Talk:Ségolène Royal

Policies

The economy is normally central to any election but the policies section makes no mention of economics?

No mention of economics? I wonder why...

Bibliography

I don't understand why the BnF/Biblio.Nat.de France format is objectionable? The entries which were substituted for those were insufficient: non-French readers, particularly, will not be able to find things without publisher names and locations, etc. Also, why the elimination of those entries which were dropped?

--Kessler 20:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Max_rspct: so is it the eng.Wikipedia rule that nothing is to appear here that isn't written in English, not even book citations and links and references? So how are people who know English supposed to find out about people & events in the Outside World, which doesn't?

You said: "deleted long list of books (mostly hers) which are useless this being EN w'pedia".

The Segolene Royal bibliography, which I just restored to the article, lists 14 books: not very many... She is a leading French politician, currently favored to win the presidency of France in next year's election. Very little has been written about her in English. Most of us eng.Wikipedia readers want to know what's happening in that election, and many of us know French, so give us a break and let us read about it.

And how about discussing this in advance, next time, before you just dump somebody else's work? That's what the Discussion pages are for.

--Kessler 14:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I just replied to Max rspct, about his "cleanup" and "style" concerns here:

OK I see the Marty Meehan controversy, and I understand the need for unbias. But not for English-only... that would eliminate the entire non-English "outside world" from consideration/appreciation by us anglo-Americans, and the Internet has too much of that already, I think Wikipedia should help bridge that gulf not broaden it...

So how about a compromise: I'll add some English-language references, too, and make sure that some at least are critical of Royal or favor her opponents. A couple of the books already cited in fact oppose her, but I'll double-check that and add some others.

The "wikipedia's 'style' of bibliography" reference in your note interests me: would you please point me to an explanation of that, somewhere here? The format I've used is designed for user database / bibliographic software -- delimited fields, or at least fields they can delimit, equipped with tags the software can grab for its indexing -- the tags I've used are those of the Bib.nat.de France, just because they were convenient. Wikipedia has lots of school, student, library, researcher users now who will download these entries: beats having to re-key it all in.

--Kessler 16:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• First, sign your comments on the talk page. Look in the special characters box below the "save page buttons" its right there. Second, why is this bibliography so extensive? These article excerpts are quite lengthy. The information should be put into the article body, cited, and not left for a messy bibliography at the end. Joshua Friel

Questions and comments

Could I suggest that the title of the programme "Tourism & The Handicapped" be changed to "Tourism & Disability" which is a more correct translation of "Tourisme et handicap"? The term 'the handicapped' and the use of the concept of 'handicap' is no longer considered appropriate (in UK English at least) and could easily cause offence. The title of the programme refers to the issue of how tourism providers and policy makers consider inclusiveness in the field of disability.

Eriketo 10:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Can one be a departmental deputy and regional president at the same time? It should be made clear that this is the case, unless this is a mistake due to tense problems.
• I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) says that "Ms." and "Mrs." are not used; "Mme." should either not be used or should be translated.
• What are her "conservative positions about child-rearing and gay marriage"? Reference to a specific quotes or actions would be helpful.
• On first reading, I assumed that François Hollande was female, what with all the business about same-sex relationships in that sentence. So I made use of the term "husband" (which is hopefully reasonably accurate) and that actually solves the "Mme." problem as well.
• Does the Paris Match article say that she considered running for President but decided against it, or that she is considering running? Unfortunately, that article is not cited (and I doubt my French is good enough to figure that out, anyway).
• I added {{unreferenced}} because none of the claims made in the article are linked to a specific source; Wikipedia:Footnotes explains a good way of doing this in wikitext.

-- Beland 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said in reply to your posting on my talk page, I'm deferring your prose cleanup requests (above) to the original author of that, for a few days at least, altho I'll then do them if he doesn't: & no, "husband" won't do it... :-O I've removed the tagged format in the bibliography, as both you and he requested: reluctantly, though, as I said to you, as database software is in pretty common operation for bibliographies now -- but we'll discuss that over on meta-wiki per your suggestion.

In the bibliography I've left in the use of Mme where it appears in actual book titles, and other keyterms there are untranslated, as both are part of searchstrings so if changed would make for info retrieval nonsense.

--Kessler 20:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead on the prose too: to get the issues you pointed out resolved, Beland. Yes one can serve simultaneously as an Assemblée deputy and regional président: many deputies are local maires simultaneously, too -- the simultaneity has been much-criticised by political reformers, as conflict of interest, but it provides the power-base in French politics and seems entrenched. The use of Mme. is as undecided & controversial in France as are Mr. and Mrs. etc. elsewhere: I've left it in only where needed in the bibliography for info retrieval, as I said above. Her child-rearing & gay marriage positions are considered conservative by many, in France, but I can't find a good reference just now so I've dropped that line until we can find one.

And "husband" won't work... too "marital"... "Domestic partner" is the closest English / American phrase to the Royal / Hollande status, under the PACS: just the right legalistic nuance. The French term "compagne, compagnon" doesn't sound marital enough, in its English rendering as "companion", the idea of PACS emphasizing commitment as well as absolute equality. And there is much debate in France about all of this, ongoing & unresolved... But S. Royal is a strong & leading national partisan of her own position: no way Hollande is her "husband", or she his "wife".

The Match article was the first mention by Royal herself of even the possibility of maybeperhaps her own running. As such, in French political terms, it was the equivalent of a formal announcement... as vs. the Gen. Sherman classic conundrum, "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve", which all US candidates use in their hard-to-get phase -- the French are much more circumspect about such political announcements. Prior to that Match piece there had been plenty of speculation, but no personal statement direct from Royal.

All statements should appear backed up by refs, now, so I've removed your unref'd tag.

--Kessler 22:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed a link to a blog because it didn't seem to have any info on the subject.

--Nussbaum 17:14, 13 September 2006 (CET)

Better foto?

Can someone pls find a better foto of Royal than the one currently shown in the article? Just about any would be better... This one is "official" and all of its permissions are in order, but... Need to have permissions in order on its replacement too, tho.

--Kessler 21:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Political policies & career" section

Just added this. A big merci to the various folks at fr.Wikipedia who have assembled a good article on S. Royal over there: much of this is cribbed from them, altho then translated by me :-). I'm not sure how many links to add to the line entries, as references / citation / justification: most would be to French language sources, Socialist Party & news items, altho the UK papers have covered her pretty closely too -- very little coverage so far in the US -- but others here pls link away, and I will add some more as I get to it. Articles critical of her on particular issues very welcome too: she has strong stands on women's rights and abortion and child porn and environment and protectionism, all of which have been controversial. FN publications, too, have taken her on. Links to all would be of interest, I think. Also anything about her Chile trip, and her foreign affairs views: biggest thing which troubles me personally about her is her foreign affairs inexperience.

--Kessler 16:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jospin in exile in Quebec

• What's the deal about this sentence regarding Jospin and a Quebec exile ? Is it serious ?Hektor 16:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? You might made a confusion with Alian Juppé, ex prime minister , who did an "exile" in Québec after troubles with justice and was recently reelected at the town hall of Bordeaux. lje 22/11//06

Children's name?

Are her children surnamed Royal, Hollande, or Hollande-Royal? (Alphaboi867 05:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC))

• The children, Thomas, Clémence, Julien, and Flora, were given the surname Hollande, because that was the only option the law allowed at the time. Royal has since said that they would have been given both surnames, had it been possible when they were born. Here's a link to an article about it:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/In-the-name-of-the-father--or-mother-or-both/2005/01/23/1106415461894.html

6th sexiest woman in the World

In the year 2006 FHM.fr's "100 sexiest woman", Ségolène came 6th. Does this warrant mentioning? Where? Gronky 12:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Only if we stereotype all female professionals (not in the entertainment industry) in this sexist manner. John wesley 18:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• So then, yes. --68.77.128.105

• It isn't sexist to say someone is 6th sexiest according to FHM. Actors get it all the time and frankly, it's nice to see some others in the mix. Lets not get too hung up on it and prudish, otherwise we may be discriminating against women politicians...........*Cross fingers France elects her* ..... :) -OOA

• How is that a stereotype? Is it a stereotype that female professionals are sexy? Is it sexist to label a woman sexy? John wesley, you find one person that believes female professionals are generally sexy (without excluding from the category Madeleine Albright) or name one woman that would take offense to being labeled as "sexy", then respond here with your confused chivalry. Taco325i 00:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's not really sexist, just as it wouldn't be sexist if a prominent male politician was voted as one of the most attractive people in the world. However, I guess there could be a debate as to how noteworthy it is.--Victim Of Fate 12:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it might added under a "trivia section", or a "popular media section. V. Joe 15:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't warrant mentioning in the article, any more than her shoe size or her favorite vegetable. FHM.fr readers already know, so that key demographic has been taken care of. — OtherDave 01:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

needs updating

Since she has now appoined a campaign team and has claimed that but for machismo in politics the Socialist Party would already have united behind her as the candidate it seems that this page should reflect these facts as well as her overwheliming advantage in severao polls. It is pretty clear from what I see of the French media that she is very nearly the presumptive Socialist Party candidate. The language in the posting speculating about the possibilty of her being a "running mate" (to use U.S. terms perhaps inappropriately) with Lionel Jospin needs to be either eliminated or put into a past tense mode as speculations of some people. I have tried to accomplish this with my edit but others with more thorough knowledge of French politics might want to go further. bruce wright

Swimsuit episode

Why does the article not mention the publication of pictures of Royal in a bikini, and her being suspected of having leaked the pictures herself? Snottygobble 06:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• A reliable source needs to be found that documents the subject. Would you happen to know of any? -- Beland 01:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• No; this was mentioned in passing a couple of times in Crikey, and I also heard a brief discussion of it on ABC NewsRadio. I came here for more information and there was none. In my view, the fact that I, an Australian, know nothing about Royal except for this tidbit suggests that it is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. Snottygobble 02:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah I agree with Snottygobble. This is the only thing I knew about her before today, I read it in Time magazine a few weeks ago. The fact that she is confident appearing bikini-clad in public goes to the flamboyant character for which she is known. And besides, the fact that somebody older than my mother doesn't look half-bad in a two-piece is news-worthy on its own.Taco325i 00:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's not newsworthy, just as it wouldn't be if Nicolas Sarkozy went to the beach in a pair of shorts. Nor is it remotely suitable for Wikipedia, which has a NPOV and is not in the business of judging swimsuit competitions. If there's a story that Royal leaked pictures of herself in a bikini, supported by extremely reliable sources, then there would be an argument for mentioning that. In the meantime, please keep any opinions about people's appearances off Wikipedia - it's one of the very few corners of the internet which isn't about women in swimsuits. OK, apart from the Women in swimsuits page. -- TinaSparkle 11:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If Heidi Hautala, a candidate in the 2006 Finnish presidential election, can appear in public naked (well, at an art class), then why shouldn't Ségolène Royal be able to appear in public in a bikini? JIP | Talk 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a picture of her wearing the famous bikini. http://hubpages.com/u/6913_f640.jpg --Energyfreezer 11:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sex isn't as big of a deal in Europe as it is in the US. Something like this isn't noteworthy for a European politician. Perhaps that should be documented somewhere here on Wikipedia, but this isn't the article for it. -Rhorn 12:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Gerard Royal and the Rainbow Warrior bombing

Some information about the recent allegations against Gerard Royal, with French political context, would be useful. (See Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior). Amygdala 14:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC) This has nothing to do with Segolen Royal!

