Talk:Frédéric Mitterrand/Archive 1

Someone with edit privileges correct this typo

Mitterrand, who is is openly bisexual, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.82.97 (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. NW (Talk) 01:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments about Roman Polanski

I have removed these, as they carry undue weight when balanced against the rest of Mitterrand's career. His comments are notable, but are more suited to the article on Polanski's recent arrest. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

His children and sexual orientation

This comment has been added and now reads...

He is openly bisexual and has three sons: Mathieu, Said and Jihed

this is just wrong, the children bit is worthless and looks uncited, why are his three children in the same phrase as his sexuality? The children are not even worth a mention. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I dislike all the sexual tagging, he is not allowed to be a french actor, he has to be a lesbian, bisexual or gay french actor, what rubbish, he is not notable for his sexual tastes, he is notable as a writer, as a politician and whatever. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A person's sexual orientation and family are very relevant to their life. A biography is about a person's life as a whole, not just his career. He is openly bi and there are LGBT themes in his work; the categorisation is correct. We don't WP:CENSOR info for anyone's benefit, a bio should be a full account of the subject's life. How can you claim it is irrelevant to a person's life that he has 3 children? Wiki editor 6 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is not controversial at all. why is it controversial? Also please cite for me that he has three children and why it is very relevent? Are any of them notable in their own right? no, so why do we need to name them> we don't. Also remove the childrens name from the single phrase that includes his sexuality. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Where I come from we treat people with respect and consider their talents first , their sexuality is their own buisness. he is a french actor and yet you only add french bgl actor. why is that? Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the sexuality from the children sentence, and moved it to a slightly more relevant place. I don't see the value in the children's names either. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the 3children to a seperate section, family life..the childrens names should also go. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He is a controversial figure, and meets the Wikipedia definition of that due to the frequent recent additions which are reverted and added back and forth. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No he is not, he is a normal person doing his thing, the roman polanski fall out is affecting half a dozen articles and this is one of them, that does not make this person controversial at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He is controversial not merely due to his connection to Polanksi - look at this article's history. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I added relevant, correct cats. The subject chose to make his sexual orientation everyone's business by going into public life, coming out and utilising LGBT themes in his work. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps it is more important to you than to him. I have looked at the history, there is nothing controversial about the history at all. I find that what you did by adding his childrens name to the same phrase as his sexuality controversial. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A subject's children are relevant, whether notable on not, hence why non-notable children (and parents, siblings, spouses) are mentioned on thousands of bios. A bio is an overview of a person's life, not merely their career. To not include a subject's children is a major omission when they exist. Their names are not excessive detail; in fact, there should be more info on the article about each of them: place of birth, year of birth, name of mother. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names the names etc of relatives are not used unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Kevin (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

His defense of Polanski

I agree that Frédéric Mitterrand is obviously a controversial person. Frédéric Mitterrand admitted to paying for sex with 'young boys’ in Thailand (telegraph.co.uk) is only one of the many controversies he has been involved in. The Polanski incident is not the first time he defends pedophilia, he been under harsh criticism from other French politicians before. Urban XII (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"On Tuesday, the opposition Socialists joined the chorus of outrage. Benoît Hamon, the party spokesman, said: “As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking.” (from the article linked above). Urban XII (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reporting of the accusations by the right wing daughter of pen, related to the book that has been released as fiction and pen is interpreting as fact and on which this link is reporting is nothing but, well..fiction. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect[1][2][3]. You are making a straw man argument. Urban XII (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose Le Pen is a socialist? "The Socialist party, the main opposition, said that it was appalled that the apparent practitioner of pedophile abuse was serving as a Cabinet Minister. "I find it shocking that a man can justify sex tourism under the cover of a literary account," said Benoît Hamon, a senior Socialist.[4] Urban XII (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Polanski related BLP violation edit

If it is not reverted I am going to report it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so bloody ridiculous. This case is making international headlines and he is about to loose his job[5]. It certainly needs to be mentioned in the article. Urban XII (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We can wait until the dust has settled as far as WP:BLPs go. Young might not mean illegal too. Verbal chat 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, for BLP, lets see where this goes to, or not, whatever way it goes. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, please be aware of not breaking BLP in comments. There are several on this page that directly accuse the subject of doing illegal things without evidence. 22:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He has been in the news for weeks for his defense of Polanski. Internationally, he's mostly known for the pedophilia-related controversy that involves his defense of Polanski. BLP does not apply in this case, all the information is from reliable sources (actually The Times and The Daily Telegraph, countless other sources can be found). Urban XII (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Protected

As a result of a request at WP:RFP, I have protected this page until such time as the dispute is resolved. Kevin (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest reinstating previous version

I suggest the previous version is reinstated. The content is supported by reliable sources and is relevant – Mitterrand is internationally mostly known for this incident. There are no valid reasons (i.e. reasons supported by Wikipedia policy) to remove it. Urban XII (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely outrageous that this is not mentioned LaFoiblesse 2009-10-08 00:55 (GMT) <edited comment to remove a claim that was made as a statement of fact and is therefore libelous, rather than as a reported opinion or allegation. Don't get this (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)>

Where is the RS, per BLP, for paedophilia? Verbal chat 04:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making straw man comments. All the information is sourced (The Daily Telegraph and The Times). It has never been claimed in the article that Mitterrand is a pedophile, the article has, and must, address his comments on the pedophilia case involving Polanski, who is convicted of child sexual abuse, as well as the recent controversy in France involving calls from several parties including the main opposition party (socialists) for his resignation. This is not a trivial incident, but a major political scandal that urgently needs to be covered by the article. Urban XII (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw: "The Socialist party, the main opposition, said that it was appalled that the apparent practitioner of pedophile abuse was serving as a Cabinet Minister" (The Times). Urban XII (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree: It is well documented and quite notable. Indeed, it is at the heart of his international fame and is at the center of a French political maelstrom. Ignoring its reality is irresponsible.99.142.5.86 (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

