Talk:Emmanuel Macron/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Emmanuel Macron Religion

Mr. Macron about his faith,"I was baptized at the age of 12. It was a personal choice, my family being more secular in tradition. I did this at the time of my entrance to Providence, a school of Jesuits in Amiens, which brought me discipline of mind and a desire for openness to the world. After I practiced less. Today I have a permanent reflection on the nature of my own faith. My relationship with spirituality continues to nourish my thoughts, but I do not make it an element of claim." (Google translation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anik Tiger (talk • contribs) 15:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Nestle and Pfizer deal

@Claíomh Solais: has added text saying that "While at Rothschild, Macron closed a high-profile deal between Nestlé and Pfizer." This does not appear to be supported by the reference.

The reference consists of two paragraphs - it is so short I can copy the whole thing here: “France is used to prodigies, and loves them, and this past week put the spotlight on a particularly exceptional specimen of the genre, with the nomination by President François Hollande of a new economy minister. Emmanuel Macron is just 39 years old and has already done all the right things, and done them brilliantly. He is what the French like to call, instead of risking the arrogance or obviousness of prodigy, a “young man in a hurry.”

Macron is perfect even in his imperfections, but one of the aspects of the new economy minister’s achievement that the French public seems most interested in — arguably obsessed with, and in many instances troubled by — is one that might not only seem banal to Americans, but might reassure them. Along with being an award-winning pianist, a brilliant philosophy major, and a tango dancer, Emmanuel Macron is also a former investment banker…”

Nowhere does it mention any deal between Nestle and Pfizer. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Formation of the Rothschild bank

@Claíomh Solais: has added text about the formation of Rothschild, supported by a reference from the Financial Times. This reference does not mention Macron at all, so is the definition of WP:OR. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Amount of his "small fortune"

@Claíomh Solais: has added text saying "Macron had amassed himself a "small fortune" (reported to be in the region of €2,800,000)" with a reference attached. This figure is in the reference as his salary (before tax) over three years, whereas currently it makes it seem like that is Macron's personal wealth. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

French-American Foundation, language and education

Does anyone know the nature of why Macron was involved in French-American Foundation? Any personal reasons? Has he ever spent time in the USA? Does he speak English? Any other languages? What kind of IQ does he have and how did he perform in school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.171.215 (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Since when have we been entitled to know the IQ of our politicians? Or do you believe his cavalier attitude towards France's cultural and ethnic identity would suggest his intellect is too inadequate to hold the highest office in the country? 79.75.174.93 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Partner's Age

Is she actually 24 years older than he is? He's nearly 40, and I've seen her age given a couple of places as 56. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolliapaulina58 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This page, sourced on Trogneux's article, which appears to be from public records (putting into question if it violates the BLP policy, actually), gives her birthday as April 13, 1953, making her 64 years old, and born 24 years earlier than Macron. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Paul Ricoeur

The information about Macron's collaboration with Ricoeur is correct. See German Wikipedia with two sources. I am just now technically not able to cite both. However, it was contre-productive to delete this information instead of giving a source. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added the sources from German wikipedia, thanks for highlighting those. While I normally add a citation needed marker to content that is unreferenced, in the case of a BLP of someone who is likely to be the French president, I think that a more cautious approach is required, and the onus is on the editor who adds content to provide a source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the political position of En Marche!

Your input would be appreciated here. Mélencron (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Maternal lineage

On his maternal side, can anyone please find a reliable third-party source to confirm or deny that he is related to generals Charles Noguès, Jean-François-Xavier Noguès or Antoine Noguès?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not very probable. All three generals were from Castelnau-Rivière-Basse, Hautes-Pyrénées. This is quite an opposite part of France. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha! Yes, because the French are unique in the world for never changing their place of domicile for hundreds of years on end! ;-) From the French version of the article: "La famille Macron est originaire du village d'Authie, dans la Somme, et ses grands-parents maternels, Jean Noguès et Germaine (née Arribet) de Bagnères-de-Bigorre8, dans les Hautes-Pyrénées, où il séjourne occasionnellement" - ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

president

Hi @Brough87: Marine Le Pen have conceded her defeat. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Brough87:This is not an exit poll. This is semi-official projection, which is different from exit polls in the US. --Jimjianghk (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC) @Panam2014:@Jimjianghk: It is an exit poll, a "projection" is not an official declaration of the result. I see no reason why we should treat the French election differently from any other election Brough87 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Brough87: You should see what happened to François Hollande five years ago. --Jimjianghk (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not an argument. The source is clear and there are no consensus in talk page. And please see 3RR. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a convention on how we deal with ongoing elections. We do not make amendments prior to the official declaration of the result. Please see the "current election" bar at top of page. Brough87 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That rule is your own invention, you have violated 3RR and there are no consensus for your edit. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You are quite welcome to bring in arbitration. Brough87 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You are the only one to defend this point of view here, and in any case the Ministry of the Interior has just revealed the first results. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you about this. As I said previously, you are quite welcome to bring arbitration to look over this matter if you find the convention disagreeable. Brough87 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

No, this convention does not exist and it is you who do not respect the rules despite the number of opinions here. So either you explain yourself or you accept the change. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, the Main Page now states, "Emmanuel Macron defeats Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election to become the next President of France."—Fundude99^{talk to me} 19:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The estimations are gospel. The estimations are very accurate. They predicted JMLP's narrow advancement to the second round well before the closing of the ballots in 2002. They're not going to be wrong, Le Pen has conceded, Macron has declared victory, he is president-elect. Mélencron (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. @Brough87: you're missing the point of the "current election" notice entirely. These "preliminary estimates" of French presidential elections are not exit polls, and are not based on exit polls. They are the French equivalent of major network projections in US elections, and those don't make mistakes. The information no longer "changes rapidly" after this point. See what happened to Donald Trump after the networks called the election for him. --Jimjianghk (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture in infobox

Don't you think this picture would look better in the infobox?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we always try to avoid using black/white images... I wonder if the photographer has a version that isn't? Mélencron (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The black and white image is the one used on the French and German Wikipedias. I think that the colour is less of an issue than the expression and angle of the current one. Ralbegen (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Black/white images are not a good idea. --77.198.99.232 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Why are we not using the official portrait of Macron (it has received much praise for symbolism and a testament to Macron's personality)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by POderfla (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The photographer apparently consented to the use of the photo on Wikipedia but never followed up to respond to an associated OTRS request, and hence the photo was deleted. Mélencron (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Political affiliation