Advertisement tag

I added this tag to the "Political policies and career" section because it is a long list of accomplishments with no mention of criticism or popular reception of the policies or proposed policies mentioned. It looks like an excerpt from a campaign flyer or web site, not like a well-balanced encyclopedia article. -- Beland 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

popularity

I reverted an edit saying the family connection to the Rainbow affair helped her. In my opinion, the source article wasn't specific enough about these claims, and seemed slightly too editorial in style (you wouldn't get an article like this on the bbc news site). Looked more like an opinion-ed than a true article. Any opinions? Yandman 12:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, forget all that, the guy who posted it looks like a linkspammer... Yandman 12:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, enough is enough, I'm fixing this article

Every time I look at this article, I say "oh, pity, it still hasn't been fixed". Unfortunately, I won't be able to do an expert job - I'm not very knowledgeable about the topic. I will turn it into a more readable article though. I guess this article was originally written, or greatly expanded at some point, by someone, or some people, unfamiliar with Wikipedia. I will dump the stuff that is being removed here. Please re-add the worthwhile stuff. Please remember that this is an article, not a list. Gronky 19:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Stuff between this horizontal bar and the next is cut from the article.

---

Local politics

• Recognition of chabichou cheese under Appellations d'Origine Contrôlée laws [1];
• Restoration of the Poitevin Marshes [2];
• Environmental measures including the planting of 10,000 trees in the Poitevin Marshes[3];
• Promotion of local agriculture, such as the parthenaise and maraîchine cow breeds [4][5];

National politics

Environment

• Law on the treatment and recycling of refuse (La loi sur le traitement et le recyclage des déchets) [6];
• Law to preserve the countryside (La loi sur la reconquête des paysages), followed by efforts to provide proper labelling for the products of 100 local areas (opération «Sauvons nos paysages, savourons leurs produits» -- "Save our countrysides, savor their products") [7];
• Law against noise pollution (La loi de lutte contre le bruit) [8].

Education

• Re-launch of the Priority Education Zones ( ZEP / zone d'éducation prioritaire);
• Creation of a government student lunch program;
• Implementation of language instruction as a priority in primary schools;
• Creation of a national home-tutoring program, Heures de Soutien Scolaire [9];
• Creation of programs for parental involvement in schools, "la Semaine des parents à l'école", and national campaigns for the elections of parent-representatives;
• Creation of local education and citizenship education contracts;
• Launch of "Initiatives citoyennes" for teaching children how to live together;
• Defense of children's rights and campaign against violence in the schools (Loi de juin 1998 relative à la prévention et à la répression des infractions sexuelles ainsi qu'à la protection des mineurs);
• Campaign against "hazing" of children (Loi de juin 1998 contre le bizutage);
• Campaign against violence and racketeering, implementation of an "SOS Violence" telephone number;
• Implemented mandatory civics instruction in secondary schools.

In January 2006 she criticized secondary school teachers who give private lessons outside of school hours, saying that they should spend more time in school. When a bootleg video of the speech surfaced on the internet in November 2006, the teacher's union SNES rebuffed her, requesting that she renounce her proposal.[20]

Clearly this is a woman who has never worked in education in France. The fact is that many teachers need to tutor for pay in order to live because the French govt doesn't pay enough.

Family and social affairs

• Law on parental rights and obligations (loi sur l'autorité parentale) ;
• Reform of women's rights and anonymous childbirth (l'accouchement sous X) [10] ;
• Creation of paternity leave;
• Creation of 40,000 new spaces in French nursery schools;
• Social housing reform [11];
• Parental time-off provisions and financial support for child illness care [12];
• Special education support (parents d'enfants handicapés) ;
• Education support for school returnees (Allocation de rentrée scolaire) ;
• Law against the prostitution of minors (Loi contre la prostitution des mineurs) providing penal measures for clients;
• Law against pedophile pornography;
• Creation of the association "Childhood and the Media" ("Enfance et média"), against violence in the media;
• Creation of the "Plan Handiscole" for the education of handicapped children and adolescents, and their integration into life at school;
• Programs for transportation, mass and individual;
• Creation of the program "Tourism & The Handicapped" ("Tourisme et handicap") [13].

Articles

• "The French Exception : Ségolène Royal shuns party politics, extols law and order, and doesn't mind being seen in a bikini. Is this France's next President?", by James Graff, in Time Magazine, US edition, October 9, 2006, volume 168, number 15 -- "Ségolène Royal knows how to attract a crowd. When she walks into a meeting of France's Socialist Party, her mere approach is enough to cause a stampede of camera-wielding, sharp-elbowed journalists, who brush aside Royal's rivals for the party's presidential nomination. As she glides through the crowd, Royal, 53, coyly appeals for decorum. 'There should be some constraints, some respect for modesty,' she coos in a smoky alto. But the hint of a smile on her lips betrays her: she's loving it. And why not? So blinding is Royal's star wattage..." [14].

• "A Royal ruffle in french politics : Popular socialist could become country's first female president", by Elizabeth Bryant, Chronicle Foreign Service, The San Francisco Chronicle, Friday 9 June 2006 page A-15. "Paris -- Could an unwed mother of four, dismissed by her own party's leaders as another pretty face, be the first female president of France?... A year before presidential elections, and with the ruling conservatives mired in scandal and accusations of ineptitude, polls put 52-year-old Royal way ahead of most of her Socialist and conservative rivals... More than two-thirds of the French public disapproves of the performance of both Chirac and Villepin, according to one survey published May 9 by Paris Match magazine. The same poll showed Royal basking in a 68 percent public approval rating -- 11 points higher than the rating of Sarkozy, the popular head of the governing Union for a Popular Movement party, who has made his presidential ambitions clear..." [15].

• "France : The irresistible rise of Ségolène Royal : A flexible and popular candidate meets an immovable and less popular party", in The Economist, June 8th 2006 — "...party grandees are putting up stiff resistance to the candidate who feels fresh, looks good and has conquered public opinion: Ségolène Royal. When Ms Royal first hinted at her presidential ambitions nine months ago in Paris-Match, Socialist old-timers responded with scorn. 'Who will look after the children?' sneered Laurent Fabius, a former prime minister, of this mother of four. Others pointed to her lack of heavyweight experience — she has served only in 'soft' ministries such as education and the family. But the more she was dismissed, the more the public took to her. In a poll for Libération this week, 68% of Socialist voters said they wanted her as their presidential candidate, against 27% for the next choice, Dominique Strauss-Kahn... fears about security are feeding the far right. In one poll, a staggering 31% of voters say they want the National Front's Jean-Marie Le Pen to stand for the presidency... It would be foolish to bet on Ms Royal now — but just as foolish to write her off." [16]

• "Sarko v Ségo and a battle royale", By Simon Heffer, news.telegraph, 8 May 2006: "...Eleven months is a long time in politics, but it looks as if the UMP's closest rival, the Partie Socialiste, will field the president of the regional government of Poitou-Charentes, the glamorous single mother of four, Ségolène Royal, as its candidate..." -- [17]

• "France looks to Sarko-Sego race", by Caroline Wyatt, BBC News, Paris, Tuesday, 11 April 2006: "which potential presidential candidate has profited the most from French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin's discomfiture?... On the right there is his cabinet colleague, the sharp, ambitious Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also leader of the governing centre-right UMP party. And on the left, MP Segolene Royal, the Socialist in stilettos, a regional leader who is hotly tipped as France's first real potential Madame la Présidente, overtaking her piqued male colleagues from nowhere. The idea of a Sarko-Sego battle has gripped the nation's imagination, with Madame Royal now the cover-woman of the moment, her elegant features smiling from the front pages of four of the country's leading news magazines this week..." -- [18]

---

LGBT not the only issues

If there are objections to the lists of SRoyal's positions supplied here, Gronky or others pls try writing those lists up as text instead: altho some find bulleted lists more effective than text -- test in Talk first... SRoyal is running for Pres. of France on more than just her LGBT positions: the latest edit removed all but those, which misrepresents both her and the French presidential race -- see the fr.Wikipedia article on her.

Generally better discussing first here in the Talk pages, getting some input from others who have been working on this, before wading in to do such a massive edit: the edit got rid of most of the article's substance, her political work and positions, significant issues in her career and campaign -- yes, better understanding of that is needed before such an edit. Re. news articles see previous discussions here in Talk.

--Kessler 22:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. You can't just dump lists on a page and then tell everyone else to either fix them or leave them on the page. The LGBT was the only subsection left because it was, by chance, the only subsection which was not of unacceptably low quality. BTW, the French language wikipedians have also written an article of lamentable quality, but I don't have enough French to fix that.

The current list tells me nothing about her positions. It's just a list of issues and laws with no significant indications about Royal's relation to them. For example, the first bullet point in the Environment sections is:

• "Law on the treatment and recycling of refuse"

Which tells me nothing about Royal's positions. Was this law in favour of recycling, or did it limit it? Did Royal support the law, or oppose it? And even answering those questions wouldn't tell me much since the devil is always in the details. Everyone is pro-recycling, but is their support lip service or is it gutsy?

