Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauche caviar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Any subsequent discussion about merging to Champagne socialist, chattering classes, liberal elite, etc is not something for AFD to determine, although it strikes me as a good idea worth exploring. fish&karate 11:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gauche caviar

[edit]
Gauche caviar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chardonnay socialist

Seems to lack notability, seems like a simple dictionary definition. — Realist2 00:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

c.80,000 google hits suggests it might not be made up - but in any case, it isn't worth an article. Brilliantine (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Segolene Royale article is not really a good source as it does not give coverage of the article subject. All it does is prove the phrase exists. Good sourcing for this would need to consist of articles on or scholarly philological coverage of the phrase itself. Brilliantine (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Brilliantine's comment seems to have overlooked the references in the French interwikid article which show that good sourcing is available. S/he also ignores my reference to the book by fr:Laurent Joffrin. For everyone's benefit I will provide the citation:
  • Joffrin, Laurent (2006). Histoire de la gauche caviar. Paris: Éditions Robert Laffont.
The publisher also has a French wikipedia article at fr:Éditions Robert Laffont - ie notable publisher . The link to the publisher's blurb The Amazon link to the book . The blurb states:

La « gauche caviar »… Est-ce une fausse gauche qui dit ce qu’il faut faire et qui ne fait pas ce qu’elle dit ? Une tribu frivole et tartuffe qui aime le peuple et se garde bien de partager son sort ? Pis encore, est-ce qu’elle n’introduirait pas, en douce, les réflexes des classes bourgeoises au sein du mouvement progressiste ? Ces gens-là seraient des traîtres, tout simplement.
Dans un pamphlet polémique et historique, Laurent Joffrin analyse ce phénomène apparemment superficiel qui a joué un grand rôle et souvent fait la différence dans le jeu politique, en France comme ailleurs. La gauche caviar irrite, certes, mais constatons qu’elle a toujours reçu les renforts de nombreux bourgeois riches et éclairés. Qu’ils ont souvent dirigé des partis de gauche, servi la classe ouvrière, œuvré pour le progrès et qu’ils furent constamment pour les socialistes un éclaireur, une aide, un compagnon. De Voltaire à Zola, de Victor Hugo à Kennedy, de Philippe d’Orléans à Keynes, la gauche caviar a été composée d’hommes et de femmes de qualité, d’une efficacité décisive et qui eurent une fonction essentielle dans la marche des événements.
En 2006, qu’en est-il ? L’argent-roi depuis les années 1990 a entraîné derrière lui et dans les tourbillons de la mondialisation une gauche caviar qui s’est peu à peu coupée des réalités. Le reste de la population s’est replié dans la condamnation d’une modernité toujours plus injuste. Et la gauche caviar a abandonné son rôle de charnière, c’est-à-dire son rôle historique. Il faut sonner l’alarme pour fermer la porte à tous les populismes et séparer clairement les partisans du progrès et ceux du conservatisme. C’est le but de ce livre.

Which in English translated by bablefish :

The “left caviar”… Is this a false left which says what it is necessary to make and which does not do only it says? A frivolous tribe and sanctimonious hypocrite who loves the people and take care well not to share its fate? Worse still, wouldn't it introduce, into soft, the reflexes of the middle-class classes within the movement progressist? These people-there would be traitors, quite simply. In a polemical and historical lampoon, Laurent Joffrin analyzes this apparently surface phenomenon which played a great role and often made the difference in the political game, in France like elsewhere. The left caviar irritates, certainly, but note that it always received the reinforcements of many rich and lit middle-class men. That they often directed left parties, served the working class, works for progress and that they were constantly for the Socialists a scout, a help, a companion. Of Voltaire with Zola, of Victor Hugo in Kennedy, Philippe of Orleans with Keynes, the left caviar was made up men and women of quality, of a decisive effectiveness and who had an essential function in the walk of the events. In is 2006, qu ' in? The money-king since the years 1990 involved behind him and in the swirls of universalization a left caviar which cut realities little by little. The remainder of the population was folded up in the judgment of a modernity increasingly more unjust. And the left caviar gave up its role of hinge, i.e. its historical role. It is necessary to sound alarm to close the door with all the populisms and to clearly separate the partisans from progress and those of conservatism. It is the goal of this book.

I won't clean up the translation - it is enough to to give the gist for the sake of this discussion. A reference in English to the book in the context of Ségolène Royal's failure to win against Sarkozy is at http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/royal_4110.jsp :

As Laurent Joffrin, former editor of the magazine Le Nouvel Observateur (and soon to take over the ailing daily Libération), explains in his Histoire de la gauche caviar (History of the Caviar Left): these bobos (bohemian bourgeois) have all but forgotten about the people. Meanwhile, her probable opponent Nicolas Sarkozy seems only to know how to boss the people around in the name of security, order and controlling immigration.