Hi all, just want to note that I removed the text from the first paragraph of the lead about Macron being characterized as a liberal. The talk page post above this one sort of hit on the topic, I'll clarify by saying that I don't see that the text I removed was beneficial to the article. Macron's party is seen as being right-of-center (with worker's protection laws) even as he does adopt some leftist policies (such as EU support). I don't see "liberal" as accurately describing Macron because of that. I do think that we could replace what I removed with either left or right if we have to specify, but I think it's heading into dangerous waters to use a broader term. Let me know if there are concerns. This is going to be a very heavily edited article soon. Icebob99 (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I've undone this: there are lots of reliable sources referring to him as a liberal, and a substantial section about his ideology in the body of the article, in which his liberalism is fairly central. Political descriptive terms are always divisive, so they are particularly heavily cited. As it's so key, it seems appropriate to include in the lead section. Ralbegen (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Ralbegen: I'm fine with including a description of political leaning, but don't you think it would be better to be very direct in a divisive subject and call him either left- or right-leaning? Frankly, what we're doing might be called piddling over details, so I'd be happy to accept either outcome, but I just want to check as to your opinion of a better description. Icebob99 (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He should be described as he is in reliable sources, and how he is in this article at the moment: centrist, liberal, progressive, pro-European. If reliable sources start describing him differently, this page should change. There's a discussion about the political positioning of Macron/En Marche! here if you want to contribute. Ralbegen (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Only in the US is liberalism left-wing. In France it is usually viewed as right-wing, because people only look at economic liberalism. However Macron tends to be liberal on all matters, not just economic ones. Aesma (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2017

Change the birth date of Emmanuel to 1977, it is at 1997 right now. Someone vandalized it to make him only 17. 2601:380:C000:87B0:20A3:B37F:3348:F9DE (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Correction done by User:Maratz. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 01:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Macron"

FYI, the usage and topic of "Macron" is under discussion, see talk:Macron -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Macron

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2017

This line: "At 39, he will become the youngest President in French history and the youngest French head of state since Napoleon." Should be corrected to: "At 39, he will become the youngest President in French history and the youngest French head of state since Napoleon III". Ryborg10000 (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

From my own knowledge, I don't have a clue whether it should be Napoleon or Napeleon III, but the sources say Napoleon so that is what the article says. If you can find some other sources which say Napoleon III I will be happy to change it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article for Napoleon III he was 44 when he was put into power, which is 5 years younger than Macron. This seems to be an undisputed fact. I would attribute the use of "Napoleon" due to the ambiguousness of having them both having the same name. Ryborg10000 (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This says Napoleon III (= Louis Napoléon Bonaparte) was 40 (and explicitly states that Macron is younger) when becoming head of state, so I declined the edit barring new information. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ryborg10000, if Macron is 39, that would make him 5 years younger than Napoleon III was, not 5 years older. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems I for some reason I was convinced Macron was 49 not 39, sorry for the misunderstanding. Ryborg10000 (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoléon I) was never President of the French Republic. He took power as Premier Consul de la République on November 10th 1799, at age 30, then become Emperor on May 18th 1804. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoléon III) became President of the French Republic on December 20th 1848, at age 40 years and 8 months, and then became Emperor on December 2nd 1852. Emmanuel Macron will become President of the French Republic on May 14th 2017 at age 39 years and 4 months. There is a misunderstanding between Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoléon III) and Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoléon I) but anyway Emmanuel Macron is the yougest President ever. 2601:646:4200:d34d:e880:3578:8297:36e3 (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This whole "Napoleon" thing has been the subject of confusion in this article; I've attempted to address this by starting a "Notes" section. [1] Ribbet32 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Napoleon Bonaparte, the Emperor of the French, became France's head of state in 1804, when he was 35 years old, as he was born in 1769, so can anyone enlighten me how this is controversial and why is Macron's considered her youngest ever head of state? This Wikipedia page provides the list of France's head of states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_France#House_of_Bonaparte.2C_First_Empire_.281804.E2.80.931814.29.5B8.5D so if this page is right, then Macron's page must be wrong, they are conflicting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoist (talk • contribs) 13:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017

The party has changed its name - La République en marche Kjetil1979 (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It is being reported for instance here [2] but there is no trace of the rebrand on the organisation's own web site so far. Mezigue (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Le Monde is reporting it. [3] and France24 [4]- Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Roman Catholic?

Its true that he was baptized as a Catholic aged 12 but there is no indication that he still considers himself a Catholic or follows that faith. Unless someone provides a RS, this claim is OR. In this source, there is several references about his views on religion but not a single claim that he is in fact a Catholic: [5]Mistico (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2017

Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoléon I) was never President of the French Republic. He took power as Premier Consul de la République on November 10th 1799, at age 30, then become Emperor on May 18th 1804. |ans= Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoléon III) became President of the French Republic on December 20th 1848, at age 40 years and 8 months, and then became Emperor on December 2nd 1852. Emmanuel Macron will become President of the French Republic on May 14th 2017 at age 39 years and 4 months. Emmanuel Macron is the youngest president since Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoléon III), not Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoléon I) 2601:646:4200:D34D:E880:3578:8297:36E3 (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This distinction is clearly made in the article's opening paragraphs: "At 39, he will become the youngest President in French history and the youngest French head of state since Napoleon." --sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Emmanuel Macron misrepresentation

The Wikipedia article gives the impression that his spouse obtained her divorce from her first husband while Emmanuel was still a teenager and away at school, before he reached the age of 18, when they "reconnected." Actually she wasn't divorced until 2006, when Emmanuel was 28. Accumaster (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Correction: the impression is they "reunited" after she obtained her divorce. But obviously the "reunited" some 10 years earlier, while she was still married to her first husband. Accumaster (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Co-prince of Andorra - necessary in the lead?

Is it necessary to have "co-prince of Andorra" very early on in the lead, especially as it is currently unsourced? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have been meaning to start a discussion about this on a topical talk page forever but never found the energy. In the distantish past I have removed this Andorra business from leads and infoboxes of French presidents but I always got overturned by editors who do not understand that it is a constitutional quirk rather than a real office distinct from the French presidency. It is pretty silly. Mezigue (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly a "real office distinct from the French presidency." The Bishop of Urgell is also a co-prince of Andorra. (The current Bishop of Urgell also has his role as co-prince of Andorra in the lede of his article.) And perhaps the vast majority of readers arrive here expecting to learn about the President of France, but once in a while, surely, someone might come because he's co-prince of Andorra. It's a real political office. Macron is actually head of state of two distinct countries. I vote to keep it in the lede. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

And now the claim is sourced. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