This article is a shambles, and an embarassment to Wikipedia. Gronky 11:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, I think the problem here is that Royal has no positions. She has been very careful not to take a stance on anything, so as not to risk losing a single vote. A list of her positions will therefore always end up as a vacuous list of principles everyone agrees with. yandman 12:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

She can't be completely without positions, but the point is that Wikipedia should say her positions, to the extent that she has any, and shouldn't print these vacuous lists. Gronky 13:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gronky that this list needs to be fixed. I would have done it myself, but I don't speak French. And I don't think we can fairly say that "she takes no positions", as the list currently in the article is fairly long, wouldn't you say? · j e r s y k o talk · 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The list is long, but it is filled with laws which passed with overwhelming majority, for some of which she has done nothing more than vote, that everyone agrees with. I don't think we can call these "positions". I think this whole section should go, as it's just an ad. yandman 13:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone pls post an example here of how the "list" should read, as not-a-list, assuming that the positions it suggests really are valid? I can check on how valid they are, in French, and others who know French can, and we can present that here. But assuming she really does represent the positions suggested, I am curious to know how text would be more effective here than a bulleted list? The article needs something about her political positions: simply presenting the campaign LGBT issues as-seen-by-American-eyes, as the previous edit did, distorts the article.

--Kessler 01:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"How the list should read" is the wrong line of thinking. Wikipedia does not exist to store that list, it exists to make informative encyclopedia articles about notable topics. The right question is: how should Ms. Royal's positions be documented in this article.

There seems to be consensus that the current list is not a good way of informing people about Ms. Royal. Action #1 is that the list should be removed. I can do that. Action #2 is that someone should write something good. That is a separate action. It is acceptable for the article to be in an imperfect state while action #1 is done and people are waiting for someone to do action #2. I can't do that, but people will be able to do this. I have no preference for what the article says about LGBT issues, I haven't even read that section, I just skimmed it. And trying to guess where my eyes, or any other contributor's eyes, are from is off-topic. Gronky 11:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll do a re-write of that "3.1 Local politics" section -- you guys pls have a look and post here whether it's OK -- if it is I'll try the same "style on the others. There are links substantiating that these are in fact Segolene Royal positions, and not just "votes" -- someone asked about that -- and I'll incorporate those. Sorry for the crack about the location of your eyes, Gronky, yes that was off-topic.

--Kessler 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That does look better... point made, Gronky :-)... I'll re-do the others the same way: if I spot any "she only voted" so-called policies of Royal's, per the French news report links, I won't include them. But she has been around a long time and has done quite a bit, so I personally think the suggestion someone made here that she has "no" policies is just personal opinion and POV. Sarkozy has policies too, and those need to be presented well on his page -- Le Pen too, also others -- the whole point of a major politician is the actual policies they promote, otherwise an encyclopedia article becomes just a People Magazine gossip-piece.

--Kessler 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's done. It does read better... even if I still am a "bulleted list" fan, myself... I've tried to verify each point against citation links, but there is a lot here, so I hope others will be patient and add links too if & when they can find them. French-language websites listed below in external links, including Royal's own party and her own website, are good sources -- and she is getting plenty of coverage in the French national press. Important not to look like just a campaign ad, but I think it doesn't, & yes the "text" format does help, for that: a clear picture of her policies & priorities and what she represents for France emerges, I believe -- NPOV, and usefully compared to similar policies & priorities descriptions of other French leaders, Sarkozy & Fabius & Le Pen and others.

--Kessler 21:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you've really turned that section around. It looks very good now, and it will be a lot easier for others to also collaborate on. Thanks. Gronky 09:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I question the size of the chapter "LGBT". In my opinion, Gay issues are neither significant in her achievements nor in her political speeches. Specifically :

• the "Happiness of Loving" pack is largely unknown and if it existed, it was probably not focused on homosexuality. One shall remove as unsubstantiated and irrelevant the three sentences "She later introduced ... discrimination which they face abroad".
• the 2002 law does not give "legal recognition to families with gay parents". In fact, the word gay does not appear, on the contrary the law refer to article 377: father and mother, together or separately. One shall at least rewrite the sentence has "A law (...) allowed a parent to ask a judge to share his/her parental authority with a partner". The correct reference in the civil code is 377 and 377-1.

--Geo115fr 01:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"boyfriend", partner, better word...

The article says she has a "partner". I can see the motivation - we want to be politically correct and not give away whether it's a man or a woman because same sex relationships are the same as mixed sex relationships, etc. etc. etc. But "partner" is a stupid word because it doesn't explain the relationship between Ms. Royal and the person of unsaid sex. What is the correct word? "Live-in parter", "lover", "boyfriend", "significant other"? I don't want to distract from the much more important discussion above about generally improving the article, but this word could be improved. Gronky 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Boyfriend" seems to denote something less than what Royal and her partner are, as they are bound under a pacte civil de solidarité. I believe "partner" is the preferred nomenclature for such a circumstance. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "partner" would be the current US/American translation for pacte civil de solidarité: same "legal" connotation in each -- "boyfriend" would be an insult, in this situation, used as such even in French and occasionally in the US too -- calling someone's legal husband or wife their "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" in a *formal* social situation.

--Kessler 00:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "civil partner" would be more correct - from civil union just to clarify that it's not her running parter in the election or some other policital partner. Gronky 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that works. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Civil partner" sounds good to me: translates OK into French, I think -- at least doesn't sound too casual -- and the "civil" part of it in English does indicate legality.

--Kessler 20:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone has now reverted this to "girlfriend". I am a bit reluctant to revert it back as I'm an occasional user and am not sure what the guideline for such a case is. Thermaland 15:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Désirs d'avenir" vs. "Wishes for the future"

Please, help me to find a more appropriate translation for "Désirs d'avenir", I'm not a native english speaker. The present one ("Wishes for the future") is plainly wrong:

• In french, the word "wishes" means "souhait". Souhait/Wishes has a weaker meaning, and other connotations than the original "desire" word (which also imply a "lust" meaning).
• It is grammatically incorrect. "for the future" would rather be a translation of "pour l'avenir" (i.e. "désirs pour l'avenir"). "Désirs d'avenir" means that the future itself is desired (not that the desires are "for the future"). This has strong connexions in the french context (where Ms Royal claims to fight against "déclinistes", or defeatism and lack of confidence for the future or France, kind of "no future" culture).

Thanks. Benjamin.pineau 16:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wishes for future" would be my best guess, edited it that way. We still need a native speaker to correct that. I'm not sure if the article is required ("Wishes of a future"). KungFuMonkey 03:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice, "wishes for future" seems better, more accurate to me (but I'm not a native english speaker). Thanks ! Benjamin.pineau 13:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Désirs d'avenir" translates to "Desires for the future" I think that's the word your looking for. I made the change in the article. Gordie 13:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Look at the second note above : "for the future" doesn't carry an important connotation (in "désir d'avenir", the "avenir"/futur itself is desired/wished). Maybe a mix of both your propositions would be better, ie. "Desires for future" (without "the") ? I can't tell, given my english skill. Benjamin.pineau 12:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"for the" should possibly be changed to "for a" or "of a" "Désirs d'avenir" means desire for an unspecified futur. I'm not sure if this makes more sense. My english isn't as good as my french. I was mostly changing the word "wish" to "Desire" since that is the actual translation of thte word.Gordie 11:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I realize we forgot the plural. So I've put "Desires of (a) future" now : plural plus desire of an unspecified future. Sounds OK to me. KungFuMonkey 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just opinion here: Don't get too hung up on an article or lack of it; French and English don't use them in the same way. (In fact, English doesn't always use them the same way, which explains why an American goes to THE hospital, while a Brit drops the "the."

The BBC translates the organization's name as "Future Desires," which while avoiding the article falls pretty flat.

I wonder if the attempts at translation are too literal. To me, there's a sense of hope or vision or goals for the future -- especially the sweeping sort that politicians in every country tend to make. I do realize "Hopes for the Future" would result in an entire archive full of translation discussion. —OtherDave 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

Can somebody add an IPA pronunciation of her name? With all those accent marks going different ways, I don't even know where to begin in pronouncing her name. Taco325i 00:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored the IPA. Looks like an anonymous IP had removed it on October 25 without explanation. --Cam 03:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Its Saygo Len.

Could some native French speaker record it or could someone find a public domain recording of this pronunciation?

Well I'm not a native French speaker, but I did my best: . If a native french speaker feels they can do better please overwrite my recording. jaco♫plane 11:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a native french speaker and I think that this recording is perfect ; that's the right pronunciation. Benjamin.pineau 13:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The IPA, however, was not. It's [rojal], not [rwajal]. I corrected it.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the IPA for the word "royal" in a Larousse dictionary I have, I believe the correct way to IPA it in French is as I had written it, with a "wa" in the middle. --Cam 04:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked it out in the concise French phonology in the The handbook of the International Phonetic Association, and the combination oy is indeed pronounced [waj], not [oj]. It's odd that a French speaker claimed that the pronunciation file contributed by Jaco was "perfect" because it's very clearly [rojal], not [rwajal]. There is a native pronunciation in the French language article, but it's of such abysmally low sound quality that I recorded my own for now.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that. jaco♫plane 11:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm french. The pronunciation media file must be re-recorded cause it sound likes "ségolin rwayal" in french. (I can't do that myself)

Sorry, but I still find the former recording better. The new one (Fr-Segolene_Royal.ogg) doesn't sound like a native's pronunciation (while the former sounds native to me) : the end of the given name sounds like mine ("-in" as in Benjamin, not "-ène" as in Ségolène). Well, ok, I recorded it myself. My micro is cheap but I tried to pronounce slowly. That's french from Paris, France (may differ from Belgium or Quebec's accent). Ogg file there. If you find it useful, consider this public domain and upload it if you want (I still don't know how to upload medias). Benjamin.pineau 11:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No one claimed that it was native (see the file info), just that the [rwa]-sequence be foucsed on. The difference between that an [roj] is way too major to ignore.