While the section heading is clearly inappropriate, and probably should be changed to something like "Sex Tourism Controversy," the extensive press coverage makes the notability of the controversy clear. The BBC, within the last few hours, reported not only the details of the controversy, as well as a commentator's suggestion that the dispute will affect European negotiations over supressing the sex trade with Thailand. Mitterand doesn't dispute the central charges, although he does challenge the interpretation of his references to having paid for sex with "boys" as implying underaged males. The Polanski controversy needs to be mentioned only briefly and as the matter which touched off renewed attention to Mitterand's prior statements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The section heading clearly fails BLP policy and was the main reason for the removal. The whole thing could do with a bit of fine tuning, but the heading is just wrong. Accusations of vandalism are unfounded. Verbal chat 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The section heading was never intended and could not reasonable be interpreted as an accusation of pedophilia against Mitterrand. Rather, it was meant as a summary of the main topic of the controversy, including his defense of a film maker convicted of sex with a child. The word pedophilia has been used by reliable sources like The Times in connection with the recent incident. However, the section heading itself was a minor issue at least to me. If you disagreed with the section heading, you could have changed just the section heading or suggested an alternative. All the contents of the section were supported by the two sources (The Daily Telegraph and The Times). Urban XII (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)"Sex Tourism Controversy" is an acceptable compromise, and more accurately indicates the greater issues at the heart of it. Are we now ready to return the prose with the objectionable header sorted out? = 99.142.5.86 (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I'd add that the text, as written, seems to come from a strong POV, even when compared to the sources. The "young boys" claim needs to be placed in context per Mitterrand's explanation, and there is some support for Mitterrand which is lacking. I also agree that this should be separated a bit from Polanski, which is a minor issue in context - a trigger, but potentially little more. - Bilby (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with Bilby. Verbal chat 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous and unfounded accusation. Please prove it. The text had the same tone and used the same expressions as The Times and The Daily Telegraph, the two sources. It may be your opinion that The Times holds "a strong POV", but that would be OR. Urban XII (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that The Times has a POV, but the text as previously inserted does. In The Times they stated Mitterrand's assertion that the "young boys" were not underage. Leaving that out is a significant problem with the proposed text. They also mentioned the credit the book gained upon release. In The Telegraph there was mention of Xavier Bertrand's support of Mitterrand, which is also missing, and I suspect other support will, or has, emerged. The proposed text only mentions one side and leaves open the suggestion that the "young boys" were underage, which is by no means necessarily the case. - Bilby (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a header with the book name and then a little bla bla about the book and then a couple of comments regarding the recent comments from le pen and perhaps something from another source and a rebuttal of some sort from Mitterand, I have a cite I read where the book is claimed to be literacy fantasy and not a factual representation.Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The book, the rent boys and the support of Polanski are certainly all of international notability, having been reported quite prominently in the mainstream media in several countries. The Times and The Telegraph are certainly both reliable, mainstream national newspapers with a sizeable readership. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} The three childrens names are surplus to requirements, they have no notability of their own and require a bit of protection in this situation, the names need removing. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If the names are removed, the fact he has three sons should remain in this article; it is relevant biographical info. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you want that to stay in the article you could find a citation for it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it should be removed until sourced, and only basic info (-names) should be included from the source. Verbal chat 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done NW (Talk) 23:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sentence for sentence; please show us the evidence that the text is not correct

Some users have insisted that the section on the sex tourism controversy is "highly libellous" and not supported by its sources. However, they have so far refused to back up their claims. Unless we are soon shown some evidence, I will consider these accusations to be dismissed once and for all.

Sentence for sentence:

"In 2005, he wrote a book where he admitted paying for sex with "young boys" in Thailand. "

"Frédéric Mitterrand admitted to paying for sex with 'young boys’ in Thailand"[6], this is even the heading of the Telegraph article, with further details below. The sentence is directly based upon the Telegraph article.

"After he emerged as one of the most vociferous defenders of Roman Polanski, who was convicted of having sex with a minor in the United States and who was arrested in 2009, Mitterrand came under harsh criticism from both the right-wing and the left-wing in French politics, and both the right-wing Front National and the Socialist Party called for his resignation. Socialist party spokesman Benoît Hamon stated: “As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking.”[4][5]"

Well, just read the two sources[7][8]. What exactly do you dispute here?

Urban XII (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we're beyond that now. There seems to be consensus for the edit with minimal changes.99.142.5.86 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is this consensus? Regarding the edit..I would say that just sticking in peodo this and peodo that gives it undue weight, we are not here to titilate, a full rounded encyclopaedic comment should be added, as I said with the context added, if it is all about what was in the book then give a synopsis of the book to explain what it is all about and then a rounded explanation of the comments from le pen and some other relevent details, not just...in a book he said he pays for children and he supports the other ... polanski. Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, not unanimous consent. It'll be fine O2R, we're tweaking it now.99.142.5.86 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We? Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The community. You, I, them. We. - 99.142.5.86 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the proposed text. There doesn't even appear to be a majority. We need to give it more time - Wikipedia is not news, and we can afford to take a bit longer to get this right. - Bilby (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} There seems to be a clear consensus to reinstate this version with the heading changed to "Sex tourism controversy", per the discussion above. Urban XII (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this edit should be replaced at all, the edit carries undue weight to comments made in a book that is not expanded on at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think it should be reinstated as it is currently phrased because it is not WP:NPOV and doesn't clarify by giving the context and Frédéric Mitterrand's side, although I do think the "controversy" does need to be included in the article. A couple of points that I think are important to include are

• According to the BBC, "the account of cruising for prostitutes in Thailand attracted little attention when it was published in 2005" [9]. So the recent controversy the passage in the book has attracted is only in the context of Frédéric Mitterrand's support for Polanski. It's also in the context of a political rival making an allegation for political reasons. Prior to that there hadn't been a controversy for 4 years of the book's life. For that reason, the context that the controversy is only in relation to his support of Polanski needs to be included, as well as who initiated the controversy (it was only "after a leader of the far-right National Front launched a tirade", according to the Associated Press [10]). Claiming that the passage of the book has been controversial without that context would be untrue.
• It's worth noting that in the book he refers to one of these "young boys" he was attracted to as being 20 years old ("J'imaginais Tony Leung à vingt ans" - the "controversial" passage is published in Le Monde [11]). Also, he has said that the term "boys" was used loosely and that "each time I was with people who were my age, or who were five years younger — there wasn't the slightest ambiguity" [12]; by which he means they were not underage. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, Mitterrand's clarification of the meaning of "young boys" and clarification that they were not underage needs to be included in the same sentence or immediately before or after the accusation.

