Talk:Manuel Valls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rewriting work[edit]

I have started rewriting the article based on French article and references. The ref to the book of María Preckler has the ISBN code inside but it appears as wrong at the bottom page (despite it is ok in French page). Can sb correct it?
"Origins and family" and "Political orientations" section are done at this time Pierre.alix (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC) , The French wiki page on Valls flatly contradicts the English one - what is going on? He let people say his family were Republican Spanish who fled Franquism, but actually they were wealthy pro-Franco Catalans.82.120.238.72 (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


English proofreading[edit]

Hi Pierre - I am going through this (albeit slowly) and tidying up some of the English expressions (I'm a native English speaker). As my knowledge of French politics is practically non-existent, I cannot comment on the veracity of the content - just on the language itself.

I will aim to proofread the whole article this week :-) Piccolapixxie (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

The article states Manuel Valls is Roman Catholic, but there is no reference in the text to his religious denomination. French socialists tend to be secularist unless declared otherwise; there is a section in the text about Secularism in fact. He has public declarations regarding his position on "demanding secularism" and has been accused of being a hard-liner on secularism (see: [1]). I think the Roman Catholic item should be removed because (1) it does not appear in the original French page, (2) his political orientation seems secular so ew need som proof about being Catholic before stating this as a fact (3) the only Catholic reference is the text is about his grandfather and being born in Barcelona does not mean, statistically, you are automatically a Catholic (only 59 % of Catalans practice some religion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric (talk • contribs) 12:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and religion are truly separate in France. I'm guessing that by "secularism", you're confusing two separate things, non-religion/atheism with Laïcité. Many French politicians, just like many French people, are atheist/agnostic, but this has nothing to do with Laïcité, and in fact some religious politicians are fierce defenders of Laïcité (sometimes because they feel it helps their own religion), especially on the right. There is an article on Laïcité, but basically it means that religion has no place in politics and in public generally. Even mentioning ones religion can be considered as "crossing the line" by some, and when Nicolas Sarkozy was president, the few things he did as a Catholic (like go see the Pope, or saying a priest could teach things a teacher couldn't) were hugely controversial.
To go back to the religion of Valls, many a French will say they're Catholic while in practice never praying, never setting foot in a church, never abiding by any Catholic rule. I think mentioning the religion of French politicians or French people in general is very "unFrench", but if you want to do it, a direct quote is needed. Aesma (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://religion.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/05/16/manuel-valls-ministre-partisan-dune-laicite-exigeante/

Confused[edit]

The opening of the article states that he's from the social-liberal wing of the French Socialist Party, but later in the article, it lists his views on social issues, and they seem anything but on quite a few of the highlighted issues. He sounds like a centrist to me, at best. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly debatable, and there is no denying that he is well liked by centrist politicians, while some in the PS doubt his leftism. However he supports many socialist things that we have in France (welfare state, socialized medicine, socialized pensions, socialized unemployment, etc.) that centrists are usually keen to radically reform. As Mitterrand said, centrists in France are neither from the left, nor from the left, so someone with these views will always end up as a socialist or a radical-socialist. Aesma (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


You need to understand that "liberal" is a centrist or even right-wing approach in Europe. Calling him a liberal means he is on the right-wing of the French Socialist Party.