How can you write that it is "distinct from the French presidency" when very clearly it is on the contrary attached to it. That is what "ex officio" means! And no it is not a real office. It just means that Andorra is run by France and Spain. Mezigue (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Try telling Andorra it's not a real role. Perhaps you should review what the office involves in modern-day Andorra. See Co-Princes of Andorra#Contemporary political role. That looks like a real office to me. Maybe you don't think it's important in comparison to being President of France, but this isn't about your POV, and for Andorrans this is obviously a real and meaningful role. As for the distinction between the offices, it should be sufficient to note that "Co-Prince of Andorra" is an office which is held by two different people, both ex officio, but in very different positions, one of them being the President of France and the other being the Bishop of Urgell. Each of them holds two distinct offices, both of them hold the office of "Co-Prince of Andorra." If there were really no distinction, then by the transitive property it ought to be true that the President of France is also the Bishop of Urgell, but this is obviously nonsense. It's like wearing two different hats. There are some things that Macron does as President of France and others that he does (or will do) as Co-Prince of Andorra. It would be a mistake to say that Macron called an election in Andorra or signed a treaty for Andorra as President of France. Obviously he would do those things as Co-Prince of Andorra. He might even, I imagine, under the right circumstances, have to sign the same treaty twice on two different lines, once as President of France and once as Co-Prince of Andorra, if Andorra were to make a new treaty with France. By the way the fact that you describe it as "attached" to the French presidency shows that you understand it to be distinct from the French presidency because you imply that it could become unattached to the French presidency. If it were not a distinct office, then it would be nonsense to talk about it apart from the French presidency. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You've made a strong and convincing argument. I'm with you now. Unschool 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I would support removing the co-regency from the lead. I love quirky historical trivia as much as the next editor, but it's inclusion here, IMO, runs counter to WP:WEIGHT. Unschool 03:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC) I have been persuaded by LacrimosaDiesIlla that this should stay. Unschool 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. It takes about five words in the lede, where literally everything else is about France. That's not undue weight. Macron is actually the head of state of two different countries, whether we think Andorra is important or not. Merely mentioning the fact that he's head of state in Andorra doesn't seem like undue weight. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I would vote to leave it in place, but would like to shorten it to "and ex officio Co-Prince of Andorra.[1]" as the date of assuming office is mentioned in the info box. Keeping it because if France think it is important to hold the office, it is important for Wikipedia.- Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not "important" to France at all; it's merely the remnant of the solution of a dispute from over 700 years ago. Rest assured, Macron will spend more time wiping his behind in his first month as President than he will spend over his five-year term dealing with Andorra. I just don't see that an ex officio title merits inclusion in the introductory sentence. Unschool 18:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is not that it's important to France, but that it is important to Andorra which is also a real country. And don't be fooled by the fact that the title is ex officio into thinking that the position is not meaningful. It's a real office. It's just the way that the office is filled that is so unusual. But the Co-Princes of Andorra do perform important and meaningful and real functions in the governance of Andorra. See Co-Princes of Andorra#Contemporary political role. Also, for the record, the introductory sentence of the other current Co-Prince of Andorra (Joan Enric Vives Sicília) includes his ex officio office as Co-Prince of Andorra in its first sentence, and despite the fact that that article dates back to December 7, 2003, there is no indication in the history of the talk page that this has ever occasioned any discussion at all. (And, yes, the very first version of that article back in 2003 included the role of Co-Prince in the very first sentence, so it's been there all along.) Honestly, this all seems like a lot of biased people approaching Macron from a French perspective trying to belittle Andorra, and not like impartial editors making a neutral call. Nobody's ever objected to the bishop being identified as Co-Prince, why is Macron so different? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This is mentioned (correctly) in the infobox, I'm not sure it's necessary to be in the lede. I don't believe Macron is likely to do anything Andorra-specific during his term. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

What you believe about what he will do is not the standard (I believe the technical term for your personal beliefs about the future is WP:SPECULATION). And since apparently it was too much to expect anyone to follow a link in a discussion, I'm copying here the list of formal powers of the co-Princes of Andorra from the above-linked article:

Powers the princes may exercise on their own include:

• Joint exercise of the "prerogative of grace" (the power to pardon);
• Each co-prince may appoint one member of the Superior Council of Justice and one member of the Constitutional Tribunal;
• Establishment of such services as they deem necessary to fulfil their constitutional prerogatives, and appointment of individuals to fulfil these services;
• Requesting a preliminary judgement about the constitutionality of proposed laws, or of international treaties;
• Agreeing to the text of any international treaty, prior to submitting it for parliamentary approval;
• Bringing a case before the Constitutional Tribunal in the event of any conflict over the exercise of their constitutional prerogatives.

Powers the princes may exercise in conjunction with the head of government include:

• Calling for elections or referendums in accordance with constitutional provisions;
• Appointing the head of government in accordance with constitutional provisions;
• Dissolve the General Council (the Andorran legislature) prior to the expiration of its current term (but not until at least one year has passed since the prior election);
• Accrediting diplomatic representatives from Andorra to foreign states, and receive credentials of foreign representatives to Andorra;
• Appointing office-holders in accordance with appropriate constitutional provisions;
• Sanctioning and enacting laws in accordance with constitutional provisions;
• Granting formal consent to international treaties, once ratified by the General Council.

Are you really saying that you don't expect Macron to exercise any of these powers while he's in office? Do you think Andorra just sits there and doesn't need governing? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

All these may or may not be done by Macron. But regardless, your reasoning seems to be "X will do stuff that is important for Y, thus, it needs to be mentioned in article X". But that is a faulty reasoning, because what needs to be mentioned in article X is what is important to X, and if something involving X was important for Y it does not mean it was important for X. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove. We do not mention that he is Grand Master of the Légion d'honneur and the Ordre national du Mérite and honorary proto-canon of the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome (see President of France), either, and we don't want to go down that slope (see e.g. List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II). The reason is not that those are protocol remains with no real impact (e.g. the Légion d'honneur nominations are well-covered in the French press, and political rows occur around it), but that someone who wants to know about them is not going to land on the article on a particular president.

The argument "it matters to Andorra" holds no more weight that "it matters to Légion d'honneur recipients" on the Macron page (though it obviously does on the Andorra page). It is not so much about it being ex officio, more about it being not enough relevant for the article lead. If inhabitants of the Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré Macron had formed an association to petition against noisy public works, and Macron was elected president of that hypothetical association, it would still not be worth the lead in an article, even if that office is possibly more impactful on the lives of the association members than that of president of France. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Two points: (1) Actually, someone who wants to know about the co-princes of Andorra really is going to land on the Emmanuel Macron article. Check the infobox on Andorra which lists "Emmanuel Macron" as a co-Prince with no indication that he is (also) the President of France. If someone clicks through and the new article does not clearly and obviously acknowledge that he is both, might they think that they have been misdirected and that there are two different Emmanuel Macrons? (2) The other incumbent co-prince of Andorra (Joan Enric Vives Sicília) who is the bishop of Urgell and therefore ex officio co-prince has had his role as co-prince in the lede sentence of his article since the very first draft was published in 2003 and this has never even been discussed. But for some reason everyone wants to treat the President of France differently; that doesn't seem right. France may be bigger and more important (notable) than Andorra, but that doesn't mean that all references to Andorra need to be obliterated. Six words in the lede is not undue weight for someone who is actually co-head of state of a real, separate country. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@LacrimosaDiesIlla: For (1), my point was that if someone searches for "coprince of Andorra" or similar, they will land first on the Andorra articles, and second on the Macron article. If after reading the Andorra articles that say the French president is one of the coprinces, and the Macron article that says Macron is the French president, they are confused and believe there could be two Macrons, I don't think the problem is on our end.