Whatever anyone's personal feelings, Wikipedia needs to represent both sides of the "story" and make sure it's not given undue weight. Don't get this (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this material should be included in some form, but not this one. I oppose this request. The text should be workshopped on the page. Verbal chat 21:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I share the concerns. The POV problems have yet to be addressed, and this needs discussion before any change can be made. - Bilby (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Not done Clearly no consensus for changing the wording to that. Please hammer out an exact wording that a consensus can agree upon. NW (Talk) 23:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The new version

We are all in agreement that this needs inclusion in some way, so offer something up for inclusion, I was thinking to try to write something balanced tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If we are now suddenly all in agreement that it should be included, then I find it really astonishing that certain editors have engaged in personal attacks, disruptive vendetta sprees on numerous pages (I've lost count), and false accusations against other editors for alleged "BLP violation" by reporting factual, The Times-sourced news stories, all in order to have any mention of this "highly libellous"(!) case removed from the article. We already have a balanced version. You've had the opportunity to suggest changes to the text all the time, of course, or suggest a completely different text for that sake. Urban XII (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest reports..[13] , Off2riorob (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The article establishes the proper context: "A senior French politician, who jumped to the defense of Roman Polanski, appeared on national television to deny he's a pedophile after he wrote about paying boys for sex in a book." Of course we should include statements he makes in defense of himself. However, the fact that he claims "I never committed pedophilia" does not make the controversy go away, it's still there, and it's relevant. We should report what critics say and what he says in defense of himself. It is especially relevant that the main opposition party (socialists) has called for his resignation. I also think this article clearly establishes that the original section heading was not uncalled for and was not in any way a BLP violation, this is a controversy widely described by reliable sources as a controversy over pedophilia (i.e. over his comments on the Polanski pedophilia case and over his statements in his book). Urban XII (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban, your version is not balanced. The original edit that you made [14] and are trying to get reinstated made absolutely no attempt at all to present Mitterand's side of the story, literally not one single word. You chose to edit war over that wording instead of attempting to collaborate to find a compromise, which is why the article is protected. WP:BLP#Criticism_and_praise is clear, you cannot add a criticism section to someone's article and make no effort at all to present their side of the story. The section needs to be "written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints". You gave 100% of the space to one viewpoint and chose a non-neutral heading and the article is protected because of your attempt to do that. I suggest that you work to come up with a neutral wording that complies with BLP and also presents Mitterand's side, rather than trying to get your original wording reinserted. Don't get this (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making false accusations. I did never "chose to edit war over that wording", the edit war was started by User:Verbal. I have never insisted on any particular wording and has always been open to discussion of both the wording of the section and the heading. I have only reverted mass content deletion per policy. If an editor held the opinion that not sufficient weight was given to Mitterrand's point of view, he should have made changes or suggested changes to the wording instead of deleting content in contravention of Wikipedia policy. The initial version was only a summary of how the case was presented by most mainstream, English language reliable sources and thus perfectly neutral, btw. (although there have since been some developments that should be included as well). Urban XII (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a false accusation: text added [15], your revert [16], your revert [17], page protected for edit warring [18]. That you were edit warring with someone else does not mean you weren't edit warring. Your original edit was not neutral, the reason it was not was best explained by Bilby here [19] and here [20] as well as for the reasons I gave above (literally not one single word of Mitterand's side of the story. Entirely, 100% and exclusively one sided: biased, which is contrary to BLP). Your argument is that because you used a reliable source, your edit was thus neutral. That is not true, the reason your edit is biased is because it uses a reliable source but only uses material from that source that represents only one side of the story and deliberately ignores the material in that source that represents the other side of the story. Don't get this (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Utterly false. Urban XII (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Section title for new version

I suggest Sex controversy as the section title. Don't get this (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated before, the wording of the heading is a minor issue at least to me. Sex controversy, sex tourism controversy as suggested by others, pedophilia controversy, or something else (Polanski and sex tourism controversy?), don't make a big difference. Urban XII (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

More sources

Here are some more sources, which clearly demonstrate both that this urgently needs to be mentioned in the article, and that the original heading "Pedophilia controversy" was perfectly OK - this is indeed a controversy over the issue of pedophilia. "Pedophilia controversy" does not mean Mitterrand is a pedophile, it only means he is implicated in a controversy concerning pedophilia (his support of Polanski, who is convicted of such acts, and the allegations against himself), a fact that is supported by numerous reliable sources and has received worldwide attention; he is primarily known internationally in connection with this incident. Urban XII (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• French culture minister in 'paedophile scandal' (inthenews.co.uk)
• French politician backing Roman Polanski release paid for sex with "young boys" (The Daily Mirror)
• I'm no paedophile, says French minister who had sex with boys (The Independent)
• I'm no pedophile, says Mitterrand (euronews)
• Frédéric Mitterrand admits paying for sex but denies paedophilia (The Daily Telegraph)
• Mitterrand fights for his job after rent boy admission (The Independent)
• French minister clings to post in sex tourism furor (Reuters)
• Calls grow to sack French culture minister who 'paid for boys in Thailand' (The Scotsman)
• Polanski-Supporting French Culture Minister Bragged About Sex With ‘Young Boys (New York magazine)
• Calls to sack 'boy sex' minister (Press Association)
• Nicolas Sarkozy backs 'sex tourism' minister Frederic Mitterrand (The Daily Telegraph)
• Sex trade scandal engulfs French minister (euronews)
• Polanski backer Mitterrand is in controversy of his own (LA Times)
• French Culture Minister Mitterrand in Pedophilia Row (TIME)
• French culture minister denies paedophila charge (theage.com.au)
• French Culture Minister Refuses to Resign Over Paid Sex Trysts (New York Times)
• French culture minister targeted over sex tourism (Associated Press)
• French minister who demanded Roman Polanski be freed paid for sex with 'young boys' in Thailand (Daily Mail)

