Most of these are simply 'pub quiz' questions and not necessarily anything to do with why the book/film is remembered.
 * Having covered these basic factual matters, we may cover next all sorts of areas, dependent on the individual book. Awards, sales, reputation, themes etc, but again with certain negative labels, it's assumed that the reader may not notice if they have to read into sentence 2,3 or even 4 that almost the whole world finds this particular book/film repellent - even if sentence 2 or 3 articulates more precisely what about the book is deemed so awful.
 * In the last resort, this is as much a style matter as a policy matter IMO. Is it more informative to insert contentious labels before the basic factual info - or is it counter-productive and borderline PoV? Which I think will probably be obvious by now.Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - Ok. So to paraphrase what you just said; "racist" is not specific enough. Is that right? If that is what you're trying to say, then please propose an alternative wording that you think is specific enough.
 * I might agree w/ what you're saying, but it sounds like you're calling for alternative wording, without providing an alternative, which isn't super helpful. NickCT (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've twice said that I cannot see what is wrong with the present text - putting the reactions in greater detail AFTER the opening, neutral, basic factual info of the first sentence or two. Which is what happens with nearly all book, film etc articles. We do not start an article with evaluative labels whether they are ++, --, or otherwise. Why are some labels deemed to be so essential that they must be stated crudely in WPVOICE in pole position, even if they aren't very informative? 'Racist' IMO covers a multitude of 'sins' and degrees of sin. Even Mein Kampf has a neutral, factual intro - are we so afraid that the reader might not read to the end of the second or third sentence and therefore might miss this vital info? If so, we are all wasting our time here IMO. Pincrete (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No - but summarize the controversy in the introduction, as per WP:WIKIVOICE. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a controversy in the sense that there's two parties arguing that it's racist or not racist. There's those who say it's racist and those who avoid discussing it.  None denying that it's racist. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No, because "racist" does evidently not have any encyclopedic meaning here, but is only a politically charged, intellectually helpless label that is thrown at things WP:IDONTLIKE. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, unless one adds academic, peer-reviewed papers written by specialists that clearly state "Camp of the Saints belongs to racist literature". Azerty82 (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No The lead should be more neutrally worded.  Ditch &#8733;  00:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It isn't worth reopening this, but just to make clear, my own objection -and I think some others- is not to the use of 'racist' in absolute terms, it is to the use in WP:VOICE in the opening sentence - as though a racist novel were a genre. The novel is widely criticised as racist and that reaction should be prominent in the lead, with the same degree of prominence that any other widespread reaction would receive.Pincrete (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it didn't just get "some support", but the support of most if not everyone. It should be covered in the lead, just not as a wikivoice label in the first sentence. Though that seems to pretty much be the case right now. Except the other NYT article is not used a citation like previously. --Pudeo (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but that wasn't the question proposed by the RfC, which was whether or not the word "racist" should be included in the lead sentence. The fact that you may or may not like the consensus doesn't change it.   Mgasparin (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Several prominent French politicians … . and Huntington?
Re this text in the 'Reception' section: "Several prominent French politicians, such as François Mitterrand, Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy, François Fillon, Robert Badinter and André Malraux have also read and commented on the book. Samuel P. Huntington, the author of Clash of Civilizations, has referenced The Camp of the Saints and met Raspail in Paris in 2004."

Firstly, what is the point of saying that Huntington 'references' the book if we aren't informed about how/what he says, the Express does not appear to say (though my French is terrible).

Secondly, what the source says about Chirac, Sarkozy etc is a quote from the author himself: "'If I am attacked, I have already prepared my parachute,' smiles the octogenarian, pointing to a big black filing cabinet that never leaves his desk. Inside, all the letters from politicians received since leaving the Camp des Saints in 1973. From Malraux to Sarkozy. Nobody knows what they contain … … If some are only polite acknowledgments of receipt - Sarkozy, Chirac, Fillon ... -, others would testify to an attentive reading (not excluding criticism however). And to quote François Mitterrand, Robert Badinter or Jean-Pierre Chevènement, The book can shock, indeed.'"

So we actually only have the author's word that he has received letters from these illustrious figures, and we have no idea what the letters contain and whether they are anything more than "polite acknowledgments of receipt" of the book. "Read" the book isn't even claimed by the source and "commented on" may amount to nothing more than "thanks for sending ..." - if the author does of course have the letters he speaks of.