AfD is not supposed to be a call for improvement to articles, it is to discuss whether an article should exist or not. On the basis that reliable sources exist to expand the article beyond a mere dicdef, the article should be kept. --Matilda talk 20:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually think that this source does much more than prove the term's use as a synonym for all of the other ad hominems being discussed. It certainly doesn't seem to discuss the phrase's usage and background, rather it merely applies it. Brilliantine (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - but I am not sure I comprehend - we have a book by a notable author entirely devoted to the term gauche caviar - how do you think it "doesn't seem to discuss the phrase's usage and background" ? How is it that a phrase that according to a prominent French political commentator is "apparently [a] surface phenomenon which played a great role and often made the difference in the political game, in France like elsewhere" is unworthy of an article. Other sources - in French are http://pluriel.free.fr/gauche_debat10.html A bebelfish translation (unedited as this is merely a discussion not a ref for the article) of the lead indicates the definition is available from this source:

There had been the intellectual left, the left criticizes, the moderated left, the radical left… Since the Eighties, it there with the left caviar. This n' is more from now on one political positioning which colours l' membership of the left, c' is a sociocultural and economic marker. The Left caviar would be these rich, anonymous or known people who would have their entries in the circles of the capacity qu' it is economic, media, cultural or political, without necessarily in being and which would have a level or an easy way of life. This definition of course does not satisfy because, it does not comprise the moral share which is appropriate. The left caviar is inevitably middle-class with the warping direction of the term, it knows misery only d' in top and thus, for it, being of left, c' is to revolt comfortably. In fact, one reproaches those which l' one affuble of this nickname not to resemble those enough qu' they claim to defend and to miss sincerity and d' authenticity in their engagements.

Alternatively from La Libre Belgique - essentially a review of the book but a disussion also: http://www.lalibre.be/index.php?view=article&art_id=288175

The lawsuit of the left caviar
Eric de Bellefroid
26/05/2006
The fall of the elites progressists Frenchwomen magistralement dismounted by Laurent Joffrin
Director of the drafting of “Nouvel Observateur”, Laurent Joffrin enjoys for this reason d' noble and worthy expertise in what looks at the left caviar. This left which reads its newspaper d' access, and that this one observes very near in return.
Left in a remote exploration the phenomenon, it brings back qu' to us; there existed already in ancient Rome, and qu' a certain middle-class elite - even aristocratic - s' is attached for a long time to the cause of the popular classes. Thus it was seen with Voltaire, Fayette, Talleyrand or the duke d' Orleans, but still with Victor Hugo or Emile Zola, and even in the United States with president John F. Kennedy or in England with the brilliant economist John Maynard Keynes.
A USEFUL CASTE
If French socialism s' d' is ever prevailed; a less tradition ouvrierist, it owed it with proletarian masses which were pleased d' to have at their head of the chiefs able to dominate the line until over the plans cultural and intellectual. Also the left known as caviar caused it the vindication of this line as much as the hatred of l' extreme left. “Bringing the reinforcement d' one entregent and d' a competence, it was useful.”
But this n' is more the case, objects Laurent Joffrin. “The left caviar n' had ever lived with the people but it served it, what qu' one says. It l' gave up. It s' is put to think without him and even against him.” And that because, in the years 1990, l' money took its fol take-off. The financiarisation of l' economy, doped by the liberal internationalization, involved all the leading class in its morbidity.
Admittedly the left reformist, according to Joffrin, n' it does not have demerit of the working class and socialist values; it will have even humanized capitalism. While its historical assessment is sometimes brilliant, sometimes disappointing, but always honourable, the things thus are spoiled after 1990. Left of luxury, which was found so well in l' example of Pierre Mendès France, radical middle-class man, then will be found committal for trial.
THE TIME OF THE RIGOUR
The first years Mitterrand n' had however not been bad. “Technos” of the second left, Mauroy, Delors or Rocard, s' they s' were d' access évertués to implement the 110 proposals of the candidate-president, had negotiated since 1983 the salutary one “turning of the rigour”, ceasing cultivating the myth of the rupture with capitalism and fastening France with l' rather; Europe and with l' market economy...

It is quite obvious that the term exists and has been defined and discussed extensively - including its history and usage. There are sources available - the article should be kept and developed. --Matilda talk 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(unindent) What I'm trying to say is that the phrase is no more than a synonym or a translation of, for instance, "Champagne Socialist". Do we have the French word for "libertarian" as an article? Of course not. How should this be any different? I wouldn't mind noting it as a French language expression of the concept if a unified article is created, but it has no particular notability as a separate article. A notable phrase, especially a foreign language one, would be one for which the phrase itself is discussed - i.e. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, which has been discussed specifically as a phrase in terms of its meaning, usage and from the point of view of linguistics as a tripartite slogan. Brilliantine (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what you are perhaps proposing is a merge to Champagne socialist? A merger is not deletion. --Matilda talk 00:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the options I have given in my !vote above. Brilliantine (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys want to merge things, there are quite a lot of other similar terms that could be merged I believe. We could create a list "terms used to annoy liberals" lol. Sorry, nothing wrong with a bit of humour in these heated debates. — Realist2 00:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with humour :-) My issue with the merger would be breach of WP:SYNTH. We can find sources that link them but ...--Matilda talk 00:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep probably enough material for notability on its own, but possibly a merge to champagne socialist on the basis of the references. DGG (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the lot. The concept is notable and encyclopaedic but I don't think we need an article on every variation of name that has been invented. Nuttah (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable per the references from reliable sources, interesting and relevant to current affairs. It could expand in the future. The French wikipedia article is fairly well-developed. It may become a dictionary definition but it is not in the 2008 Hachette. Mcewan (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is in Larousse - see ref - search for caviar --Matilda talk 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gauche_caviar&oldid=1137872115"