Uploading is not difficult. Just follow this link to the upload form at Wikipedia Commons. Don't use the accent marks in "Segolene" for the file name, though. They're unnecessary just for the file name (nothing do disambiguate from) and they make it a lot more difficult for a lot of browsers and players to handle the file. Name it fr-Segolene_Royal.ogg and just overwrite the existing file.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Peter I didn't want to offend, and yes the [rwa] is ok and maybe better than in the first proposition (at least the [wa]). Given my cheap mic and soundcard, I don't know if the recording quality is sufficient (clear enough to figure the pronunciation) to be uploaded: what's your opinion ? Benjamin.pineau 15:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm only offended by incility and you haven't been rude, so don't worry. Pointing out errors in pronunciation as a native speaker is perfectly acceptable as long as it's not done like this.

The quality of your sound file is quite sufficient, but I would recommend making another recording and not speaking directly into the mic. The recording you linked to is a tad too loud.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the tips Peter. The recording isn't still so good (but better, let say the mic is guilty ;) and I removed all non-ASCII characters from the file name. Didn't dare to overwrite yours (and having several different pronunciation is good) : [19]. Benjamin.pineau 21:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent articles

• I removed the "Recent articles" section here. First, it is not necessary for the article. Second, it does not follow precednet with other "recent articles" sections in biographies. These sections are usually reserved for articles written by the subject, not about the subject. This is not in the form of an encylcopedia article, but rather appears to be a bunch of search results by typing the subject's name into a new search engine. the text between the horizontal lines was removed.Joshua Friel 14:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

---

"Recent Articles"

• "Royal wins race to run for presidency" by Charles Bremner, Fri Nov 17 -- Ségolène Royal, the left-wing favourite for the French presidency, emerged triumphant last night after party members anointed her by a heavy majority as the Socialist candidate in the elections next spring..." [20]

• "Tight race as France's Royal faces first hurdle for presidency" by Hugh Schofield, Sun Nov 12 -- PARIS (AFP) - "Ségolène Royal, the socialist with high hopes of being France's first woman president after elections in April, has said that she was confident of victory in this week's vote for the party nomination despite a narrowing lead over her two more experienced rivals. With four days to go till Thursday's internal vote by Socialist party (PS) members, the 53-year-old former junior minister said that she had emerged strengthened from a month of primary campaigning including six debates with opponents Laurent Fabius and Dominique Strauss-Kahn. 'It was the other two who wanted these debates because they doubted my capabilities ... But at the end of the process my legitimacy is no longer in question,' she told Le Journal du Dimanche newspaper. 'I am the only one who can win against the right. I embody the profound change that people are crying out for. Many see me as the candidate against the powers-that-be .... For the symbolic father of the nation to be a woman -- now that's a revolution,' she said Sunday. A new poll Sunday showed that Royal, who has emerged from nowhere in a year to be France's most talked-about politician, enjoys a clear majority of support -- 58 percent -- among PS sympathisers, with former finance minister Strauss-Kahn on 32 percent and former prime minister Fabius on nine..." [21]

• "Royal rises to the occasion in debate" International Herald Tribune, Oct 18 3:54 PM -- "Ségolène Royal was generally considered to have kept her status as the front-runner after the debate with two former finance ministers, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Laurent Fabius, although some said Strauss-Kahn had performed best of the three in the debate itself..." [22]

• "Royal leads Sarkozy in French presidential poll" Paris, Oct. 16 (Xinhua) -- "The socialist Ségolène Royal has increased her lead over her rival, the current interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy by two points, according to a poll published on Monday. Royal would defeat Sarkozy, head of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) by 51 percent to 49 in a runoff, the poll for the French daily Le Figaro showed on Monday. If Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin was standing instead of Sarkozy, he would be beaten by Royal in the election's decisive second round by 60 percent to 40, while Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie would get only 37 percent..." [23]

• "The French Exception : Ségolène Royal shuns party politics, extols law and order, and doesn't mind being seen in a bikini. Is this France's next President?", by James Graff, in Time Magazine, US edition, October 9, 2006, volume 168, number 15 -- "Ségolène Royal knows how to attract a crowd. When she walks into a meeting of France's Socialist Party, her mere approach is enough to cause a stampede of camera-wielding, sharp-elbowed journalists, who brush aside Royal's rivals for the party's presidential nomination. As she glides through the crowd, Royal, 53, coyly appeals for decorum. 'There should be some constraints, some respect for modesty,' she coos in a smoky alto. But the hint of a smile on her lips betrays her: she's loving it. And why not? So blinding is Royal's star wattage..." [24].

• "A Royal ruffle in french politics : Popular socialist could become country's first female president", by Elizabeth Bryant, Chronicle Foreign Service, The San Francisco Chronicle, Friday 9 June 2006 page A-15. "Paris -- Could an unwed mother of four, dismissed by her own party's leaders as another pretty face, be the first female president of France?... A year before presidential elections, and with the ruling conservatives mired in scandal and accusations of ineptitude, polls put 52-year-old Royal way ahead of most of her Socialist and conservative rivals... More than two-thirds of the French public disapproves of the performance of both Chirac and Villepin, according to one survey published May 9 by Paris Match magazine. The same poll showed Royal basking in a 68 percent public approval rating -- 11 points higher than the rating of Sarkozy, the popular head of the governing Union for a Popular Movement party, who has made his presidential ambitions clear..." [25].

---

Added current event status Cyclonenim 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Is it possible to include some criticism of Ségoléne ? Ericd 06:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed at the moment one gets the impression that her secretary wrote it! Johncmullen1960 08:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Why not? You see a "Criticisms" section in almost every other article found on Wikipedia. You must be new to this.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadowrun (talk • contribs) 09:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

I'm not new. It was a bit ironic... Ericd 15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

She hadn't much responsibilities in a government so far, so it's hard to criticize her action (nation wide). And since she is candidate for presidential election, she speaks very carefully. Anyway, here are the most commons criticisms about her I've seen in the press (in France, mainly) (disclaimer : this doesn't reflects my own views) :

• From both right and left camps : she hadn't proven her competence so far, she never had much responsibilities (like being prime minister, or heading a sensitive minister like minister of economy). Beware, sometime this was told with an implicit machist POV (like : "a woman can't be competent enough to be president").
• From left-wingers : she looks too rightist or conservative (because she claimed that Tony Blair is a good model -Blair is perceived as very rightist by french left-, because she suggested to send young offenders under military management rather than jail, because the criticized the 35-hour workweek, because her conservative views about family, etc.). A video where the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu explained that she isn't leftist was uploaded on YouTube by the way (this illustrates well a common feeling among leftists).
• From both sides : she is too demagogue (or populist or something like that), because she like -or accepts- being photographed, even in bikini in low-end tabloids, because she suggested to create "popular juries" (that would judge elected actions), because she is a strong proponent of participatory democracy and because she doesn't seems to have a very deep and theoretical/abstract/global approach (favoring simple and easy to understand concrete examples in her public speechs). Right-wingers often says that she has no "grand project".
• From rightists and from British press : her project isn't realistic from an economic standpoint. Her words sounds sometimes [[marxist]s.
• From right-wingers : she don't have new ideas (by difference to her opponent, Nicolas Sarkozy which want to be perceived as "disruptive"). The far-right (nationalist) politician Jean-Marie Le Pen calls her "Sarkolène", a compound word from Sarkozy and Ségolène, to show that they aren't very different and have no strong ideas.

Sorry, I can't write such a section in the main article myself, my english skills are too low for the english wikipedia. Benjamin.pineau 12:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, after re-reading the whole article, I thought that most of those criticisms are already included in the text (except for the "lack of realism in economic positions" criticism). They may not be clearly identified as criticisms by foreigners because they are to be referred to France's internal conflicts (so far, since she's not elected and hadn't conduced any significant international actions, most criticisms still comes from France, and have to be understood in french politics problematics/opposition), and because they are not strong worded (or underlined as in "hey, this is a criticism") in the article (but that's a requirement for a neutral style, I guess). Benjamin.pineau 13:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Economic policies?

I'd like to see some information detailing her economic beliefs and plans, if anyone may know where to find relevant sources.RyanLivingston 19:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can read french (or maybe by using babelfish or google translators) you can give a look at the economic section of the Socialist Party (her party) project for next elections, here. That's the best first-hand source, afaik. Benjamin.pineau 12:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck... As of today nobody knows what are the economic beliefs and plans of Ségoléne Royal. Maybe Ségoléne Royal herself knows but a lot of people believe she has no belief or plan :-). Ericd 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Article

For its use of citations, good prose and broad coverage I have passed this article as a Good Article. Morgan695 20:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an insufficient review. LuciferMorgan 21:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Language ext.

Hello; could you please add the turkish wiki link at the end please ? I tried but couldn't (even though I'm an old member) the link would be "tr:Ségolène Royal". Thanks for your help, --Nerval 13:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I find it strange you couldn't edit it tho. Perhaps there is a contrib requirement altho you have quite a few so would think you'd qualify. Sure it wasn't a temp problem? Nil Einne 22:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Segolene Royal 2007 Official Anthem

there is this official promo video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w0mOkBwqNE&feature=PlayList&p=DB7512ADC0C24348&index=1) circulating over internet. it seems to be Segolene Royale's anthem for the 2007 presidential elections. as a french socialist party campaign material it could be probably added to the article as an external link, what do you think? BITE DACIER 04:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Youtube clip linked to above is a montage with an obscene song. Please no one link to this from the article. Thermaland 21:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, User:BITE_DACIER already added the above link in the article (hidden with a fake edit summary saying : correction: "speling" > "spelling"), heres the diff. Looks like BITE_DACIER (a name which means STEEL DICK in french, by the way, cf. fr:Bite and fr:Acier) is a vandal. Benjamin.pineau 16:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked. yandman 16:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nomination for merge with Gérard Royal

Opposed. See the debate on this page about Gérard Royal and allegations about him on his page. I have no idea whether there is any substance to these allegations but, if there is, he is certainly notable in his own right. Moreover, he is likely to become more notable if Ségolène Royal's career continues to progress. I also don't think the allegations about Gérard Royal are relevant to an article on his sister unless she is involved. -- TinaSparkle 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Even the articles about the children of the sitting French president, Jacques Chirac, have been merged with his article, see Claude Chirac. And Claude Chirac is much more notable than Gérard Royal, since she had an official role as presidential advisor. Here we are only talking about the brother of a candidate to the presidency. We need to be consistent. Hektor 19:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Gérard has an article because he is the alleged murderer in a very famous case, not because he is "the brother of a candidate to the presidency". As an aside: this merge has not been proposed in the right way, I think. There are discussions on two pages, here and on Talk:Gérard Royal. Skarioffszky 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Biographies should be on separate pages and his Rainbow Warrior link merits an own article for him. -- fdewaele 5 December 2006, 19:05
• Oppose It's quite plain that this should not occur. I urge removal of the tag from the articles. MKV 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