These examples that you've produced to attempt to show that your original heading [21] of "Paedophilia controversy" (that lead to edit warring and the protection of the article [22]) was a good title to use in the Wikipedia article proves instead that only 6 out of 18 articles mention paedophile in their heading (only 33%). The publications in your list that use the word paedophile in their titles also have other articles that describe the same controversy but don't use the word paedophile in their title (eg. The Independent: Mitterrand fights for his job after rent boy admission), so the same list can be constructed with 0 out of 18 of the articles using the word paedophile in their title (0%). This list demonstrates the opposite of what you are trying to demonstrate. It demonstrates that "Pedophilia controversy" is a bad choice of heading. Don't get this (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how you get to that conclusion. The links prove that "pedophilia controversy" is not in any way a BLP violation. Whether we in the end should use "pedophilia controversy", "sex tourism controversy", "sex controversy" or something else (i.e. which title is better) is irrelevant because it's a completely different matter. A title considered less fortunate by some editors is not necessarily a BLP violation. Urban XII (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I need to correct my figures above. One of the articles that you claim has a title involving the word paedophilia doesn't have that title. The TIME article title is The French Culture Minister: A Friend to Polanski — and Young Boys Too rather than the title you claim "French Culture Minister Mitterrand in Pedophilia Row". So the figures are that only 5 out 18 articles that use a title involving the word paedophilia (rather than 6 out of 18). Over 70% of the titles you gave as examples don't use paedophile in their titles. This demonstrates that, based on your list of article titles, "Paedophilia controversy" would not be a normal (neutral, unbiased) choice for a section title. Don't get this (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, the TIME title is "French Culture Minister Mitterrand in Pedophilia Row – TIME", check it yourself. Apparently, the title has been changed in the body (which stricly speaking isn't the title of the page as a web page), while the head title still is "French Culture Minister Mitterrand in Pedophilia Row – TIME", the original title. Your figures are completely irrelevant, this is a random selection of articles only meant to demonstrate that the word pedophilia has been used by a number of sources in connection with this incident, percentages have no relevance and making your figures is OR. Urban XII (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What is certainly correct is that TIME have changed the title of their article from one that had paedophile in it to one that doesn't (I regard a title as the huge bold title text at the top of their article, not the insignificant HTML that they forgot to change in the document HEAD tag). Publications don't change their article titles without a good reason so I conclude that TIME don't believe a title with the word paedophile in it was a good idea. It's a belief that they share with me, and with more than 70% of the other titles you provided. Don't get this (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mitterand's autobiography "The Bad Life"

This is a good title for the new section regarding this situation, I am today going to write a small section to offer for inclusion, if anyone else also wants to write something to also offer that would be great. Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Mitterrand's autobiography "The Bad Life"

Mitterrand's autobiography "The Bad Life" or "La mauvaise vie" the original French title was a best seller in 2005. In the book he details his "delight" whilst visiting the brothels of Bangkok. In the book he wrote, "I got into the habit of paying for boys ... The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire I no longer needed to restrain or hide," At the time Mitterrand was applauded for his honesty, but since he publicly defended Roman Polanski when he was detained in Switzerland on an American extradition warrant for having sex with a thirteen year old girl, he has had to defend his writings. On October 5th 2009 Marine Le Pen of the French National Front Party quoted sections of the autobiography on French television, accused him of having sex with underage boys and "sex tourism" and demanded Mitterrand resign his position as culture minister. In his defence Mitterand stated, "I condemn sexual tourism, which is a disgrace. I condemn paedophilia, which I have never in any way participated in."

---

Support insertion of this new section. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. No consensus. Urban XII (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, what are your problems with the edit, do you like it? Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The section title is inappropriate, because the reason this issue warrants a section is the controversy itself, which involves more than just the book that was published several years ago. Without his defense of Polanski, there wouldn't be a controversy at this time. Also, the text is dishonest, because it suggests he has only been criticized by Marine Le Pen, while he has in fact been criticized by politicians from the entire French political spectrum, notably by the Socialist Party, but even by other members of his own government, as well as by other parties, and the case has received worldwide attention, which the text fails to convey. Urban XII (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The original critical comments were from le pen, we could add another if there is someone who is relevent, who would you suggest? Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was also suggested on the BLP board that the polanski story be kept to a comment here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is actually the book that is the source of all the controversy here, he supported polanski, that is not controversial and his support caused the book to be brought up for discussion, it is not his support of polanski that is the issue here at all, it is the comments Mitterrand made in his autobiography in 2005. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support as better than the nothing we have at the moment. I came to this article to see how we're covering the sex tourism controversy; I was amazed to see it currently isn't mentioned on this page. It's certainly the main reason anyone will be reading this article at the moment. I'm aware of the BLP policy, but this has been mentioned widely - see the sources above - and can certainly be covered in a neutral manner compliant with BLP. The paragraph suggested by Off2riorob is not perfect (e.g. where's a source for the claim that he was initially 'applauded for his honesty'?), but it's a good enough start - we should insert it as soon as possible. Robofish (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, asap. The comment that he was originally applauded is in the link. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I could accept the following wording, based upon both suggested versions. It's necessary to mention that he was criticized by others than just the Front National. If we need a specific quote, we could use the one in the original version by Benoît Hamon[23] (also see [24]). Urban XII (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In 2005, he published an autobiography, The Bad Life (French: La mauvaise vie), which became a bestseller. In the book he details his "delight" whilst visiting the brothels of Bangkok. In the book he wrote, "I got into the habit of paying for boys ... The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire I no longer needed to restrain or hide". At the time Mitterrand was applauded for his honesty. However, after he emerged as one of the most vociferous defenders of Roman Polanski, who was convicted of having sex with a minor in the United States and who was arrested in 2009, he came under harsh criticism from both the right-wing and the left-wing in French politics, with both the Front National and the Socialist Party calling for his resignation. On October 5th 2009 Marine Le Pen quoted sections of the autobiography on French television, accused him of having sex with underage boys and "sex tourism" and demanded Mitterrand resign his position as culture minister. In his defence Mitterand stated, "I condemn sexual tourism, which is a disgrace. I condemn paedophilia, which I have never in any way participated in."