For (2), well obviously there is WP:OSE, but more importantly Macron is way more notable for various reasons than Joan Enric Vives Sicília. Therefore real estate in the lead is much more constrained, and Macron has many more biographical details that are important to mention. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Macron remains actually (co-)head-of-state of two different countries. No one has yet made a convincing case that six words in the lede is undue emphasis for the less notable one. The comparison to the Legion d'honneur is unfair, and WP:OSE is sort of irrelevant here because we're talking about two people who hold the same position (it's not other stuff so much as the exact same stuff just in a different article). One of them has always had this mentioned in the first sentence of his article and it has never once been discussed in over ten years. The other one is enduring a fierce debate about whether 6 words ("and ex officio Co-Prince of Andorra") in a lede section of almost 300 constitutes undue weight. I am really struggling to understand why anyone would be so strongly in favor of trying to remove such a small reference. The lede is not bloated. This fact is significant, is notable in itself, and is not being given undue weight. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, we shouldn't expect a reader to have read the whole article or to have been searching for "Co-Prince". Someone could very easily end up on Macron because they were on the "Andorra" article and just clicked on his name in the infobox. If six additional words in the lede of Macron's article makes it more user-friendly for readers learning about Andorra, that seems like enough of a reason to keep them there. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The point of WP:OSE is that even if the situation was parallel (which I argued isn't the case - you may disagree, but please have the honesty to recognize I did it), a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may not have been established firmly enough to be used as precedent on another page.

As for the "reader is an impatient reader" thing, Macron is named in the lead of Co-Princes_of_Andorra. If you are going to argue that a reader will not read that lead but will lead the lead at the Macron article (and not read the rest of the Macron article), I don't know what to say. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There is now a short section noting that he is the co-prince, is it ok to now remove it from the lead? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I added the section because someone else suggested that people could just read the rest of the article, but there wasn't anything in the body of the article that mentioned Andorra at all. (The only references at the time were in the infobox, in the first sentence of the lede, in a category, and in a box at the bottom of the page.) I still support leaving the reference in the lede, which is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, and surely it's not unreasonable to have a handful of words in the lede summarizing a section of the article. Also, just to put this in perspective: the lede is around 300 words, 6 of which are about Andorra (so roughly 2% of the lede) and the rest is split between his pre-political life (about 30%) and his life as a French politician (about 70%). This gives us roughly a 35 to 1 ratio of France to Andorra, which doesn't seem extravagant. On the other hand, removing the reference to Andorra from the lede completely would give 100% of the attention to France. If those are the options, it seems like it's the latter which is the worse violation of undue weight by overweighting France. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

As a proportion of the total lead, it is indeed very small, but it is a significant proportion of the first sentence of the lead, which is the one most people actually read. I would be happy to have it further down in the lead, but having it in the first sentence gives it far too much prominence. What about changing "Upon his inauguration, Macron appointed Le Havre mayor Édouard Philippe to be Prime Minister." to "Upon his inauguration, Macron became ex-officio Co-Prince of Andorra and appointed Le Havre mayor Édouard Philippe to be Prime Minister." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I certainly support keeping it rather than removing it. However, I think that since it is an office he currently holds (and an office which is formally on the same level as President of France, i.e., head of state of an independent country), the first sentence is in fact the best place for it. But to be fair to your point, I (finally) checked to see how this was handled in articles about previous French presidents (which I've never looked at before, at least not in this context), and I find that Macron's most recent predecessors (Hollande, Sarkozy, and Chirac) all have their role as ex officio co-Prince of Andorra mentioned in the first sentence of their articles. I know WP:OSE, but those articles seem to be doing just fine with the mention of Andorra right up front, and I don't think they're undergoing in-depth discussion about it. So I see no reason to take a different approach for Macron. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

References

References mucked up big

User:Cminard removed notes section information [6], breaking the Notes section and destroying two references under the President of France section and Political positions section. It's also left long strings of footnotes visible in the intro- 10 for the uncontroversial statement that he won the election!- leaving the article vulnerable to criticism from the Wikipedia:Citation overkill crowd. Note that ledes dosn't generally have references, they summarize the body, where the footnotes go. I call for these edits to be repaired. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emmanuel Macron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140831011547/http://news.yahoo.com/french-govt-reshuffle-expels-dissident-ministers-171140970.html to https://news.yahoo.com/french-govt-reshuffle-expels-dissident-ministers-171140970.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/2012/09/17/avec-macron-l-elysee-decroche-le-poupon_847010

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Age of Macron

Macron is the youngest President of France but not the youngest head of state. Napoleon was 30 when he took power in a coup d'etat and became First Consul in 1799. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.150.5.175 (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If you have a source stating this then we can add it. This is Paul (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

France's youngest head of state

I've reverted a couple of edits that were made in which an editor disputes whether Macron is the youngest French head of state, or whether that title goes to Napoleon Bonaparte, since it appears to be controversial. For the record Bonaparte was 35 when he became Emperor of the French in 1804, while Macron was/is 39 when he became President of France in 2017, but we need to decide how we're defining a head of state here. The third paragraph of the lede currently states "Macron, at the age of 39, is the youngest President and head of state in the history of France", something which is clearly ambiguous. The edits removed the "head of state in the history of France" part, but since it has caused controversy... I have no real personal preferences on what we should say here, but think it is something we should discuss thoroughly before making such a change. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This Wikipedia page provides the list of France's head of states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_France#House_of_Bonaparte.2C_First_Empire_.281804.E2.80.931814.29.5B8.5D so if this page is right, then Macron's page must be wrong, they are conflicting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoist (talk • contribs) 14:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yet Louis XVI of France would have been head of state during his reign. He ascended the throne at 19–a good two decades younger than the present head of state. What we have here is confusion, which should be addressed. But as I say we ought to have consensus on what to do. This is Paul (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