The unnamed user with the IP address 82.146.104.188 has now twice made edits for which I believe are POV. The tone of language used seems to suggest dislike of Segolene Royal. I reverted the edits but they have now put them back, and has claimed it isn't vandalism. I'd like to see what you think and we can reach a concensus on this issue. Jamandell (d69) 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I read the changes and I thought there was at least one interesting point in relation to Muslims joining the Socialist Party and affecting the recent vote. But, the comments are unquestionalbly POV and cite no sources, and it is easier to rv them rather than examine each change individually and then delete them (although strictly speaking they are not vandalism).--Grahamec 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I reverted this diff again. Beside many POV comments (like the thing about her being elected by antisemits Muslims), it contained seriously false assertions like "she was alsod directly involved in the planning and execution of the Rainbow warrier", "the creation of a "Halal" government student lunch program", "promoting homosexual contacts with/among children" etc. If needed I can comment on this point by point. Benjamin.pineau 11:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent controversy

Why is there no mention made of the recent controversy regarding Royal's failure to immediately denounce or condemn statements, made by Hizbullah politician Ali Ammar, that Israel's occupation of parts of Lebanon are "Nazism" and her apparent agreement with Ammar, that US foreign policy is "unlimited insanity"? [26] Tomer^talk 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I almost put a {{sofixit}} template on your talk page ;). My personnal opinion is that the first incident seemed very minor (and seemed, as an outsider, to have had a very short lifespan in the medias despite the fact the UMP tried to comment as much as possible on it). For the second one I haven't heard of it so I can't say. -- lucasbfr ^talk 03:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you read the article I linked to, I think you'll see that while it appears "very minor" from a European perspective, it will do her no favors on "this side of the pond". The second incident is actually an extension of the first, and speaks even worse of her. As an aside, what is "UMP"? Tomer^talk 09:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The UMP is France's conservative party currently in power, president Chirac's and presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy's party. The controversy was actually quite big in France for a few days but died down after the ambassador backed her version. I have however rewritten the paragraph because it was quite clumsy.Thermaland 14:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

I removed:

Speculation about the power women's relationship rose in France after a newspaper said Royal had postponed a U.S. trip planned for this month because Hillary Rodham Clinton did not want to see her

because it seemed to me of low relevence and was uncited.--Grahamec 03:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See the external link provided in the opening of the previous section. It is of "low relevance" [sic] as far as her current career is concerned, but potentially has tremendous ramifications for her national and international aspirations. That said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... Tomer^talk 09:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was also badly written. Having read the citation, I'm disinclined to add it back, because what is convenient for Clinton now, I suspect, will have little impact on any future official relationship between them, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball anyway.--Grahamec 11:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Newsweek article on Segolene Royal

She was recently featured in the Dec. 26, 2006 Newsweek-20 people to watch in 2007, described as a popular political figure in France and the magazine treats her a more favorable candidate for the French presidency over conservative Nicolas Sarkozy. The magazine compared her reputation to other "great French women" like Joan de Arc and Marianne, a fictional symbol of the French revolution, then she could outrank Coco Chanel or Brigette Bardot in recent importance. Ms. Royal had a ton of press attention in France, a country shown great interest in having the first woman elected to the presidential seat.

From what I've heard...is Ms. Royal of Portuguese ancestry? It wasn't stated on the article, but obviously she's of French nationality and both her parents are mainland French. Her birthplace is in Senegal, Africa when the country was under the French flag until 1960 when it achieved independence. I reckon Mr. Sarkozy is of Hungarian background through his father's side, but his hard stance on illegal immigration isn't contradictory as a French citizen of Eastern European origin. No doubt another presidential run by the far-right political/cultural activist Jean-Marie Le Pen could gain the anti-immigration vote on his francaises du souche platform.

I'm unsure if Ms. Royal will gain attention in the US because of her center-left socialist stance on American foreign policy, while Mr. Sarkozy has been pro-Bush in many political issues not popular or likable in France (esp. after the US invasion and occupation of Iraq). I believe the chances of Segolene Royal to become "Madame president" depends on the country's recent move to the conservative right or whether Jean-Marie Le Pen or current premier Dominique de Villepin will run for office in 2007. We'll wait and see in who's gonna win the French presidential election, but liberals in the US by what Newsweek said want Ms. Royal to win. 63.3.14.129 16:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of her being of Portuguese or Brazilian ancestry. Where did you get that idea from? She was born in Senegal because her father, a career officer, was posted there at the time; she has no roots there. Incidentally the French PM is Dominique de Villepin, (you might have mangled his name with that of actor Jacques Villeret there) and the chances of him running are pretty much nil by now. Thermaland 21:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

it serves you right, the liberal media violates the most basic ethics to promote a political candidate! segolene royal is a no show-no go and most french voters are sick et tired of socialism run their country for over 30 years. Jacques Chirac is a crack in the wall of the french socialist left, his presidency from 1995 is a triumph to bring back conservative voices. chirac's term expires soon and backed nicolas sarkozy to run this year. french news polls find more than half distrust segolene royal over sarkozy, however royal's anti-iraq war stance is popular and expected out of the french government criticism of US foreign policy. 63.3.14.2 09:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we're all grateful for this insightful, articulate and relevant piece of commentary. If there is one thing Wikipedia needs it's more rants like this on its talk pages. Thermaland 10:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch... and that's a fairly inaccurate rant too... I don't think anyone could call Mr Chirac presidency a triumph, and I think Mr Sarkozy is critical about the Iraq war too (as are 99% of the French politicians) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the entire French government don't like the US' involvement in Iraq. But, what made Sarkozy gone bold in improving relations with American conservatives made big news headlines. Sarkozy was called back to France in Nov. after he made positive pro-Bush comments, which Pres. Chirac and the French socialists disliked about him...I think Sarkozy boosted what he had in common with Bush, except the idea of war and American military intervention. Note the term "conservative" in France and the US aren't exactly the same political movement. What else gets me is French conservatives are gaining in popular media polls than socialists and leftists, but the French are more politically left than the U.S. even after the Democrats took back the house and senate (one socialist and 49 Republicans). I sense Nancy Pelosi won't be considered left nor her leadership is treated seriously in France. 63.3.14.1 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions for tidying

It seems to me that the main paragraph on the 2007 bid is a bit too long now and could use some summarising. In addition the section on foreign policy seems a bit random. Fair enough for the bits on her visits to Lebanon/Israel and China, which have played a part in the presidential campaign, but Turkey and Iran are not issues with which Ms Royal is particularly associated and there is certainly no need for a lecture on the background for both these countries. Therefore I suggest replacing all this with a more general paragraph summarising her pronouncements on these and possibly other foreign policy issues (if they can be found - I have no particular one in mind) and moving on to those trips aimed at raising her international profiles and the resulting controversies. Any thoughts on this? Thermaland 11:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, I have taken in and digested the avalanche of no feedback whatsoever on this ;) and gone ahead with my little rewrite of the foreign policies paragraph. I think the section on Canada still needs a bit of summarising but I've left that intact for now; perhaps we need to lose the quotes or move them to the footnotes. I realise that the section as I have rewritten it might appear a little loaded against SR, but there really is a strong backlash even in her own political camp and I think the article needs to reflect that. Thermaland 12:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now also shortened the Presidential Bid section as well, and removed poll details which are now rather irrelevant. Thermaland 11:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PACS and not marriage

Has she ever explained why she and Hollande have only a pacte civile and not a marriage? Just curious. 68.41.174.194 04:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "only?" France has some 64,000,000 people, and in 2004 had 266,000 civil marriages (0.4% of the population). The U.S. in 2000 had a population of 281,000,000 and 2,355,000 marriages (8.3%). Roughly, then, French people marry at only 5% the rate Americans do. That's not to say either country is "better," only that relatively few French people marry at all. —OtherDave 07:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

By "only", the anon surely meant that on a spectrum, the pacte civile is somewhere between single and married, so why has Seggy "only" gone from single to pacte civile and not all the way to married. This seemed pretty clear to me. Gronky 15:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a spectrum, I don't think; it's one of three separate statuses. You can't be partly single and partly married. Royal and Hollande have made a choice that 95% of couples do not make in any given year: to formalize their relationship legally. I may have read more into the 'only' than Anon intended. In the U.S. many people conflate civil marriage with religious marriage, since officiating clergy typically act as official civil witnesses, eliminating the need for a separate civil ceremony. — OtherDave 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Easy there, OtherDave. In no way did I intend to make a commentary on their relationship or status of marriage or anything. Gronky interpreted it the way I meant. My understanding is that the pacte civile does not confer exactly the same legal status as marriage (hence the current push for same-sex marriage); if that is true, then it seems somewhat unusual (not right or wrong, just unusual) to me that a couple that have been together for over two decades and have had four children have never bothered to take the ultimate legal step.68.41.174.194 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

They haven't explained it, no, and I don't think they have been asked. The private life of politicians is generally considered off-limits for media interest in France. However, the lines have shifted in recent years, partly under the Internet's influence. The situation with Royal and Hollande is one to watch in that respect because this is the first high-profile couple where both of them are political heavyweights, and the state of their personal relationship is inevitably linked with the state of their political relationship. I wouldn't rule out the taboo being smashed before the election; it certainly is under assault already. Le Monde last week referenced rumours on the Internet that Hollande and Royal are both really in a new relationship, having split years ago. Thermaland 13:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. 68.41.174.194 01:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go. I was right about the taboo being smashed, but they just waited until after the election: http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/politiques/252721.FR.phpThermaland 17:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And now the press is also openly speculating on the state of the new president's marriage. There is probably no going back...Thermaland 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We Progressives look forward to a future in which everyone is unmarried and preferably homosexual. This article fairly shows that Royal is on our side.71.251.134.95 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)JacquesAvant

Quotations section?