Have you got a citation for this..after he emerged as one of the most vociferous defenders of Roman Polanski? I know there were a lot of people that supported him.. the def of vociferous is.. marked by or given to vehement insistent outcryOff2riorob (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also , you would expect all his political opponents to call for his resignation, is there anyone else of notability that is not one of his political opponents? Also if we add another person who is critical we should perhaps add a comment from someone who supports him, Sarkosy has commented in support of him , prehaps we could add that, personally I fail to see the value of lists of comments from john and harry. The original le pen comments are the most worthy of adding. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, you have altered the timeline, the original , first raising of this was by le pen and therefore should go before the critisism. Also , you add the word harsh critisism, he has supporters and critics, and he is still in his job. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I support Off2riorob's proposed edit at the top of this section. I do have a few suggestions below, but I still support the edit whether you include them or not.

• "Autobiography controversy" could work as a section title if your proposed title is a sticking point
• I think it's important to include why Mitterand is denying the accusation. In your proposed edit you have

• an accusation by Le Pen and why the accusation has been made (because Mitterand wrote about young boys in his book)
• a denial by Mitterand but not why he denies it, which I think is important (surely everyone denies an accusation of paedophilia, what's important is why they deny the accusation). The reason is "Each time I was with people who were my age, or who were five years younger — there wasn't the slightest ambiguity — and who were consenting," and that he uses the term "boys" loosely, both in his life and in the book [25]

• he insists the book isn't an autobiography. The BBC refers to it as "autobiographical novel",[26] rather than an autobiography. The publisher describes it as a "novel inspired by autobiography".[27]
• a link to the passage in the book would be fair. It's the evidence that the accusation is based on, people should be able to read it for themselves. [28].

Don't get this (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I will add a bit to address those points..Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Mitterrand's autobiography "The Bad Life"

Mitterrand's autobiography "The Bad Life" or "La mauvaise vie" the original French title was a best seller in 2005. In the book he details his "delight" whilst visiting the brothels of Bangkok. In the book he wrote, "I got into the habit of paying for boys ... The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire I no longer needed to restrain or hide." At the time Mitterrand was applauded for his honesty, but since he publicly defended Roman Polanski when he was detained in Switzerland on an American request for extradition for having sex with a thirteen year old girl, he has had to defend his writings.

On October 5th 2009 Marine Le Pen of the French National Front Party quoted sections of the autobiography on French television, accused him of having sex with underage boys and also of "sex tourism" and demanded Mitterrand resign his position as culture minister. Amongst others he was also criticised by the Socialist party spokesman Benoît Hamon, who stated: “As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking.” Some Conservatives supported Mitterrand, a close aide to Nicolas Sarkozy said the French President backed his Culture Minister and described the controversy around him as "pathetic." Mitterrand also insists the book isn't an autobiography, the publisher describes it as a "novel inspired by autobiography" and the BBC refers to it as "autobiographical novel" In his own defence Mitterand stated, "Each time I was with people who were my age, or who were five years younger — there wasn't the slightest ambiguity — and who were consenting," and that he uses the term "boys" loosely, both in his life and in the book, he also stated, "I condemn sexual tourism, which is a disgrace. I condemn paedophilia, which I have never in any way participated in."

This is a completly new section for the article to be inseted between the biography section and the references. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• I also support this new revision and any further revision that uses it as a base. I think it's good, it gives all sides their say. Don't get this (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Some wider discussion on this amended proposal would be useful. Kevin (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but we can't drag them in screaming and kicking can we? Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I generally support the proposed text as well. I think we could massage the prose a bit, but there's no rush, and that could be done after it was in place and PP has been lifted (whenever that may be). The coverage in the proposed text seems fair and neutral, and it would be good to have this in place. - Bilby (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me

Trying to censor or "protect" (which means "put a hold on") this page on the grounds of its controversial subject is, as of today, as realistic as trying to cover the hole in a dam with a 2in patch.

There are two events here which are significant to the present state of affairs and which should be therefore included in this article:

• Mitterrand's comments on Polanski's arrest,
• and Mitterrand's autobiography.

Denial can only come from Mitterrand supporters or people who take the publication of these two facts as a personal attack on their orientation or preferences, political or otherwise. If this is to be a the "free" encyclopedia it doesn't quite look so now. Many idiots here should be ashamed of themselves Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, a link to Mitterand autobio can go in the external links. Mitterands comments on polanskis arrest, could well be worth inclusion, could you provide a citation for the exact comment, this can be added after this edit has been included as we are looking to add something to bring us up to date. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the first thing is "disprotecting" this page. Who on Earth made any effort to consider this a contentious issue and to protect it in the first place? Are we discussing the sex of angels here? Are Mitterrand's comments on Polanski or the contents of his autobiography a matter of contention, for crying out loud? Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a disputed edit and as I remember a little edit warring...check to history. You can also go to the unprotecting page and request unprotection. Do you know where that page is? Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I protected this page to prevent an edit war from continuing. Requests for unprotection can be made here, or if you want a wider audience, to WP:RFP. Kevin (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Kev, can we insert this edit request, there is more or less a small consensus and then can we unlock the article? Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Another admin may well do that, but as I previously participated in the discussion here, I need to see a clearer consensus to avoid the appearance of any impropriety on my part. If everyone involved here at the moment can state that the proposal is acceptable, at least for now, then I would unprotect as well. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh...

And if the edits and the discussion are due to the fears there might be a bias against Mitterrand, I bet some of the "protectors" missed some points since at least two references in the current article are sybilline (or perhaps not so) attempts at discrediting him:

• highlighting a pre-WII fascist among his ancestors (which is as tendentious, if not more, as highlighting the things HE did and HE wrote) and
• listing two illustrious predecessors, renowned intellectuals, at his current office: Jack Lang and Andre Malraux, which is as unequal a comparison as anything that could be found or made up.