82.224.103.123 (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite confused by his comparison to Scandinavian social democracy. He is a centre-right Third Way-style social democrat and has virtually nothing in common with traditional Scandinavian social democracy. (and yes, I mean to call him centre-right) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.75.121 (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of what I was getting at. Here in the United States, he'd probably be somewhere on the left to center on certain issues, but on many of our social issues, he'd be firmly within the center of right-wing Republican thought (rule of law/public safety, immigration, Israel/Palestine, marijuana legalization, etc...). This stuff would make him unfit as a leader in the mainstream Democratic Party. Hell, the article even says that he refered to himself as a "Blairite" or "Clintonien". I'm not even sure how one could describe him as a "social-liberal" by even European standards save for a few key issues. I still argue it'd be best to take out that description, as it's HIGHLY debatable. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what does supporting Israel have to do with being right-wing? It's about what is morally just, not conservatism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.150.252 (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't take just a couple of answers to issues and decide the camp in which it puts a politician, especially if it's not the camp he's claiming to be a member of, furthermore when he's the Prime Minister ! The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is not a right or left issue in France and governments support both sides, but really it's mostly a non-issue in everyday politics (or a taboo, you decide). Law and order, definitively a right vs left issue in the past, but it has cost at least one presidential election to the Socialists (2002) so now they're starting to understand that people don't see it as a political issue, Valls just happen to have understood it long before most, but Hollande campaigned on it too. Immigration, more complicated still, discourse versus reality, Valls did something that should satisfy both camps, result both camps cry fool : he made the rules to get papers/asylum/nationality clearer, leading both to the quicker deportation of people not meeting the criteria, and to more naturalizations. A mass regularization like had happened in the past was never in the books, in fact no Socialist candidate in the primary dared to propose such a politically suicidal idea, this isn't the 80's for sure ! Lastly marijuana, this is a minor issue for several reasons, the main one being that nobody is arrested over smoking some, France is the first or close to in terms of percentage of population consuming cannabis, so really legalizing it, removing the laws banning it, or similar propositions, wouldn't make much of a difference. His position is more a part of his communication (trying to appeal to the right/older people/conservatives) than something that defines him (and again, the president holds the same line). As for the Scandinavian model, read what I answered the first time, France isn't a Scandinavian country, but it's far from having work rules similar to Germany or the UK (or even Italy or Spain, now), very very far, unemployment benefits are the most generous in the world, health care is close to free (totally free for the poorest people), etc. Valls has shown no intention to change these facts by more than a few inches. Aesma (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake[edit]

"Valls has always been a supporter of Israel in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict". This is actually wrong. Valls is currently a strong supporter of Israel but a few years ago he was a true supporter of Palestine. There are a lot of testimonials, videos, and articles about it. There's also a journalist investigation on it (a book has be released). On the other hand, I can't find much information about why he did change side or if he fakes one of the two alliances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.8.117.85 (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC) His wife is Jewish.81.251.214.103 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Views on religions[edit]

The bits I have removed recently were very poor and synthesised in a massively inaccurate and misleading manner. One phrase said that he "supports the right to wear the Jewish kippa" which makes no sense out of context. In fact he was reacting to a phrase from Marine Le Pen in 2012 suggesting that both Islamic attire and kippas be banned from public space. Since that has never really been an issue, it makes no sense to put it here. Another phrase claims that he "favours banning muslim veils from universities". "Muslim veils" doesn't mean anything in English (the French use the word "voile" variously to mean face veils and headscarves), and the source is a phrase from 2010 when he said it was "worth listening to" which is not the same thing as endorsing the statement. Seeing that he has not done this either as interior minister or prime minister, stating that he favours such a ban is clearly nonsense. You don't write a good article about a politician by cherry-picking statements over the years and setting them in stone as that person's opinions. Mezigue (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Civil War[edit]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to copy-paste Le Point when it says "sheltered priests who were persecuted by Trotskyists and anarchists". Le Point is not an encyclopedia, it's the equivalent of some "tabloïds", with a right-wing bias. The term "persecuted" is very strong, for a point which is strongly disputed by historians but where it's relatively clear that there is no high-level political planning of persecutions, and that an important number of those "persecuted" peoples where actually supporters of the fascist coup. This term mainly comes from christians, who typically use the word "persecution" very easily and love having tons of saints. There is a difference between on the one hand being persecuted for only what you are, and on the other hand being suspected because you work for a pro-fascist organisation (Spain is not Germany, the Church supported Franco very openly). Additionally, there were no trotskists in Spain, or at least not enough to have any significance. In 1935-1936 it's still a bit early to speak about Trotskysm anyway. I guess they are speaking about POUM militias, given that "trotskysm" was a common accusation sent to them by the NKVD. I'm going to replace the expression by "sheltered priests who were fleeing from the Red Terror", with a link to the Red Terror page. I think it will be more neutral, more exact and more complete. J.frison (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image for Manuel Valls[edit]

User:Tom Abercrombie has been blocked for sockpuppetry, hence discussion closed per WP:DENY. —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think there were some good faith edits that were reverted by users. To prevent further confusion, I would like to ask the users to choose which image is the best for Manuel Valls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Abercrombie (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth one is clearly the best: it's in color; he's facing forward; it's high definition, in focus, and has a pleasant, natural expression unencumbered by a distracting earpiece. DrKay (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the third one is clear enough because he is facing forward and it has high-quality colour, so I think the third image is good enough too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Abercrombie (talk • contribs) 00:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks less in focus to me. High resolution is only of value when images are clearly in focus. DrKay (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manuel Valls. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Manuel Valls. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manuel_Valls&oldid=1210009827"