I would prefer somone with better Fr than mine to confirm my reading. Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be right. Well, the L'Express piece did consider this worthwhile to mention, probably just to illustrate that the book was well-known among French politicians - whether they disliked or liked it. Perhaps this is in the French tradition when it comes to provocations: according to the article Submission (novel), the novel was read by Francois Hollande because "it's sparking debate". But yes, this is name-dropping without substance. It could be better to just acknowledge it's influence in France more broadly. --Pudeo (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Use of 'racist' not supported by peer-reviewed articles in the lead
Disclaimer: I personally think that The Camp of the Saints is a racist novel, but I have raised concern regarding the use of non-specialized references in the article's lede. Academic papers should be preferred to journalists when it comes to analysis and opinions for a wide variety of reasons (journalists' salary depends on how many copies they sold, they don't have a PhD, and their articles are not peer-reviewed by specialists"). As per WP:NEWSORG, "[e]ditorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" and "[s]cholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics." We need to be especially prudent when using terms like "racist", "far-right" or "white nationalist" in articles. As scholars have noted, "many of those who term themselves 'anti-racists' use the term 'racism' in a highly generalised and indeterminate way" (Taguieff 2001 [1988]) and "the modern ambiguities in the definition of the 'far-right' lie in the fact that the concept is generally used by political adversaries to disqualify and stigmatize all forms of partisan nationalism by reducing them to the historical experiments of Italian Fascism [and] German National Socialism." (Camus & Lebourg 2017). Please find a literary scholar, a political scientist, a philologist, or a similar peer-reviewed paper written by a PhD that states "The Camp of the Saints" is racist literature. Otherwise, this needs to be replaced with the following: The Camp of the Saints is a 1973 French dystopian fiction novel by Catholic author and explorer Jean Raspail. (...) The book is generally considered racist. Azerty82 (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a quote from Prof.Dr. Jean-Marc Moura describing the racist overtone of the plot (he does not clearly state that the book is racist though). You can see the difference in the quality of the analysis compared to, for instance, journalist Linda Chavez' quote featured in the article ("a sickening book" (...) "racist, xenophobic and paranoid"), hence the need to respect the hierarchy of information. I hope you'll understand my point of view regarding this issue. Best regards, Azerty82 (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what a 'peer review' is in the context of a novel. Clearly the term makes sense in the context of scientific/medical/other academic research papers, where methodology as much as conclusion is being assessed, but who peer-reviews a novel? Pincrete (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (?) It's not the novel that is peer-reviewed, but the analysis of the novel. Azerty82 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of a "Resurgence in popularity" section to body
I think it's fair to point out the elephant in the room with this book: modern political developments have brought this 1973 book back into the spotlight. This book was essentially irrelevant in the 21st century until it hit the 2011 best seller list and received praise by various members and aides of the Trump administration and Marie Le Penn's National Rally party. The ongoing debate of immigration in the United States, the Trump Administration's policies towards immigration, as well as the development of the European Migrant Crisis have brought this book's subject matter to the forefront. The question is whether we should elaborate on this in a separate section of the body or if the already existing elements are sufficient as they are. In my opinion, the previous debates over this page make it self-evident that it is of a unique relevance. But I would like to hear others opinions on this. AdvancedScholar (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Racist in opening sentence?
Putting racist in the opening sentence seems awkward and out of place to me. The lead of the article goes on to state that the book "conveys themes of racism...." so shouldn't that be enough? Jorge1777 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The current consensus on the talk page is to remove this mention from the first sentence of the lead, but the change hasn't been made yet. Alcaios (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, well in which case I've just gone ahead and removed it.Jorge1777 (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the community consensus, as summarized by Mgasparin on 12 May, was to remove it from the opening sentence, but still mention it in the lead, which is the case now. Thanks, Alcaios (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The word was absent from the article first sentence when I added "conveying" to the lead just the other day. It appears a user re-added the word against consensuses since then.  I'm not good at posting diffs anyway, so I'll just AGF that the user was not aware, and since now everything is as it should be.  Ditch &#8733;  03:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021
The description, in the first line, should be to a "French, satirical, dystopian novel ....". Anyone who has read it, whether in original French or, certainly, its English translation, will know that it is a satire, yet there is no reference at all to this in the description. Its description of the reactions of the various national governments' reactions as the commandeered vessel makes its way past Australia, around the Cape, up the west coast of Africa and, finally, into the mediterranean, is piquant satire of the very highest calibre, the joke being on the national governments, charities and the great religions. If that does not constitute satire, nothing does.

In case it is at all relevant, which it should not be, I am a black man and, whilst the book is undoubtably shocking, it is also hilariously funny. 2A01:4B00:84A0:DD00:C002:171:C63A:693D (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: For pretty much anything to be added into a Wikipedia article, it needs to be backed up by reliable sources. This is an example of exactly that. — IVORK Talk 06:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone here read the French version of this article?
I understand this is a fun thing to get enervated about for our American friends, but I would please ask people to kindly read the (much clearer) French version of this article and then reflect on why this one reads so badly - since about 2015 dozens of articles which US-based activists have decided are racist, usually from a pretty short list which were involved in Steve Bannon related controversies back in 2016 (see for great examples this article and the one on "Julius Evola") - and then made sweeping edits, focusing on putting inappropriate labels in the introduction, citing ludicrous sources and generally displaying a non-existent understanding of the article's topic.