Should a Quotations section be added? There is one for Sarkozy. Thoughts? Scotchorama 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure those sections are a good thing, because quotes are just dumped there out of context. They are more suitable for people who make witty quips than for politicians. Any really interesting quote should make its way into the article proper IMHO. Thermaland 10:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and find it unfair that the Sarkozy page has a quotes section and not Royal, considering that much media attention has focused on these quotes; but I guess I have to take this to the Sarkozy talk page. Scotchorama 13:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is sometimes a sort of negative emulation there. On the French Wikipedia, there is constant ping-pong going on with angry people demanding to know why such and such politician's page has a list of "nicknames" (insults more like) and another does not, or why rumours are included for such-and-such and not their opponent. The Wikipedia user is ultimately the loser in this little game. PS: please don't feed the troll at 63.3.14.1 on this page. I made that mistake earlier (see Newsweek paragraph) and look at the hysterical rant that followed... Thermaland 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a question: Did Segolene Royal (or was she the one "socialist party leader") made recent comments about "too many black people in the French football team?" Please reply back on the answer, and Royal's controversial comments on homosexuality, immigrants, family values and the disabled...and if she commented on race (a hot button issue) may already threatened her chances of being elected president. 63.3.14.1 17:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that was Georges Freches who said that-a local socialist leader and president of an administrative region. He was recently expelled from the Socialist Party. Segolene Royal publicly backed the expulsion. I think you may have her confused with someone else: although I am no Royal fan, I have to say that she never said anything partycularly controversial about homosexuality or immigrants... the Front National, France's main far right party, holds controversial views on these topics.Scotchorama 01:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

New pictures of Ségolène

Hi folks. I shot some pictures of Ségolène during her last meeting in Paris; you can find them at commons:Ségolène Royal. One of them could be used to replace the one in the infobox, which dates from 2000. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow thankyou! They are all very good. I suggest perhaps this one, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Meeting_Royal_2007_02_06_n12.jpg becomes the new main pic on the article. Anyone else agree? Jamandell (d69) 14:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good work Jastrow. n12 is a good picture alright. I think n11 looks a bit more natural, but maybe it's too smiley. Gronky 21:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, why has the pic been changed? You can't see her face so much in the current one compared to the last Jamandell (d69) 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Name ?

Where does the name "Segolene" come from ? It is very unusual. She appears to be the only person in the world with this name. I have read on several occaisions ( probably from obsolete sources ) that French people have to have traditional French given names and are not allowed to just make up or invent new ones or use silly words like some other countries are permitted to do. Eregli bob 00:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not know where it comes from (her birth name is actually Marie-Ségolène) but it is not a made up name. Just slightly out of fashion. I was at school with a Ségolène, and I am in my mid-30s. Thermaland 09:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A little research reveals that it is a French version of Sieglinde, (as in Scandinavian sagas and Wagner's Ring Cycle). Thermaland 10:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a name that was never very popular, but quite common (336 Ségolènes were born in France in 1992 according to prenoms.com) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Should pact Royal be in external links?

Here's an English translation of Royal's policy platform: http://www.harriman-house.com/segoleneroyal/royal_pact.pdf

From the title, it looks significant enough to go in External links, but I haven't read it. Can someone else make the decision? Gronky 13:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

the whole thing looks like pure spam to me. It was added to the page quite unashamedly by the publishing company. Certainly the blurb for the biography has not place in the body of the article. Thermaland 13:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the original edit of the article by the publishing house. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the PDF document of an English translation of Segs's 100-point plan. Should that PDF document be linked in the External links section? (Yes, I agree the publisher's edit was spammish, and maybe it should be toned down further than I toned it down - although the username did show a bit of honesty.) Gronky 13:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not Influenced by the U.S.

Ségolène Royal's determined independence is manifested by her refusal to wear a Hollywood arch in her eyebrows. Ever since the early 1940s, the world has tried to emulate the extreme arch that is the characteristic of every Hollywood actress, and some actors. But Ségolène's have a very French geometric curve, in keeping with that nation's adoration of rational mathematics. Or is it just that she can't draw?Lestrade 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

More family claims

A claim has just been added to this article that two of SR's sisters have stood for elections for far-right parties. In fact the two women mentioned are her cousins and it looks like only one of the two has stood for office. So I've corrected and sourced this bit. To be honest I'm not convinced it's of any relevance whatsover but this can be discussed, however I thought I'd correct the "mistakes" as a matter of emergency Thermaland 11:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Gaffes

I think the Britney Spears song "Oops I did it Again" could describe the pattern of gaffes Royal has made during her campaign, which is what the French-language blog "SEGOLENE ROYAL : OOPS I DID IT AGAIN !" does.

Thank you for your spam.Thermaland 22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

1995 presidential race?

I am trying to source the last {{fact}} tag, She first considered a run for President during the Socialist Party's primaries for the 1995 elections but decided against it because only heavyweights were running., But I can't find any source on the net, and the French article doesn't mention that fact. The socialist primaries in 1995 opposed Henri Emmanuelli and Lionel Jospin. Anyone got an idea of where it comes from? The only mention I could find is Trésors de l'INA : 24 janvier 95, Royal attaque Jospin but it can't really be used as a source, can it? -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if a source can be found, it'll be speculation in the first place, IMHO. If she toyed with the idea then, she certainly wasn't careless enough to tell anyone about it on the record. Thermaland 10:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

An article in Le Monde mentions it as well: "Two men run for the nomination, Lionel Jospin ans Henri Emmanuelli. (...) As he often told later, it took François Hollande lots of persuasion for her to renounce joining the battle" (original: "Deux hommes briguent l'investiture, Lionel Jospin et Henri Emmanuelli. (...) Comme il l'a souvent raconté par la suite, François Hollande avait dû déployer des trésors de persuasion auprès de sa compagne pour qu'elle renonce à se lancer elle-même dans la bataille.". Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Three Way?

Is better translation Three Way or Way of Three, my English is not so well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.68.101.193 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Are you looking for "troisième voie"? I would translate it Third way or Third Path (I'd say the first one is better) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Article — NOT

Don't mean to be harsh but it seems that people constantly and deliberately disregard the Wikipedia policy that articles are not for people to promote their causes or candidates. Nor, as the above banner says, is the Talk page a place for discussing the article's subject.

This article is POV, poorly sourced and weasel-worded, and it certainly does not deserve Good Article status.

Here's a small sampling:

Biograpahy section
"Her father, who believed that girls were meant for obedience and breeding, not education," Who says this? Where's the source?

• Removed. mceder (u t c) 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Much to his surprise, she was admitted to Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris" Much to his surprise???? Where's the source?

• Removed. It is not relevant, the next few lines explains the documented lack of financial support. mceder (u t c) 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Politial career
"She served as a judge (conseiller) of an administrative court, an assignment for low-ranking graduates after her graduation" Low-ranking? If that's not an opinion, then where's the source?

• Well-known fact in France, but hard to source. Final ENA exams classify students, the first-placed getting first pick of the available posts. There is a clear hierarchy between "corps" (administrative branches): the best almost always choose the 'grand corps', then the diplomatic corps, the lowest-ranking are 'civil administrators'. The corps of Administrative Courts and Administrative Courts of Appeal ranks above civil administrators, but it's clearly not one of the best. Now, the only way to write it in a NPOV way is to mention her final rank. fr: states she was 95th (classes count up to 120) but provides no source about it. I don't think a source is available online: France's online law archives do not go back before 1986. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"She first considered a run for President during the Socialist Party's primaries for the 1995 elections but decided against it because only heavyweights were running" Again, unsourced opinion.
2007 Presidential Bid
"After the government was forced into a humiliating climb-down in the face of youth riots against the CPE" Forced? Humiliating? This is editaorial witing.
"The campaign — which allowed contributions by visitors in order to help "complete" the book — was designed" Was designed? Weasel words.
"By the beginning of September, her intentions had become quite clear." Again, editorializing. "This led to an unusually bitter fall-out" More editorialikzing.
Policies
"Royal has been widely criticized for being stronger on rhetoric than policies" Has been criticized? Weasel words.
Foreign Policy
"she also invited ridicule" Opinion
"she stirred up more controversy by declaring her support for the Quebec sovereignty movement in its aim to secede from Canada" Stirred up more controversy? More editorializing.
"This comment was widely interpreted" more weasel words.

The rest of the section reads like campaign talking points.

Again, these are only samples. To call this a Good Article is a travesty. — J M Rice 19:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I might agree with this, but one way to tackle the problem is to simply make the changes, one at a time, and see if other editors object. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

POV-check needed

Yes, J M Rice is right: this article violates two of the main Wikipedia principles, [Neutral Point of View] and [Verifiability]. J M Rice gave some examples, unfortunately there are many more. The wording of the whole article must therefore be revised. I added a POV-check tag. 14p mkaef 13:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with much of what has been "said" about this article. Parts of it is directly condescending in "tone", and are not at all backed up by facts.

Bordeaux or Limoges

Ségolène Royal's cousin was a National Front candidate for the 2006 municipal elections in Bordeaux, not Limoges. Moreover, the quoted reference in the reference list says "^ La cousine de Ségolène candidate FN. Le Nouvel Observateur (September 21, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-03-14." The first date should be September 21, 2006, not 2007, obviously. -200.104.58.150 17:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Corrected now - those were my mistakes in the first place... Thermaland 08:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

trivia on Royale and anime

This is a bit trivial, but might interest the fans of japanese anime. Royale was a vocal critic of japanese series appearing on the french private TV channel TF1 in the 1980s, she went as far as calling it "japoniaiserie" (niaiserie could be translated as siliness). She favoured french made cartoons like "babar the elephant"(even though they were aimed at toddlers rather than the teenager oriented "dragon ball" etc). cultural Protectionism/elitism? Don't think this needs to go in the article but just felt like sharing. Daft 3 may 2007

To be fair, the level of japanese animation shown on french TV at that time was... bad to say the least (some animes heavily censored, or much more violent than the usual stuff that was shown on the other TV channels :) (and I'm a huge fan of anime) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

this is already mentioned in the article (in the "policies" paragraph). I think the problem with anime specifically at the time was that TF1 in particular paid no attention to the fact that they are aimed carefully at various age groups and showed them all randomly in the afternoon. Thermaland 14:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah, my bad, I only just noticed the mention. It's true that some of the stuff shown was perhaps innapropriate and lost a lot of sense because of poor translation and censoring, but even so I still find that it shows a lack of opened-mindedness. Daft, may 4 2007; 10:03

See also Lionel Jospin's daft crusade against Garbage Pail Kids ("les Crados" in France). But Wiki talk pages are not for general discussion of the topic, and I shall presently chastise myself for straying this far already... Thermaland 12:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

More recent controversy

Why is there no mention of her recent "threats" (whatever one would call them) that if she was not elected there would be riots in the streets? Renegade 09:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[27] Zigzig20s 09:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What threats? I don't see any threats in your source. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

She said that if Nicolas Sarkozy was elected, there would be rioting. There was indeed some limited rioting following the election; we have photographs of it on Wikipedia. This remark is also justified by the fact that when Nicolas Sarkozy was Minister of the Interior, there was rioting following some of his actions and remarks.