According to Encyclopedia Britannica - "The specific title of the head of state depends on the state’s political system. The head of state in a monarchy, for instance, is usually a king or queen, while in a republic this role is typically filled by the president." Hence Louis XVI and Napoleon Bonaparte would be France's head of state when she was an absolute monarchy. Anyway, I think that even if there is no consensus, Wikipedia is meant to be factual and not include an arguable statement. Hence, either way, it would be better to omit the statement, since the statement is either factually wrong or arguable. It is better to say nothing rather than saying wrong things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoist (talk • contribs) 14:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is what source 12 says: "Emmanuel Macron as the country’s youngest president Sunday". Source 13 says: "would be France’s youngest leader since Napoleon Bonaparte". Source 14 says "elected France's youngest head of state since Napoleon". Source 15 says: "Macron the youngest president in French history". The only source referring to "head of state" is source 14, so it appears that whoever added this uncited statement does not have a good understanding of the word "since" and interpret it in his/her own version of semantics. I cannot see what more I can do to disprove this statement as it clearly does not have any reference supporting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoist (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, if you really need to revert my contribution, please at least provide reference supporting the statement first, or else you are adding an uncited statement into the page and propagating a wrong piece of information to 130,000 viewers each day until there can be a "consensus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoist (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This edit war is ridiculous. No sources have been provided for the (obviously false) claim that Macron is "the youngest Head of State" in French history. There is no ambiguity about whether kings (like Louis XVI) or emperors (like Napoleon) count as heads of state: of course they do. It is factually false that Macron is the youngest Head of State in French history, and no one has provided any source to back the false claim up or any evidence in its favor. The claim should be kept out of the article. There's no need for consensus to keep it out, because there's not even a real dispute here (in the sense of one where we have conflicting verifiable claims). If This is Paul is serious about not having a personal preference, then he should allow the claim to be dropped; there is no standard according to which every change to every article requires a consensus of editors first, not even on important/popular/current articles. There's only one verifiable claim in this "dispute" and Wikipedia should stick with that. Moreover, Isoist's point that all he's doing is removing an unsourced claim, whereas the other editor keeps putting back in an unsourced claim needs to be more properly appreciated. Isoist has not at any point (as far as I can tell) added a disputable claim to the article; he's only removed a false claim. He does not need to provide a source for removing a false claim. (Imagine if the article claimed that Macron had a pet unicorn, and I removed it on the grounds that unicorns don't exist so obviously Macron doesn't own one. Would anyone insist on putting the claim back in the article and keeping it there until I could provide a source that actually specifically made the point that Macron did not own a pet unicorn? Why would anyone have bothered to write out such an obviously unnecessary statement in a reputable source? This problem is similar to that of the universal negative.) On the contrary, burden is obviously on those who favor the inclusion of a claim which is not supported by any of the sources provided and which has been not only disputed but refuted, not on those trying to keep that claim out. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we could simply note that Macron is France's youngest elected head of state? Earthscent (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? There actually isn't anyone here willing to defend the claim that he's the youngest head of state, just one editor stubbornly insisting that we achieve consensus that he's not, so I don't think we need a compromise to resolve this fake "dispute". Anyway, I suppose if someone has a source making that claim, then we could add it. But is it not enough that he's the youngest President? Why do we need to find more superlatives to distinguish him? (And how would calling him the "youngest elected Head of State" actually add value/information to the article? Has France had any "elected Heads of State" who were not President? Wouldn't you just be saying the same thing in a more convoluted, but completely redundant way?) LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Er...don't blame me for this. It was discussed previously. And yes I am serious about not favouring any particular resolution. But what we don't want is that later on or tomorrow someone changes it back though preference, then someone else changes it again through preference, and so on. Hope you get my point. We need to decide on a statement and stick with it. This is Paul (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The previous discussion appears to have been about whether to mention Napoleon's claim to have been a younger head of state in the article and about which Napoleon was at stake. This is a different issue, and as I have pointed out there is no real dispute here because no one can provide any evidence in favor of the claim which Isoist removed and no one is even actually defending that claim. Perhaps what I should say is that consensus has obviously already been achieved! Besides Isoist's position is not one of "preference" but one of facts, evidence, and verifiability. Besides, the article itself already elsewhere limits Macron to being "the youngest French head of state since Napoleon", which means he's obviously not the "youngest French head of state" ever. The lede is supposed summarize the rest of the article, so it shouldn't make claims which not only are not supported by the body of the article, but actually directly contradicted by it. Isoist's original deletion of the unsourced and false claim in the lede was a good edit that never needed to be reverted in the first place. I'm really not sure what you think is left to discuss. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, time to move on now we have a solution, but before I go, LacrimosaDiesIlla, please don't assume my editing was in bad faith. Your posts suggested you may have done so, when this was not the case. This is Paul (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave you that impression, but I don't think you were acting in bad faith. I think this was just a sort of ordinary disagreement that got heated in the moment and looks silly in retrospect. I'm glad that it has been resolved. Best of luck and maybe we'll meet again somewhere else on Wikipedia some day. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Can't we just change it to "youngest elected head of state"? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, it would stop all this nonsense. This is Paul (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Why would we do this? This was suggested once before a few comments up, and I will repeat the essential part of my reply here: Is it not enough that he's the youngest President? Why do we need to find more superlatives to distinguish him? (And how would calling him the "youngest elected Head of State" actually add value/information to the article? Has France had any "elected Heads of State" who were not President? Wouldn't you just be saying the same thing in a more convoluted, but completely redundant way?) So basically it strikes me as probably an unnecessary addition to the article, but if someone has a source for it (because it's not obvious that it's true: there might have been some other non-President elected head of state in French history, even though I don't think there is), I would not object to it being included. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Official photograph

Is it possible to add his official photograph to the infobox as we do for President Trump please? Does fair use work please?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 30#File:Emmanuel-Macron.jpg for the discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Photograph of wife

A very strange photo choice of Brigitte Macron. She is looking away from camera and the focus is on the other two women. Why have it all? Surely a better one could be chosen. Bodhadeepika (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I've changed it. sikander (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

France needs a King

As Macron said, “In French politics, this absence is the presence of a King, a King whom, fundamentally, I don’t think the French people wanted dead,” said Macron. “The Revolution dug a deep emotional abyss, one that was imaginary and shared: the King is no more!” According to Macron, since the Revolution France has tried to fill this void, most notably with Napoleon and then Charles de Gaulle, which was only partially successful. “The rest of the time,” said Macron, “French democracy does not manage to fill this void.”

I feel his views on a French Monarchy should be added onto his article. Schwiiz (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

First of all a source for these quotes are needed, anyway.--Joobo (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are some: National Public Radio http://www.npr.org/2017/07/06/535745466/king-macron-french-president-earns-comparisons-to-napoleon , New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-france.html , GQ http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/emmanuel-macron-policies-beliefs-philosophy , Vogue http://www.vogue.com/article/emmanuel-macron-co-prince-of-andorra , The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/macron-france-le-pen/525849/ , EU Observer https://euobserver.com/beyond-brussels/137820 ..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Joobo: What I said was a direct quoting from [7]. If you seriously haven't heard about Macron wanting a king, you need to read more modern news. Sorry for the sassyness. Schwiiz (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If you quote something you always need citations, especially if it is about a BLP article - this has nothnig to do with how much news one is consuming. --Joobo (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Changing Macron's picture

• 
  Option 1 (2017)
• 
  Option 2 (2017)
• 
  Option 3 (2017)
• 
  Option 4 (2017)

As my edit when it came to Macron's picture was reverted, I'm going to try to find a consenus through this talk page. I changed the image to option 1 because I felt like shown more of Macron's face, it was high resolution (when compared to the current one we use) and despite how aesthetically pleasing Macron looks, its a better representation of what he looks like in real life. I'm just wondering if we should use option 1 instead of option 2. Asking the community for input. POderfla 19:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I like more the image number three! LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I have added options 3, and 4 to add more options to your post to make this a more robust selection per WP:RTP. LivinRealGüd (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not use the official portrait? The official portrait is used for all US presidents, why not the French president? OnchePower (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Polemics

In light of WolvesS's additions to the article, could someone take the time to translate the content from fr:Emmanuel Macron#Polémiques into the controversies section? A number of the remarks – on the best way to pay for a suit being to work (and the man's reply), remarks on smoking and alcoholism in Pas-de-Calais, obfuscation on the legalization of cannabis, remarks on Algeria, remarks on French culture, and "humiliation" of opponents of same-sex marriage – received more than substantial coverage in media at the time and I think they're worth including. Mélencron (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent opinion polls

More recent polls have pointed out that "Emmanuel Macron's popularity falls faster than any French president ever". Could someone who is fluent in French verify these claims, as all the sources are obviously in French. Also, the first sentence (of the Popularity sub-head) points out that "Macron is currently one of the most popular politicians in France." - can anyone actually verify this with a source? Best, Nicnote^{say hello!}_contribs 09:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be correct. However it is absurd to track his polls like this. What will this section look like after five years of presidency? Mezigue (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about his polls, but I don't see anything wrong with updating or adding new information, provided that we are also willing to delete old or outdated claims. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

For anyone curious, I'm keeping track here (the graphs are outdated, btw) – these are "political barometers" (repeating at semi-regular intervals and asking about both Macron/Philippe) so the list doesn't currently include any one-off polls like the Ifop 100-days poll or Ipsos Macron-Trump France-United States poll. Mélencron (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you any reliable source of this statement.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean. Mélencron (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this should go in the lead? Macron is the worst ranked French president in history, and has an approval rating that's probably similar to right before the French Revolution. 2601:982:4200:A6C:538:7302:EEB0:12C5 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Titular Catalan Prince, or duly ex-officio?