Since this is "semi protected" I can't currently change it, but we need to be way harsher on this as its embarrassing for the English language project to include this student journalism level of sourcelessness and ill-will. I politely suggest this article is re-written as a straight translation of the French article, perhaps with a few words mentioning the reception in the USA, including by white nationalists if we really feel this is relevant. This absolutely does not belong in the introduction and the line saying the book "has been dismissed as racist" is laughable - the book and its author have won major prizes for this and other works as recently as the last decade. The "controversy" over this book only exists in the USA since 2015, and this specific article is being cited as a source in it, creating a nasty circular situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb1d:8dba:0:fcc1:a24:18a:cf2 (talk • contribs)


 * I have. Do you wish for the English version to avoid the word "racist," like the French version does? Otherwise, they're similar in structure, mainly differing in the introduction, which in the French version is mainly devoted to a plot summary, which is avoided in similar articles on enwiki. The English version has 43 references, with nearly every line apart from the plot summary referenced - how is that "sourceless"? My main criticism of the English version is that it needs to expand on the last line of the lede in the body - the lede is doing too much work, with 11 references in one line. The French version does go into some detail about the book's "othering" and "animalization" of the immigrants, which is omitted in the English version. The French version mentions controversy since 2011 - do you think that constitutes a "nasty circular situation"?  Acroterion   (talk)   01:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes I do - particularly since several of the sources quoted have clearly used this page as a source - I draw your attention to the NPR article cited after "racist" in the first paragraph; which uses the phrase "The Camp of the Saints is a 1973 French novel by Jean Raspail that has become a key inspiration within white nationalist circles" - even the unusual description of white nationalist "circles" as opposed to "for white nationalists" or similar appears quoted verbatim from an earlier version of this article. A huge amount of the references are opinion pieces citing a single source, also cited here: The SPLC article from December 2019. I encourage you to read this and decide for yourself whether it is a fitting source to use in an impartial encyclopedia. Asides from glaring inaccuracies (that a major prize winning authors work, which was then even as detailed in this article, opined on in each successive decade from the 1980s to now, was "obscure until 2016 - when Miller cited it"?). Particularly the blog post from "Africa is a country" and this article are caught in a web of inter-citation which make it very hard to gain a fair picture on this book. The Huffington Post article, an outlet known for plagiarizing wikipedia, has the same issues in addition to being more poorly researched and written. These kind of articles are embarrassing. In 2013 the introductory paragraph read as follows:

The Camp of the Saints (Le Camp des saints) is a 1973 French apocalyptic novel by Jean Raspail. The novel depicts a hypothetical setting whereby Third World mass immigration to France and the West led to the destruction of Western civilization. It sparked controversial reactions ranging from prophetic to discriminatory. Almost forty years after publication the book which influenced Ronald Reagan and François Mitterrand returned to the bestseller list in 2011.

I suggest that errors aside, the intervening years have not been kind to this article. There is a very noticeable drop around 2015-2016, about when the citations from low quality activist articles, or pieces heavily dependent on them, began. I understand english wikipedia is an american platform and can be expected to follow american trends and concerns, but given this is no longer a "live" issue now that neither Miller nor Bannon have work, it is unlikely to be re-edited by activist contributors, and we have an ideal opportunity to revert this so that is a good literary article about a controversial book, instead of the worst kind of activist smear-slop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb1d:8dba:0:f54b:79f4:305d:8f26 (talk • contribs)

Consistent grammar regarding race.
This "AP style is to lowercase" nonsense is an excuse hiding behind politically charged vandalism of the English language. Either a race is capitalized or it's not. For example, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Latino ... but "White" is lower-cased? Come on, now. If you can't see the political intent to demoralize and belittle White people, then you're likely the perpetrator of such racially charged microaggressions. If it's "Black" with a capital "B," then it's "White" with a capital "W." 73.56.238.183 (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Content related discussion belongs in article talk space, not user talk, so I have moved this here where it is more appropriate.
 * Regarding whether we capitalize or lowercase is based on our styleguide, MOS:RACECAPS. The time that it is appropriate to uppercase is when there are other uppercase ethno-racial labels, which in this article, there are not.  My mention in the edit summary of the AP style is solely for additional applicable guidance.  More importantly, regarding changing it from the existing style, per MOS:STYLEVAR: When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.  You have not presented any qualifying reason to change it from what is currently used other than "I don't like it", which unsupportable.  If you believe it should be changed, then per MOS:STYLEVAR, you must get consensus first.  It stays status quo antebellum until then.   Butler Blog   (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)