Claiming such remarks as "threats" is certainly non neutral and would certainly need justification. I doubt Ms Royal was threatening to organize a revolution or such! David.Monniaux 22:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

English biography

An English language biography of Ségolène Royal

I wonder if someone competent would be good enough to place: -

Harneis, Robert Ségolène Royal – A Biography, Great Britain Harriman House 2007 ISBN 1-9056-4130-3 (In English)

I went to a great deal of trouble to write it and it would be nice if people who consult your site actually knew it existed.

Thank you

Robert Harneis82.126.218.109 12:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What Religion is she?

No mention of religion. - Culnacréann 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

She was raised Roman Catholic but I don't think it is known whether she practices, so it is best not to speculate. Thermaland 09:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion is extremely present in her ideology, even though she practices no religion to my knowledge. I'm not even sure she was raised Roman Catholic, I think it was traditionnalist or something close to that.--Bombastus 08:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"traditionalistes" are Roman Catholics, are they not? Albeit on the fringe. It is true that she used what I would call crypto-Catholic imagery and language a lot in the presidential race, but this is all a matter of interpretation and original research which is discouraged on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't write about it in the article. Thermaland 09:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don´t think she follows any religion. She supported gay marriage, unlike Lionel Jospin, an well known atheist. Anyone needs to show a source to her beliefs, whatever they are. 85.242.236.121 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Her rhetoric is full of Biblical references and she has a special admiration for the patron saint of France, Saint Joan of Arc. She does follow the Roman Catholic faith although not publicly, to comply with the staunchly secular lines of the French Socialist Party. I think the article should be more open about her faith, that would give a fairer picture of the character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.140.20.72 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to show some links about what you say. Joan of Arc is a national hero of France. Jacques Delors and Michel Rocard are two well known french christian socialists. You claim something that looks absurd : "She does follow the Roman Catholic faith although not publicly, to comply with the staunchly secular lines of the French Socialist Party. I think the article should be more open about her faith, that would give a fairer picture of the character." Since when there isn´t religious freedom in France ? By the way, she also supports gay marriage, that doesn´t seems catholic at all. The question isn´t if the article isn´t opened or closed about her faith, it simply doesn´t have any sources about that.85.243.68.36 (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

European institutions keep on blaming France for breaching religious freedoms . Royal was initially against gay marriage but she...converted . Being discreet about her faith doesn't make her less a member of the Roman Catholic Church. She is not an apostate, an atheist or an agnostic. Please prove me wrong.

If a person is influenced by the Roman Catholic faith, like she is, that doesn´t mean that she still considers herself a catholic. You keep on pointing her supposed Catholicism, but you haven´t showed a source about that ! She is a practising or non practising catholic, an agnostic or something else ? At the french Wikipedia, there´s not a single reference about her religious beliefs. I also did a google search about her religious beliefs, and I didn´t found nothing. This is for a matter of justice, we can´t add her to a religious category whitout a reliable source. I can´t prove that your wrong or right, but I also can´t say without evidence what are her religious or non religious beliefs.14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Mistico (talk • contribs)

I also noticed that she lived together with a partner for 30 years, but she never got married by the Church. That seems also to prove that she´s not a catholic anymore.Mistico (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That really sounds like a compelling argument!! Let me explain something to you; you become a Catholic by receiving the sacrament of baptism when you are young or in adult life. Marie-Ségolène was born and raised in a conservative Roman catholic family, this is very well documented and even stated at the begining of the article. So I think the likelihood of her being baptised in close to 100%. Dropping the very un-socialist "Marie", supporting gay marriage, living with a non-married partner or joining the Khmer Rouge doesn't make you less catholic than the Pope!! Catholics have the possibility to "swear off" their faith (so to speak) by writing to the bishop of their diocese asking him to add "apostate" or a similar footnote in the Church's baptism register . Until such time as someone proves me that (Marie-)Ségolène has carried out this task or proclaimed herself an atheist (has she??), she is and remains a non-practicing member of the Church of Rome, like millions of people in the world. I can appreciate that such label makes some French Socialists feel a bit awkward (it would be interesting to find out why) but our Ségo IS a Catholic. Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.140.20.72 (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is that there aren´t that much christian socialist politicians in Europe. Unless you or someone else show a reliable source were she states that she still considers herself to be a catholic, she souldn´t be added to that category. She can be a spiritual but non religious person, an agnostic, a deist, etc. A person can leave the Catholic Church by simply stoping to consider himself or herself as a catholic. I did a new search in french at the google, and despite her catholic influences, not a single place were she admites to be a catholic.Mistico (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This article from a French secular socialist newspaper shows how religious (sorry) spiritual she has become since she lost the elections. But shush, it's secret...The secular brigades are watching us... _{http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/ecrans/328826.FR.php}

Thanks for the article ! It´s really odd that she never openly assumed her religious beliefs, and now seemed troubled to be caught praying (?) in an italian church. We can see what kind of person is she. I think that the fact that she never got married at the church, and she also supports gay marriage and euthanasia speak by itself. Anyway, since nobody ever saw her at a mass in ages, she should appear as a non practising Catholic. I think that will be more consensual.82.154.85.197 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that nobody saw her attending mass doesn't mean that she does not attend it 'in private'. I think there is a deep contradiction between the French socialist 'party line' (staunch secularism, no public display of religious belief, compulsory endorsement of gay marriage etc.) and Ségolène Royal's deepest convictions, hence her discomfort when she is 'caught' doing naughty things such as praying in a church while on a private holiday in a foreign country. What does that tell you about the French Socialist Party? - Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.129.163.212 (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

References

La Raz-le-Bol des bébés zappeurs

Do we have anything on her book against Japanese anime here? That would be interesting to put something about it in. Matthieu (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal suffers blow to credibility following "Obama copied me" gaffe

I'd like to add some background info about a current event that may affect Royal's credibility. This event probably doesn't deserve coverage in the main article, but it may have a big effect on public opinion in France, and so it's worth laying this out here, for the additional background it may bring to editors working on the article itself.

There's a bit of a dust-up going on in France following some intemperate remarks made by Royal regarding Barack Obama's successful campaign for the presidency. She spoke to Le Monde reporter Sylvain Cypel from Washington on 2009-01-20 where she was attending the inauguration as a private citizen (the French ambassador being the official invited representative) and attributed part of Obama's success in the election to the fact that he and his campaign team supposedly copied ideas and strategies from the PS website. (All links below are from Le Monde and are in French.)

The Monde headline is J'ai inspiré Obama et ses équipes nous ont copiés ("I inspired Obama and his team copied us"), referring to comments by Royal about an earlier visit by Obama to France where he took time to study the PS (Socialist Party) website "Désirs d'avenir", and according to her, learned various ideas there such as "win-win" strategy and other topics mentioned in the article, which he then used to go back and devise a winning strategy for the campaign.

This has blown up into a mini tempest that is still going on, and has much the flavor of Al Gore's "I invented the Internet" remark. Le Monde was immediately flooded with over 500 comments from its readership, with near unanimous ridicule and mockery of Royal's comments, even from supporters who had voted for her but who added comments such as "Thank god she lost."

By the next day, Royal was aware of the response and in an apparent damage control attempt, claimed that it was all in jest, and that her remarks weren't meant to be taken seriously. Monde reporter Cypel chimed in following that, disputing her account of it and saying that that there was no indication during the actual interview that Royal was being anything but serious in her comments the previous day, and furthermore that most of the comments about Obama Royal raised on her own, and were not in response to questions.

This inspired another couple of hundred comments in reaction to the second article. A Facebook group (in French) "I inspired Obama, too" whose point is to ridicule Royal has been gaining members.

It is way too soon to say for sure, but my sense of it at this point is that Royal's credibility has taken a serious, possibly fatal, blow. It remains to be seen whether she can recover sufficiently to be a credible candidate going forward. If she does not, this affair may end up being viewed as the straw that broke the camel's back. Mathglot (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This article already has some serious UNDUE issues (a whole section for Puerto Rican indepednence?!). The trip to the inauguration and the little flap probably deserve a sentence or two, but unless it spiraled into something larger, it doesn't look any more important a dustup than previous headlines (bravitude, Chinese justice, Hezbollah, etc). Joshdboz (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the relative significance (or lack thereof) of this incident as compared to several others. Actually, I'm not sure this deserves even a single sentence in the main article, as I mentioned at the top of the section. That was not the point of the post; if I had thought that, I would have edited the main article.