In other words: the "protection" of this page is not only out of line considering the current state of affairs, but has also been done in a visibly inept way. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The page protection occurs without any support for the current version. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Walter, if you are claiming that the article is protected in order for it to be censored you are incorrect. It's protected entirely because of an edit war (or edit dispute) whereby two editors continually added and removed one particular section of text [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. Like you, I don't agree that it should have been protected (because the protection policy says that in that situation it is better to block the concerned editor or editors rather than the article and because the administrator that protected the page had himself removed slightly similar material [36] and so could be regarded as being a peripheral part of the dispute), but unfortunately it is protected. Luckily there is a very simple way to get the page unprotected and that is to resolve the dispute. As stated in the page block edit [37], once the consensus is determined and the dispute is over the page can be unprotected. The dispute is over what text to add to the article and that dispute seems to be resolved now via some text Off2riorob has written and then revised to accommodate a consensus view. If you could indicate which of the suggestions above you would like to be added to the article, it would help whoever is reviewing the edit request to determine what the consensus is. Once it's added the dispute will be over and the page can be unprotected. Don't get this (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, once this dispute is sorted we can and will ask for the unlocking. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't get this, If the last edit you're talking about is Off2riorob 's 22:13, 9 October 2009 one, then I'll have to agree with it too -- I'd put some emphasis, though, on how vehement Mitterrand was in his defense of Polanski and the exact words he used. And, as you said, the best thing was to block wayward editors rather than protecting the whole page. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Article unprotected

I tried to leave an edit summary in the unprotect log, but I guess there wasn't enough space there. Here is what I wanted to say:

I am unprotecting the article. Please note that if there is a dispute on anything BLP-related in the article, it should be discussed first on the talk page and should not be in the article while it is being discussed. I would encourage everyone editing this article to take a voluntary 1RR limitation while working on this article. I will watch over the article, and will not take well to edit warring. NW (Talk) 00:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There has so far been no BLP related dispute at this page, as established at this talk page. I wasn't aware until now that the person who protected the article was part of the content dispute, himself citing undue weight, not BLP. I'd like to note that the initial version was way shorter than the current one. I'm currently expanding on other aspects of his life. Urban XII (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Title of the section

User Urban has changed the title of the new section without any discussion or consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There has so far been no consensus to use any particular title. Of course I can change the title if I feel it does not adequately describe the content of the section. The section largely deals with the 2009 controversy, not his book in itself, adding "and 2009 defense of Roman Polanski" makes the title representative of the section's content. (I already stated this concern before on the talk page). Urban XII (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Your position was totally unsupported, there was a consensus for the original edit and you would do well to revert your alteration to the title and bring youe issue here to see if you have any support. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus at all to use your title. Your claim is ridiculous, my position has in the course of this dispute been supported by a number of editors. I'm not going to change the title to a title that does not adequately describe the content of the section, if you feel strongly about your own title, that's your concern. Urban XII (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus for my edit is clearly on this page, but for yours, you will find nothing, discussion is the way to go, stuffing in your favoured edit will get you nowhere. Also you have added uncited material, I suggest you also take it out or add a citation. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your title at this talk page at all. I've added material translated from the French Wikipedia which is very easy verifiable, in order to balance your way too long section, your last comments are simply unconstructive. "Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" - do you challenge it and on which grounds? Do you have any non-disruptive grounds for challenging the information on which university he went to at all? Urban XII (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It is your responsibility if you want to add anything to cite it correctly, whereever it came from. You can repeat that there is no consensus as many times as you like but my edit has been discussed here and supported, on the other hand you have changed the title of the section without any discussion at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. Urban XII (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Above, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz suggested the title "Sex Tourism Controversy" which I supported. Later, Don't get this suggested "Sex controversy" which I also said was fine. Then you suggested "Mitterrand's autobiography "The Bad Life"" which I said was problematic because the section largely does not deal with Mitterrand's autobiography The Bad Life in itself, only some quotes from it in relation to a 2009 controversy. Hence, the title does not properly describe the content of the section. I've previously stated that I don't consider the title a big issue, and I would accept most sensible proposals for titles. My edit to the title recently was only an amendment to the title to make sure the section described its content, I didn't remove your title, nor did I change it to any of the titles previously considered (i.e. it's still your title with an amendment). But I'm open to suggestions for better titles (maybe something short like "2009 controversy" would do?). Urban XII (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Your discussion here is a bit moot after you have inserted your edit without any discussion, there was and can clearly be seen on this page a consensus for the edit that was made, if you wanted to alter it you should have first come here to discuss it and then see what input you got. I have asked you to revert it and seek consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus on the title at all, the title was an undecided issue. My amendment to your title was no different from the fact that you inserted your preferred title without consensus on the issue in the first place. If you want to continue arguing over this instead of seeking a consensus solution on the title, this will be difficult. Unlike you, I have never insisted on any particular title, and have in fact accepted all previous proposals from other users. I certainly would support a proposal from you if it was an adequate description of the content of the section. Urban XII (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban,

• given that your previous edit warring [38], [39], [40] caused this page to be protected [41]
• and given that there was an extended discussion about the passage before it was added (above)
• and given that consensus had been reached when an administrator added the passage to the article and unprotected the page (consensus was Walter Sobchak0 [42], Bilby [43], Don't get this [44], Robofish [45], Off2riorob [46] agreeing to the passage and only you disagreeing, although nearly all your objections were added to the passage anyway)
• and given the concerns raised about you at the administrators noticeboard ("using Wikipedia as a soapbox" [47], "here solely to Right Great Wrongs" [48], devoted to shouting down other editors [49], making controversial changes - i.e edit war reverting - rather than discussing on the talk page [50])