There has been some discussion about whether the office of Prince of Andorra carries with it duties or is simply an obsolete titular lip-service. To properly address the Prince, as referred to in both the Emmanuel Macron article and the President of France article, wikipedia uses the legal term "ex-officio" which bears with it duties and rights of the presidium, thus, it must be said that the Prince should have command of his own official language.

If other wikipedians or PR reps within the wikipedian ranks disagree with this (perfectly understandable as any head-of-state *should be spared the ridicule associated with being incompetent in ones own language*), perhaps the term "ex-officio" should be removed. Mind you, this is the English wiki, dunno if the French are like coiled springs, ready to riot in the streets at the drop of حميدة جندوبي`s hat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.22.250 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Mostly what there has been discussion about (at least with respect to this page) is whether and to what extent Macron's role as Co-Prince should be covered in this article, particularly in the lede. As part of that discussion, the question was briefly raised of whether or not being Co-Prince "carries with it any duties", but in the face of the clear evidence that it does, that aspect of the discussion was promptly closed. "Ex officio" is a technical term that means that someone serves in one role by virtue of holding some other office; it is unquestionably the correct term for describing the President of France's role as Co-Prince of Andorra. Whether or not he has actual "rights and duties" as Co-Prince is irrelevant to the use of the term "ex officio" (although, if you care to check, you will find that the Co-Prince of Andorra has quite a long list of actual "rights and duties." And whether or not one speaks the official language of one's country has no bearing at all on whether or not one is actually its ruler or merely its ruler in a titular sense; I'm not sure how you derived such a notion. I doubt Macron is embarrassed at not speaking Catalan, and if the people of Andorra are embarrassed by it, I've never heard them mention it. I imagine it has been quite a long time since one of their French Co-Princes might have spoken the language. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

One imagines that it has been quite a long time since BOTH of the Sovereigns of the diarchy speak their language, Catalan. I agree with your unquestionable assertion that Emmanuel Macron has UNDISPUTED duty, without breaching the peace, to "his" Catalan-speaking Subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.0.225 (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course, language aside, Macron (and indeed France!) has a duty to neighbors in times of need (without regard for the ECB or the EU), and to think that Macron did not offer support for, recognition of, nor dispute of the Referendum and subsequent independence declaration gives Trump`s hairdo an added lustre; it looks too good to be Trudeau. Yes, it certainly had it`s irregularities, but PEOPLE came out to VOTE, and at the conclusion of the declaration (and suspension), it was signed, in Black Ink.

Dereliction is a very heavy word, and Macron is yet young, as is his tenure. Most French people are either at work or protesting austerity, so not exactly the couch-potato neo-centrists the massmediapollsters would have us believe, the duties of France to both Spain and the Catala have been ignored, for now, and as the affair will be included in the article in time, with or without the young banker`s efforts, the masses continue. "co-prince" is not proper in the case of Andorra, as a Sovereign is drawn from Clergy, no?

Macron`s statements were at a German book fair celebrating "culture" and "language", concurrent to Catalan independence declaration.

Let`s have Hamburger, Frankfurter, or some French-Fry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.0.225 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Controversies Section

Does there really need to be a controversies section? Those are discouraged, especially in BLPs, as they act as a dumping ground for anything negative, and can lead to too much weight on it. The comments on africans seems to have undue weight, and the remaining stuff can be trimmed for weight and merged into the presidency section (which really needs sections). Galobtter (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The remarks attracted significant coverage in French media and caused significant controversy. I don't see how it's negative – it's just what he's said. Mélencron (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about the individual things in the controversies section, all I'm saying is that if they're notable, they should be in the Presidency section or some other section. That's standard practice. Having a controversy section usually means WP:UNDUE weight for what may not be that - overall- important things. Galobtter (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Galobtter, as per WP:CRITICISM we should avoid controversies sections and rework the content into the appropriate sections. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Also agreed with Galobtter, have a read through Wikipedia:Criticism. He is spot on. Any controversial content about Macron should first be vetted through Wikipedia's policies regarding neutral point of view, recentism, as well as reliable sources and undue weight. Also, the last thing we should be doing is using the French wikipedia as a guide, I've snooped around that place and it is far below the standards of English Wikipedia. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate/misleading information in Eastern Europe paragraph.

Eastern Europe paragraph is more of a propaganda piece than unbiased Wikipedia information from a legitimate source. Firstly, It focuses on the country which is located in Central Europe contrary to the subject of the paragraph. It also implies that human rights are violated and democracy in Poland is under threat. Such information has been used and abused by liberal democracies of other European Union states to discredit current DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Government simply because it opposes the mass migration and its decision to retire the corrupted judges of the communist era.

The judges in question were to be indifferent to the political parties, but they repeatedly supported the opposition. Many of them have committed crimes, so the Polish government had no choice but to revoke their rights to take part in the judiciary system. In no other European country, a criminal could be a judge at the same time.

Macrons opinion about Poland and Hungary should be labeled accordingly and explicitly state that it is ONLY a personal opinion and not a factual report of the situation in those countries.

As a daily user of Wikipedia, I can not allow for this platform to become a battleground for political, hybrid wars full of half-truths and misleading information.

I am happy to correct the errors if the original author won't do it.

WalterMccan (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

What you said makes no sense. The section is pretty clear to establish that those statements are his opinions. This looks like more a POV from you then anything else. It's your opinion, and you are entitled to have it, but to claim that the article is bias because it doesn't fit your narrative, well, that is bias one-on-one. At any rate, you haven't based your opinion on any rules or sources. So it's just an opinion. Either you make a better argument, or stop vandalizing the article. Coltsfan (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

1) This is exactly my point. You either provide the full picture of a story or you don't write at all, else it is not factual and considered a BIAS. I will prepare the sources and post it here for the review.

2) Poland is not in Eastern Europe - You simply can't deny that. I linked a Wikipedia page of Central Europe where it clearly states, Poland is a country in Central Europe so now both pages are contradicting one another. How's that factual?