Rather, it's purpose is to provide some background information that may be of interest down the road to regular editors of the article (of which I'm not one) if it turns out that Royal's popularity continues to wane. If that does occur, this may become of more interest at that point as one of the contributing factors. Mathglot (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok, gotcha. Joshdboz (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rican section

I have taken the liberty of removing the section on Royal responding to a question on Puerto Rican independence because 1) It has little to do with her life/career/etc 2) has generated little to no publicity to warrant inclusion 3) her answer in itself was dodging the question 4) therefore inclusion is really giving UNDUE weight to the incident. If somebody would like to work in one sentence or a clause somewhere regarding this it might merit a second look, but an entire section is obvious bias. -- Joshdboz (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Increasing marginalized"

after the PS sweeped regional elections, it seems unfair to say Ségo is "increasingly marginalized." Maybe that was true a year or two ago but not now. That's a subjective thing to say anyways and should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.8.146 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

many aspects of page biased

the whole foreign policy section is written to make it seem as if the women is incompetent or uninformed. this needs to be corrected, as it is totally skewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-practicing Roman Catholic

According to Wikipedia guidelines of NPOV, I think she should appear as a non-practicing Roman Catholic. There are some Roman Catholics in the French Socialist Party, who identify themselfs that way, being the most known, Jacques Delors. Unfortunately, Ségolène Royal, in any place ever refered to herself as a Catholic, and nobody was able to find a RS where she explains her religious beliefs. She was raised as a Roman Catholic, but never got married at the Church. There was a lot of speculation about her religion during the 2007 presidential elections, but she never "came out" in a way or another, unlike Nicolas Sarkozy, who was very vocal about his Catholic faith. Finally she sued a french magazine for taking pictures of her praying in a Church. This seems to disclose her "Catholicism", but also proves that she is by no means practicing or a picture of her praying in a Church certainly would be a non-event. So I think according to Wikipedia rules of NPOV is more accurate to put her religion as Roman Catholic (non-practicing). Nobody is denying her religion, we are simply emphasizing that she doesn't follow her usual rites anymore.81.193.188.253 (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No. If we have no reliable source stating her religion, we simply don't report a religion. See WP:CAT/R, which applies by analogy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree totally. Thanks for your help. No OR on Wikipedia.81.193.188.253 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I also removed her from the French Roman Catholics category.81.193.188.253 (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that is correct. However, regarding your edit comment: admins have no special weight in content disputes. You should all agree with be because I'm right, or because my brilliant arguments convince you - not because I happen to have passed an RfAdmin at a prehistoric time where 1000 edits were a lot and Steve Wozniak started to think about building Stonehenge. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a RS about her religion. Its totally affiliated to her. My understanding of french also shows that she NEVER claims to be a Catholic in the source given, she always states she is spiritual, that religion played a important part on her life, but she never identifies herself as a Catholic.81.193.189.198 (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ségolène Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070906235227/http://www.lexpress.fr:80/info/france/dossier/ps/dossier.asp?ida=438497 to http://www.lexpress.fr/info/france/dossier/ps/dossier.asp?ida=438497

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ségolène Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071118202101/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article599972.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article599972.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ségolène Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061121092145/http://www.lexpress.fr/info/france/dossier/segoleneroyal/dossier.asp?ida=453683&p=4 to http://www.lexpress.fr/info/france/dossier/segoleneroyal/dossier.asp?ida=453683&p=4

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Ségolène Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.news.yahoo.com/13112006/5/le-snes-demande-segolene-royal-de-renoncer-ses-propositions-sur.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116141332/http://www.famille.gouv.fr/doss_pr/34_001214.htm to http://www.famille.gouv.fr/doss_pr/34_001214.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116064939/http://www.famille.gouv.fr/doss_pr/34_010111.htm to http://www.famille.gouv.fr/doss_pr/34_010111.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061126012915/http://www.tourisme.gouv.fr/fr/z2/vacances/handicap/label_national/qui_quoi.jsp to http://www.tourisme.gouv.fr/fr/z2/vacances/handicap/label_national/qui_quoi.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228124514/http://ps-scpo.over-blog.com:80/article-5155984-6.html to http://ps-scpo.over-blog.com/article-5155984-6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523233013/http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=22&r=331 to http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=22&r=331
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061218032606/http://news.independent.co.uk:80/world/middle_east/article2037468.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2037468.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210132718/http://www.canada.com:80/topics/news/world/story.html?id=c2dfe3b3-b92d-4118-a2a3-8f379f3c37cf&k=43486 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=c2dfe3b3-b92d-4118-a2a3-8f379f3c37cf&k=43486
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071209013922/http://www.canada.com:80/topics/news/world/story.html?id=65d1ed47-db50-4c3d-ae68-fa5f335efc23&k=45185 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=65d1ed47-db50-4c3d-ae68-fa5f335efc23&k=45185
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216044821/http://news.independent.co.uk:80/europe/article2193674.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2193674.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618170501/http://archquo.nouvelobs.com:80/cgi/articles?ad=politique/20060921.OBS2817.html to http://archquo.nouvelobs.com/cgi/articles?ad=politique/20060921.OBS2817.html&host=http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/

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

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) 10:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ségolène Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ps-scpo.over-blog.com/article-5155984-6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122223704/http://www.segoleneroyal2007.net/article-5274293.html to http://www.segoleneroyal2007.net/article-5274293.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2037468.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=c2dfe3b3-b92d-4118-a2a3-8f379f3c37cf&k=43486
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=65d1ed47-db50-4c3d-ae68-fa5f335efc23&k=45185
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2193674.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archquo.nouvelobs.com/cgi/articles?ad=politique%2F20060921.OBS2817.html&host=http%3A%2F%2Fpermanent.nouvelobs.com%2F

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) 23:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ukraine

I have removed the references to Ukraine in the lede and main text. My rationale for removal is WP:whatwikipediaisnot and WP:Notability(Events). In respect of reported events, the latter notes the following: "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else". The deleted sections refer to comments made by the subject of the article in the last couple of days (at the time of editing). I do not suggest that the reportatge is incorrect, but the issue of the war incidents in Ukraine in question is clearly highly contentious and is likely to be contended in the coming days. It may be appropriate to include these rererences in due course, but at present they do not appear to act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. Given that the subject is a high profile politician, it is likely that she has made many comments about contentious matters over many years; the inclusion of these latests comments in the lede in particular seems unjustified, certainly at present. All the best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmentalist (talk • contribs) 01:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edit is borderline disruptive, and each argument above if factually incorrect. I see you're a new user to Wikipedia, so I assume good faith but need to correct the errors. First, these comments did act as a precedent for something else: they lead to massive criticism from numerous high ranking politicians, and to a large number of articles in leading newspapers. That is already enough to make it notable. Second, your guess that Royal has "made many comments about contentious matters over many years" is partly correct, and the article many such comments, as similar articles for other politicians also do. Just a quick search would have told you that these comments are the most publicised she had made in several years, making them highly relevant for the article. Third, your insinuations that the well-established facts about the Bucha massacre and Mariupol air attacks are "highly contentious" come very close to conspiracy theory territory, and have no place on Wikipedia. In short, your removal seems to based entirely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The statements in question are clearly notable, as evidenced both by the many media articles about them and the strong reactions from members of her own party. I remind you that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and that removing well-sourced material based on your own speculations (claims of the war crimes being 'contentious', guesses about what might happen in the future) would be vandalism. Jeppiz (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Jeppiz Thanks for your comments. I've been editing successfully and very carefully for a year; this can be viewed at my 'contributions' pages. I have cited relevant policies for my edits in this case. I will not rebut your comments point by point, although I do disagree with many of them and indeed their general thrust. The subject of this article is a leading French politician who has made many political comments over the past half-century. It is incorrect to elevate comments made a few days ago, and subject to much mixed early comment in the media, to the lede of the article. I have no interest in politics per se, but rather in biography. I recognise that there is war on; this behoves us all not to edit prematurely. It may be that in future the comments and events you speak of will be subject to extensive analysis and become demonstrably noteworthy. At this stage, the comments are too recent, too disputed and open to selective usage, and are the subject of too little consensus to justify inclusion either in the lede or, in my opinion, the article at all. They amount, in my opinion, to the use of Wikipedia to report contemporary news, and partial news at that. Perhaps a compromise would be best here. Could you let me know if you will agree to remove the section from the lede? If so, I will agree to the comments later in the main section. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, @Jeppiz I thought I'd have another go at a dialogue with you over the lede (lead). I've said above that I don't think the content we dispute is notable as yet. I think it is essentially reporting current news through a particular prism rather than describing a broadly agreed historical perspective. I've provided the relevant policies. I don't agree that selective follow on in the media represents sufficient substance of itself to satisfy the notability rules. However, I've also said that I'd be happy to compromise on all of that provided the content does not appear in the lede. The subject is a senior public figure who has made many notable statements over the last 50 years, not least while reaching the last 2 of a French presidential contest; the comments in the lede at present about Ukraine are very recent. They do not deserve to be highlighted over the subject's many other notable comments over the years. You have suggested that I simply don't like the content and I have made it clear that I have at no other point made an incursion on Wikipedia or anywhere else into the subject of the war in Ukraine. Indeed I have no political opinion on the subject here at all. My interest is in upholding Wikipedia policies and standards, particularly where it comes to my personal interest of biography. Could you possibly let me have your thoughts? I'd be most obliged and would appreciate it greatly. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

(found this on wp:3) It appears Jeppiz is on wikibreak. I have removed the events from the lead and touched up the description in the body. I do think it should be mentioned in the body given the coverage in several sources. Note that WP:NEVENT concerns standalone articles, not mention within an existing article. Madeline (part of me) 20:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much Madeline! @Emmentalist Emmentalist (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say I agree with your edits. Leads should be kept focused, and primarily summarize an article's contents. For politicians, unless a particular event defined their whole career, or otherwise had a large influence on the trajectory of their career, it probably doesn't belong in the lead. That said, it seems like this woman has been out of any official office for a few years, and her work while in office would certainly be more notable than comments made recently. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @PhotogenicScientist. Yes. I think it'd constitute research on my part so I haven't sought to put it in, but SR's highest international moment was when she ran off against Sarkozy in 2007. The left across the EU was very excited because she was elected on what they generally considered a 'true' leftist platform. At the time, the only party of the centre left in power was the UK's Labour Party and many EU socialists considered 'New' Labour's leader, Tony Blair, closer to the Sarkozy mould than theirs. Historians might (or might not) argue that SR's ultimate failure in 2007 showed the limits at the time of her strong leftist perspective. Hollande, her long-time partner, took a more centrist position next time around and defeated Sarkozy. Then Macron arguably did the full Blair to win the last two. So SR is a historical figure across the EU, arguably to illustrate the limits of leftism, but essentially only on the basis of her relative success in 2007. IMHO, obv! :-) All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello all, I was indeed on a Wikibreak, but fully supportive of the compromise. Thanks to Emmentalist for proposing it and to Madeline for implementing it. Jeppiz (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jeppiz! Emmentalist (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)