it was unwise of you to change the section title without discussing it on this talk page first. It is starting to look like you are primarily interested in promoting your views on Polanski rather than adding content to Wikipedia in compliance with her policies and guidelines. While I suspect that I agree with your views, I don't think "using Wikipedia as a soapbox" or Righting Great Wrongs is a good idea. Please could you revert your against consensus change to the passage that had already been agreed to by consensus and discuss it on this talk page first. Don't get this (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Untrue, it was not my edit-warring. I've never started an edit war at this article. There is no consensus at all, the false claim does not become true by repeating it. Please refrain from personal attacks, it does nothing to further your cause - there have never been any legitimate "concerns raised about" me, citing previous disputes where similar concerns were raised about the users who made the counter-concerns against their opponents is irrelevant. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Mitterrand article, don't use it as a soapbox for discussing the issues you might have with users. And talking about looking like primarily being interested in promoting your views rather than adding content to Wikipedia, where did you ever add any content to Wikipedia? "Reverting - rather than discussing on the talk page" is a very good description of the user who previously caused this article to be protected, btw. Urban XII (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That there was a WP:BLP issue which needed resolving has been clearly established... Verbal chat 22:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been established that there was no BLP issue (see for instance 1 and 2). The claim that this section was a BLP violation seems to have been withdrawn by everyone except you - now we hear talk of edit-warring instead (an edit-war over content started by you). If it has been established that there was ever a BLP violation, please show me exactly where (also note that the admin who protected the page cited Edit warring / Content dispute[51], not BLP. Urban XII (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You were edit warring, according to the protecting admin and various other editors. Here is the sequence of edits leading up to the page protection [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. The request for protection [58] and the protection [59]. User:Kevin, the protecting administrator, said "I protected this page to prevent an edit war from continuing" [60]. Your actions were then further described as edit warring on the administrators noticeboard: by User:Gandalf61 ("I am not defending the edit warring" [61]), User:Wilhelm meis ("Urban chose to simply edit war the contested material back into the article again" [62]), User:Christopher Parham ("so I think the problem is the edit warring rather than the content itself" [63]). Those comments are all in relation to this particular article and the edit war that lead up to it's protection. Claiming that you didn't start the edit war does not mean you weren't edit warring. The concerns raised about your behaviour that I mentioned above are all in relation to a report on the administrators noticeboard about you and in relation to this article and are from the 8th and 9th of this month (the 9th being yesterday). The only reason I have mentioned those comments on this talk page is because the behaviours they are describing are the same behaviours that have lead you to change a passage that had a consensus view, without discussing it on the talk page. If you are claiming that these comments are not relevant because they were also levelled against other people, you are incorrect. In that administrators noticeboard thread [64], there was no claim that anyone else was "using Wikipedia as a soapbox", "here solely to Right Great Wrongs" or devoted to shouting down other editors. User:Christopher Parham did point out that he agreed that you reverting rather than taking it to the talk page was a problem, but that he also thought that applied to both parties. That doesn't mean that what you did was not a problem though. If you are trying to imply that I have some point of view, you are definitely correct. My point of view is solely and exclusively that Wikipedia policies should be complied with. My views have nothing at all to do with Mitterand, Polanski or whatever other point of view pet causes you want to promote, argue about and have fights over. My views are entirely and exclusively that WP:BLP and WP:NPOV need to be complied with, regardless of what my personal opinion about a subject is. Please could you revert your against-consensus change to the passage title that had already been agreed to by consensus and discuss it on this talk page first. The consensus for that passage was arrived at by five other editors agreeing to it [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] and an administrator adding it to the page, with only you disagreeing, although nearly all your objections were added to it anyway. If you are not prepared to revert the title, can you state that you are not prepared to do so. Don't get this (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of you (an account which has only been active at this talk page except a minor edit to Carrie Fisher) or notorious edit warrior/POV pusher Wilhelm meis on past edit wars does not interest me. There was a brief edit war at this article, but it was started by User:Verbal, not me, and I was the only part in that edit war who used the talk page, hence, I'm the one less to blame for that edit war. There is no consensus on any title. I have invited other users to discuss this issue in a civilized way and agree on a sensible title that everyone could agree on, which really shouldn't be that difficult - my only concern has been that the title should at least be representive of the content of the section. You seem more interested in using the talk page as a soap box to discuss issues of no relevance to the improvement of the Frédéric Mitterrand article, and to create as much noise, distraction and disruption as possible. Urban XII (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your poor edit and your reinserting it was the edit war, a pattern you are again repeating by inserting your favoured edit without any consensus to support it and then refusing to remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your edit is the poor one. Your attempt to shout down other editors from making improvements to the article (including recent wikilawyering attacks when I expanded on his education and work experience), your stubborn insistence on your own preferred title, your refusal to discuss its wording or alternatives, and your attempt to ignore concerns raised by other editors, is not constructive. Unlike you, I have always been open to discuss this issue, I don't have a "favoured edit" at all. You inserted a title that was not agreed upon, I'm not quite happy with it, but made a minor improvement to it to make it representative of the content of the section, which made it acceptable, although perhaps not the most optimal choice. I can edit the article (in fact, I'm the only one concerned with the overall quality of this article, who has made edits to other parts of the article than the controversial section). Unlike you, I don't insist on any particular wording, not even the current one. Urban XII (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban, your claim that there was no consensus for the title is incorrect. A few different passages were proposed to be added to the protected article and the only one that obtained any agreement was the one by Off2riorob. That passage included a title and five editors agreed to it being added to the article [70], [71], [72], [73], [74] with the only person expressing any disagreement being you. You are the only person that even mentioned the title. Five separate editors agreed that the passage should be added to the article and raised no objections at all to the title of that passage, even though that passage title was repeated 3 times in 3 separate section titles in large bold text. If they did not agree to the title of that passage they would have said so. An administrator then reviewed the edit request and agreed that there was consensus for the passage and unprotected the page. Please can you explain why, given that five editors agreed to the passage (which included it's title as a bolded heading 3 times on the page) and none of them raised the slightest objection to the title, you believe there was no consensus for the title? Don't get this (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I question there was really 5 people who agreed to it. The discussion also really concerned the main text, none of the alleged supporters discussed the title. I don't see how this could reasonably be interpreted as a support of your title, it was a user who was mostly upset by the fact that the case wasn't mentioned at all (thanks to User:Verbal and his edit war to remove it), and rightly so. I think we need a separate discussion on its title. I have raised a serious concern which is of a technical nature (the title does not describe the section content in an adequate way, a section about his 2005 book would not focus entirely on a 2009 controversy and ignore 99,999 % of the book), which Off2riorob has chosen to ignore. I have suggested other solutions and declared my willingness to support practically speaking any solution that addressed this problem, which shouldn't be difficult at all. You have chosen to quarrel instead of seeking a solution to the problem (I was also attacked in a very similar way for adding totally uncontroversial material on his education that i translated from the French Wikipedia). Why are you behaving so unconstructive? Urban XII (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your repeated comments are becoming very tedious, if you want some added good faith and to discuss the title then show some yourself and take out your change and discuss it in a decent way. What is the point in discussing anything with you, you don't respect consensus and don't seem to care about anything except you clear single obsession with Polanski Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to respond to such comments. If you feel strongly about your own title, reinsert it yourself. Why should I add a bad, unencyclopedic title which has no consensus at all? Urban XII (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted title

Urban has stated twice that "the wording of the heading is a minor issue at least to me" [75] and that he doesn't "insist on any particular wording, not even the current one" [76]. He has also indicated that "if you feel strongly about your own title, reinsert it yourself." [77] For those reasons I'll revert the title back to the one agreed by consensus [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]. If you would like to change the section title, please discuss it here first. Don't get this (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Procedural note: There's no title agreed upon by consensus, the fact that a title is enforced without discussion (of the title) does not change that situation. Also note that I have raised the concern that the title does not describe the content of the section in an adequate way, which the user in question so far has refused to comment on. Urban XII (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed section title

How about Autobiography controversy? Don't get this (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC).