WalterMccan (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

But that's beyond the point. This article is about Emmanuel Macron. It's his biography, and contains his opinions. We don't judge if it's right or wrong. Macron says Poland violates human rights. It's his opinion. Is he right? I don't know. It's not for me to say and it doesn't matter if me or you think he is right or not. This is called value judgment and that, my friend, is the definition of BIAS. Plus, depending on who you are talking to, YES, Poland can be considered part of Eastern Europe (as you can see on this map), it's not a dead lock consensus. Coltsfan (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You are showing me some pictures but both wiki pages for Eastern Europe and Central Europe are saying that Poland is in Central Europe. You can't have contradictory informations and you can't dispute that.

WalterMccan (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

So, it's a matter of changing the name from "Eastern Europe" to something else? Fair enough, but still your other points don't make sense. You say "You either provide the full picture of a story or you don't write at all". Sometimes that's true, but in this case not quite. After all, like i said, this is about Emmanuel Macron and his world wide views. It would be bias for us to make value judgment of his opinions and try to "disprove them". When you are writing a biography you don't do it like: "and he said this and this and this... but he was wrong and here is why..." It's not how it works (at least most of the time). Coltsfan (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's correct Eastern Europe then. I still think there should be more sources for the claims in this paragraph. Read the titles and articles given as a source to the below part of the Eastern Europe paragraph. I do understand what biography means but biography is not a novel and also should be factual.

President Macron supports NATO and its role in the security of eastern European states, while also pressuring NATO partners like Poland to uphold human rights. He said in April 2017 that "in the three months after I'm elected, there will be a decision on Poland. You cannot have a European Union which argues over every single decimal place on the issue of budgets with each country, and which, when you have an EU member which acts like Poland or Hungary on issues linked to universities and learning, or refugees, or fundamental values, decides to do nothing."[352] Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski said in response that Macron "violated European standards and the principles of friendship with Poland".[353]

The titles of the source are as follow:

1) Gov't spokesman: we will not agree to Macron using Poland during campaign
2) Macron's statement 'unacceptable', says Polish FM

Please read the articles to fully understand the context. Titles speak volumes but I encourage you to read it all.

WalterMccan (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Still, you haven't addressed the issue that i pointed out. Articles should be factual, however we're dealing with opinion's here, in this case the french president's opinion. For instance, if a politician says that a country is 'filled with criminals', should we follow that up and say "but he is wrong because this and this and this"? You haven't grasped the concept of "we don't make value judgment". If Macron thinks like that, is his opinion. If it's factual, depending on the situation, though def in most of the cases, we don't make changes. But, true that, it must be clear to the reader that what he is reading is am opinion, nothing beyond that. And i think the reader can draw that conclusion from that's there.

Ps: i removed the "eastern european" to give a more correct context in the section, as you point it out. Coltsfan (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change. There is one more sentence that I would like to review. "President Macron supports NATO and its role in the security of eastern European states and he also said pressure NATO partners like Poland to uphold human rights." - This statement doesn't sound right and also implies that Poland is an Eastern European state and that it violates human rights (the source talks about European Union Values and not human rights). I propose the alternative - President Macron supports NATO and its role in the security of Central and Eastern European states. He has pressured NATO partners like Poland to uphold the European Union values.WalterMccan (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

But that contradicts what the source says, thus violating WP:V, since what's in the article is a direct quote from him. WalterMccan, what you need to understand is that it doesn't matter if he (Macron) is right or wrong, we cannot manipulate what he says (or anyone else for that matter). If what he is saying is inaccurate (and might as well be), there is little we can do since what's there is a direct quote from the guy and we can't put words in his mouth. Coltsfan (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please show me the source in which he says that Poland is in Eastern Europe and that there are human rights violations. There is no such statement in those sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterMccan (talk • contribs) 22:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The part of the human rights, according to the source in the article: "Macron said on Thursday that if he is elected, France would argue for the European Union to introduce sanctions against Poland. “When the rights and values of the European Union are not respected, I want sanctions to be taken,” he was quoted by Reuters as saying.". Other sources that are not in the article covered this as well (like this one and this one. As for the "Poland is in Eastern Europe", the article was already changed and Poland is no longer mentioned anymore as being part of eastern Europe. Coltsfan (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

None of these sources claims that HUMAN RIGHTS are violated in Poland. Please use ctrl+f and search for it. You can't make up things as you wish. European values is not a synonymous to human rights. There is one mention in the sources you mentioned -

Le Pen, who is far behind Macron in opinion polls, says she would try to negotiate a radical overhaul of France’s EU membership during the first six months of her presidency and then hold a referendum on whether to quit the EU.Macron, meanwhile, has sought to reinforce his credentials as a leader who would have a strong voice within Europe, as a defender of human rights for instance.

The above has nothing to do with Poland directly. Please make changes. WalterMccan (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It's in the context of the things he said. He talks of "human rights" and "european values", and then mentions Poland and the possibility of sanctions. It's within context. If he says that some countries in NATO are violating "european values" and then he mentions Poland (a european country that is part of NATO) and sanctions against it. We're not making a supposition, is a direct conclusion. I think because you disagree with him, you are trying to change that, aren't you? Again, we're not here to judge whether he is right or wrong. We're here to report what he said. And that is well within context. Coltsfan (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Again... please show me where HE says it. The unrelated paragraph above is a reporters conclusion where he states that Macron seeks to reinforce his position as a defender of human rights for instance. There is no quote of Macron saying it personally. This is why I suggested changing it to European values which he did mention. Those two are not interchangeable.WalterMccan (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I just showed you. It's a matter of text interpretation. And it's not just my interpretation, no other than the Polish government themselves recognize it and responded to it (see here). There is another one here. If, according to what you said, what Macron stated has nothing to do with Poland, why they responded to him? It's not a question of lack of sources. Like i said, it's a matter of text interpretation and, like i showed to you, the sources support what i have previously stated. Ps: at any rate, i did changed the "human rights" thing to "european values", anyway. Coltsfan (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018

This is my first time with an account on Wikipedia. I apologize for any errors in conduct in advance.

I believe we should add to the lead Macron's approval rating and reactions to that approval rating. Macron is currently the least popular president in French history, and currently, riots/protests are sparking either a constitutional crisis or a collapse of the center towards the far-left and far-right. Perhaps something like, "Macron has the lowest approval rating of any French president. This has resulted in domestic unrest, and widespread resignations and calls for Macron to step down." Perhaps add a link to the Yellow Vests wiki page in that statement as well. Macron's approval rating is 23% currently. MalaciaJenkins (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done - @MalaciaJenkins: I added text based on yours to the Popularity section, as it is a good idea to keep developing news reports out of article leads, especially ones that will certainly have long-term significance. I do see where you're coming from, but my impression from reading your articles is that he is currently under the cloud of a couple ongoing scandals and public image crises and the situation is very much up in the air. Also, while one Newsweek article title suggested in was the case, his approval rating is not lower than Hollande's record low by any means. Finally, I found no mention of resignations, either actual or called for, in any of your sources, so I omitted mention of that. If you have sources for that part, ping me or write on my talk page and I will add a few words. A2soup (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Official portrait of Emmanuel Macron.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Grammar issue

In the second paragraph, it is stated "...Master's of Public Affairs...". But no such thing exists. It should read "Master's degree in Public Affairs" or "Master of Science in Public Affairs". 2600:1700:8d30:18b0:fd94:b569:18cb:2d01 (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the official title

Hi, considering the article, I judged more appropriate to discuss first. I was surprised to see that Emmanuel Macron was titled «President of France» when no such title exists. His official title is «President of the (French) Republic», as established in the constitution. The wikilink itself is sending the user to President of the French Republic. Furthermore, when referred to in English, as it was heard during his adress to the US Congress, the title is «President of the French Republic». I think this kind of mistake should not stay whatsoever. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Co-prince of Andorra in the first line of the lede?