That's a sensible title I would agree to without hesitation. Urban XII (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO no title should have the word controversy in it, it is a bit titilating and leading.

Yea, I can understand why. I don't agree with titles involving "sex", "paedophilia", "sex with boys", "rent boy" and "sex tourism" for similar reasons, they tend to condemn the subject in the title before readers even get to read the rest of the text and I can understand if you think "controversy" is heading in that direction. I know that when I read such titles I have immediately and almost unconsciously decided the subject is guilty, before the rational part of my brain gets a chance to kick in. Unlike newspapers, Wikipedia doesn't need to grab the readers attention and pander to our gossipy tendency for a salacious title to sell copy, Wikipedia sells itself on its neutrality rather than its catchy headlines. Also, from what I've seen in the last few years, those types of title don't seem to last very long on Wikipedia any more, they get changed into more neutral titles. Anyway, I'm fine with the title the way it is (see WP:MOS#Article titles, headings, and sections, I don't think "Mitterrand's autobiography The Bad Life" conflicts with anything in there, specifically, I don't think it's too broad). I'm also OK with a compromise that describes it as a controversy, whatever you guys decide. At this point I'll stop editing as I was only interested in making sure both sides of the story were accurately included in the article. Don't get this (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't go, you are doing good work..Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually when you look at it what you have got is more of a storm in a tea cup, Mitterrand wrote a book almost five years ago, it is a best seller and acclaimed as honest, then foolishly he supports polanski and then the only winner in this (le pen) jumps up and grabs a lot of attention and puplicity for herself and her party by attacking him, then his political opponents join in and call for his resignation (they would wouldn't they) and the people that support polanski's arrest join in and start with the, look child sex person supports child sex person.... and then nothing happens and they all move on to the next storm in a tea cup that supports their position. Off2riorob (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that really is your opinion about the whole thing, but is it relevant to the Wikipedia article (WP:SOAP)? It is an undeniable fact that there is a controversy that needs to be mentioned (agreed upon by all users by now I think). The section you've written is not about his book, but 100 % about the 2009 controversy. A section about the book would look entirely different. If you don't like the word controversy, then come up with something else. I don't insist on having controversy in the title either, only that we don't use misleading titles. Urban XII (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite think the title now is a good one and it googles up nicely, although that is not the point I imagine. Any controversy that there is, has been mentioned in the article, so it is covered, what is it that you think is missing from the title, I will look for and read (there must be one somewhere) the article that talks about nameing sections, have you got the link? somewhere in the MOS perhaps? IMO it would be a lot better to have more in the section regards the book details but it is in french as yet and I couldn't find a detailed synopsis, if the book details were expanded then we could have a sub section titled, perhaps something like controversy surrounding the book, or something like that? Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Mitterrand in Thailand

When was he there? Is he claiming that he was not a sex tourist? If so how does he explain travelling thousands of miles and frequenting brothels whilst there? Wiki editor 6 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The relevent passage from the book is in the external section of the article. Its in french though. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki editor, have you got a citation to confirm your addition and change to male brothels from brothels?, the brothels comment is in the citation. Also your extended linkage to incude polanski, I want to remind people that this article is the bio of mitterrand, polanski has got his own page. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed brothels to male brothels as he stated the prostitutes in the brothels were boys. Therefore it could not have been the most common type of brothel, which is one in where the staff are female. Something that obvious does not need a citation. I didn't create a new link to Polanski's arrest, I merely improved the location of a double square bracket. There was one link to the arrest article from this article prior to my edits today, and that remains the case. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a cite that says they were specifically male brothels you should leave is as it is in the citation, it maybe your opinion that they were specifically male brothels but we can not be certain that was the case and it is enough to link to brothels in general. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said this is Mitterrands article and not a place to link link link to polanski, choose one in the section and that is enough. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the link to male brothels that is uncited but presumed, no by me, I suggest as a compromise changing the link to brothels of Bangkok , keeping the same destination but not highlighting it in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The BBC reference already included in the article describes it as "set in a Thai gay club" [83], so you could use that. I agree that whatever you do choose to call it does need a reference though. I doubt anyone here is an expert in whatever intricacies there are in the Thai sex club or brothel or whatever scene, so deciding what to call it off your own bat is a bad idea. It's very possible that they're normal clubs where prostitutes also hang out (which is what I assumed and so wouldn't call them brothels), it's possible they're exclusively brothels where people only go to pay for sex and nothing else (which I would call a brothel, although having never been to one perhaps I'm wrong), it's possible they're a mixture of both scenarios, it's possible they're something else no one here has thought of. All sorts of things are possible and without a detailed knowledge of Thailand's scene in that particular city at that particular time, it's best to defer to what can be supported by references rather than using one's own assumptions. Don't get this (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that, I will consider that..Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Did Mitterrand use the term brothel (or any French word with that meaning) to describe the kind of establishment in which he met the male prostitutes with whom he engaged in sexual activity? Wiki editor 6 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a big issue but your addition of male brothel is uncited, as of so far, it is not really a used expression, is it? There are cites for thai brothels and User:don't get this, has provided a BBC cite for ..Thai gay club .. so what do you think? Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The revert cycle

This is a good article for new users and older editors to read and work with. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle have a read, it basically says that if you add something then someone else reverts it then you do not put it back, that is the start of an edit war, you take yourself off to the talkpage to talk about it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)