There have again been some edits about whether Macron being co-prince of Andorra should be featured in the first line of the lede. There was a previous discussion about this, which didn't really reach any conclusion. Shall we open an RfC and settle this? Bellowhead678 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization situation

I'm assuming that the same decapitalizations done to this article's intro, will also be applied to the intros of Macron's predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2020

The following should be added to his position, I think it fits to nationalism: Macron stated previous to the centenary of the end of WWI that it was legitimate to pay homage to Philippe Pétain.

source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46129990 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/07/nazi-collaborator-phillipe-petain-world-war-stirs-anger Hybay (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.DarthFlappy (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding Joan Enric Vives i Sicília to infobox as co-prince

I just changed the infobox to include his incumbency as co-prince of Andorra however the syntax isn't allowing me to display Joan Enric Vives i Sicília as co-prince the same way the other sections display Prime Ministers, if anyone with more experience with syntax can help with this it would be a massive help. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate references

If anyone cares to clean them up, most of the following URLs are for duplicated references on the E Macron page. I've done some. I suggest that if any of these duplications get merged, this list should be edited to delete them, so that the list remains current and useful, rather than (or in addition to) an appended comment.

https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/120616/comment-leurope-pese-sur-la-loi-el-khomri
https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/121016/macron-le-reformateur-orthodoxe
https://www.thelocal.fr/20180625/meeting-with-pope-puts-macrons-religious-views-in-spotlight

HTH, Pol098 (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Update: Pol098 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

Emmanuel Macron (Mad President) 43.231.23.254 (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -ink&fables «talk» 12:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2020

The "Terrorism" section under the 'President of France' headline should be updated to make it more clear:

"The bill was signed into law by Macron on 30 October. He announced that, starting 1 November, it would bring an end to the state of emergency" should be changed to "The bill was signed into law by Macron on 30 October 2017. He announced that, starting 1 November, it would bring an end to the state of emergency"

There should be a new addition to the "Security and terrorism" section under 'Political Positions' which includes his remarks in response to the recent terror attacks. The recent uptick in terrorist attacks are directly relevant to his policy and remarks. The 3 murders in Nice, shooting in Avignon, and stabbing of a french bodyguard in Jeddah, are no coincidence.

Finally, a merger of the "Terrorism" section under 'President of France' and "Security and terrorism" section under 'Political Positions' should also be considered, as the other subsections of 'President of France' also include his actions from up to 2020, and the current divided layout where the same issue is addressed twice over is quite confusing. A general review of this page to check for consistent structure and coherence of 'President of France' and 'Political Positions' should be considered, although this may be too much to ask. Akheneros (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick note (this isn't me answering the request, so I'm not changing the template to |answered=yes): @Akheneros: you linked to a Daily Mail article for the Jeddah event, but the Mail isn't used as a reliable source on Wikipedia (see WP:DAILYMAIL). So you'd need to find a reliable source for that - the reference desk may be able to help. You may also want to be more specific with what you want changing on the page, to help other editors evaluate/implement your request. Seagull123 Φ 17:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

First is  Done. Second is considered synthesis which you'll need a reliable source for. Third one could be considered with consensus, but you need to establish that consensus before making a request. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead presidency

Should the lead make some mention of what has actually happened in his presidency? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it should. The reason I reverted your edit (while recognizing it was a good faith edit) is that it was rather focused on only the most recent events. Major events during his presidency include, of course, the Covid-19 crisis, the Gillets Jaunes demonstrations and violence, some major and extended union strikes, Brexit and the negotiations over Brexit (in which he plays a large role), the reform of the French tax system, and several different terrorist attacks. Your edit only focused on the last part, and even there only on attacks in the last months. So yes, the lead should mention major events of his presidency, but adding just two events from the last month is WP:RECENTISM and hence also WP:UNDUE. A discussion about what to include, like this one you started, is a good place to decide on what to include. Jeppiz (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you think we should include any of the examples of major events you have given, or were you saying you deem them as major events? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Both; I think they are all major events and, as such, should probably be included in a paragraph about events under his presidency. Hopefully other users can chime in as well about which events we should include. Jeppiz (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Outrage in the Muslim world and the boycott of French products

The lede should contain about the recent Islamic controversies. He is now seen as a controversial figure among Muslims, and was criticised by many head of states and governments. 85.211.162.92 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a POV-way to put it, yes. Another POV-way would be that he stood up for democracy, was criticised by some racist strongmen but supported by democratic world leaders. It should be obvious that under WP:NPOV we will not say neither the one nor the other. It is possible that the current conflict will prove significant enough to be mentioned (again, in respecting WP:NPOV]]) but it is too early to know. Jeppiz (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Not pov. There are thousands of reliable sources about it. The issue is quite big and should be included on the lede.85.211.161.247 (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue in itself is not irrelevant; the way it is put above is. Yes, some head of states (mainly dictators/strongmen) have criticized France. Other head of states (mainly democratic leaders) have defended France and freedom of expression. Both set of reactions are of some relevance to Wikipedia and could well be included in the article about the murder of Samuel Paty, or Charlie Hebdo caricatures, or the murders in Nice or some other article. They are less relevant here; it's not Macron who has made the drawings and it's not Macron who has committed any of the many murders. So while the issue itself both could and should be mentioned, it should be so in a neutral and factual way. Jeppiz (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

We are aware of this, but in the end it was him that got blamed. We can't certainly ignore all those drawings that ware made to demonise him, and those protests against him. Plenty of sources are available. We can briefly mention that he has been a controversial figure among the Muslims. 79.75.34.180 (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, making abusive drawings of the prophet of any religion is NO WAY CONSIDERED FREEDOM OF SPEECH.Pandey55jee (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what country you live in, but in France it's protected speech. Macron lives in France. Please remember WP:NOTFORUM, this page is for pointing out improvements to the article and not debate on Macron himself, save that for Twitter or Yahoo Answers. If your suggested improvement to the page is to say that drawing Muhammad is illegal in France, it's patently false. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jeppiz that this is recentist, and not representative of the large amount of incidents that have happened in the three years of mandate of a head of state of a G8 nation. The idea by the IP that we can't ignore drawings that "demonise" Macron is laughable, all politicians are subject to caricature. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Protests against various decisions throughout his presidency in lead

I'm not French, but what I have heard of Macron it relates to the Yellow vests movement and the 2019–20 French pension reform strike. The protests against some of his decisions have been a frequent part of his current term, and now again protests have spurred for his recent decision to not allow civilians to film police. By this point, it's safe to say protests have been commonplace under Macron enough to warrant an entire article and it should warrant a place in his own article's lead. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)