Talk:Dominique de Villepin

172 appears to be putting POV by deleting current news

The Clearstream affair has been all over the French news this past month. Is 172 a campaign operative? John wesley 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Male name

We should put it in the very intro if a picture of him is removed. If the article has a picture that makes it obvious that he is a man, then it may be redundant, but this is an encyclopedia and many non_french people may not know that it is a male not a female. Not everyone already knows the names of second tier national leaders of non-english countries... can you name Australia politicians besides the PM? John wesley 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Villepin as French nobility

Have none of you thought about collaborating with fr.wikipedia?

Villepin is nobility. so whoever is taking him out the category the whole time, please just stop.

So far I haven't seen anything conclusive to show that Villepin is nobility, so whoever keeps adding the link to the nobility category, please stop until something definitive is seen. I've been searching and so far all I've found is evidence that he is not noble. LeoDV 15:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Update again: This clearly suggests that Villepin is not nobility, and this shows his earliest known ancester as being born in 1814, which isn't enough to establish nobility. I'd say there's a strong presumption of non-nobility so, as a precaution, I recommend taking out the category until something is established. I'd like to point out that ~75% of people who have a particule ("du," "de" or "d'" before their name) are not nobility. LeoDV 15:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Are we sure Villepin is a real noble? David.Monniaux 22:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Good question. No idea. LeoDV 11:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Read the Origins section I've just added. That answers questions I think. Now, if anyone lives near a French bookstore, could that person go check in a directory of the French aristocracy if the de Villepin family from Lorraine that I mentioned was really aristocratic? Then we could add it for sure. What's certain, however, is that Dominique de Villepin himself is not from the nobility. Hardouin 00:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good sections, but does it need all this talk about redorer son blason? That's a bit out of the subject. LeoDV 06:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this nobility (or not) story takes much too large a place in this article.194.183.196.141 08:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it is important to explain this in detail, because non-French people are not familiar with all these subtleties. Besides, if you think the section takes too much space in the article, then expand the other sections, which are very poor at the moment, and so the Origins section will comparatively take much less space. Hardouin 11:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that there is a 32 kb limit to the articles. This is starting to look like the Benedict XVI entry.194.183.196.141 12:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, no offence, but non-French people don't care about these subtleties. What they care about is what Villepin's personal history and past policies are. LeoDV 14:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

YOU don't care, but some other readers may care. Wikipedia is for everybody. Hardouin 19:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No offence, but Wikipedia isn't for everbody. It's for its readers, not its contributors. On Wikipedia, good articles are and should be to the point, current and relevant. Whether or not the Villepin family wanted to redorer its blason in the 18th century is largely irrelevant to a man who is making worldwide news in 2005 because of his appointment as Prime Minister. LeoDV 20:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

.#1 Contributors can be readers too. #2 If you think readers couldn't care less about his aristocratic sounding name, you are quite wrong. There have already been a lot of conflicting edits on this article about whether Dominique de Villepin is from the nobility or not. So the subject obviously interests a lot of people. The reason why I wrote the Origins section is precisely because I wanted to establish straight records and end the edit war. Hardouin 22:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that we've established his nobility, or lack thereof, there's really no need for a full paragraph detailing his family history. LeoDV 06:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We have established his nobility: see http://gw1.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=pierfit&lang=fr;p=jean+baptiste;n=galouzeau+de+villepin;oc=1 The family tree shows his ancestry connects him to the Capetian kings of France -- what more could one want? More importantly, the nobility in France was banished with the French revolution, so all claims to it are necessarily appealing to a socially constructed idea of nobility rather than to some illusion of genetic purity. Currently, de Villepin is acting the aristocrat, has an aristocratic name, and that is what the French are taking him for: therefore, he is an aristocrat by any meaningful current French social standards for determining this sort of thing. Lastly, "du" is not a particule, only "de" and "d'" are. There are a few fake particules that have snuck in over time, because of Belgian and Alsatian naming conventions, but it is no way true that most particules (the "de) are not a sign of nobility. In fact, they are. --Gorodish 02:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not correct, Gorodish, that's wrong. You're so stupid, why do you write about stuff you do not know? Yes, "du" is a particule in France! No, Villepin is not part of French nobility because of his Villepin ancestors (who were notpart of French nobility) but only because of his maternal ancestors (which lineage reaches the Capetian kings of France). No, Villepin ancestors were not part of the nobilty - it's only fake nobility. Alsatian naming conventions?! No one of these supposed conventions does exist in Alsace!!! 90.28.115.53 (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Villepin or de Villepin ?

So how should be called ?82.120.3.118 10:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

=> I'm french and I do have a name with a "particule". A particule is not the name, it's only a link. So if you juste say the name, you'll have to speak about "Villepin". If you say something with his first name or a title, you'll speak about : Dominique de Villepin, sir de Villepin, monsieur de Villepin, etc. In the same way, if you want to put his name in capital letters, you'll write Dominique de VILLEPIN.

Villepin. French names that have a particule ("de" or "du") and more than two syllables, when used alone, are used without the particule. So it should either be "Villepin" or "Mr de Villepin" but not "de Villepin." LeoDV 11:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this is confusing enough for us anglophones that the BBC felt the need to explain it [1]. --Laura Scudder | Talk 06:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well.. Traditional usage is to drop the particle unless preceded by first name, title or "Monsieur" or "Madame". This usage is now largely ignored by a lot of the population but, for instance, Philippe de Villiers' campaign posters talk of "Villiers" and not "de Villiers". David.Monniaux 22:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. I hear him mentioned as de Villepin (and Charles de Gaulle as de Gaulle) in daily conversation as well as on the news. In fact, I can't recall a case where they were called without "de". Uly 00:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

=> It's me again. No no... There is an only exeption and it is when you have less than to syllables... You'll have always to add the particule to the name. So effectively, you speak about "de GAULLE" (2 syllables) and about "VILLEPIN"... It's a question a hearing, natural for maternal french spoken people. French is not very logic, I know...

Mr. de Villepin

Isn't it a little rude to call Villepin and the other people mentioned in the article just by their last name? I'm thinking of changing all the "Villepin"s to "Mr. de Villepin", the "Chirac's to "Mr. Chirac", etc. LeoDV 15:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This would make us write more in line with what's found in Le Monde or similar. David.Monniaux 15:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In French the use of M. is polite. The lack of M. is a bit crude and impolite. In English however, the standard use is without Mr., and it is absolutely not impolite or crude. English and American newspapers quote absolutely everybody without a Mr. or a Mrs./Ms., they use only family names. If they want to be a little more polite, they will use a title, such as President, or Prime Minister, but almost never Mr. or Mrs./Ms (although there are exceptions.. the NYTimes for instance uses Mr. a lot). I'm talking articles here. The style in letters, of course, is different. Hardouin 19:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not only the NYTimes, but The Economist always uses Mr. Wikipedia, however, does not, so I suggest we stick to the Wikipedia convention. LeoDV 20:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the French did not always, but have begun to call de Villepin "de Villepin" (in the last year or so) whereas before they called him "Villepin" -- so we should stick with what the French call their own person, which is right now, "de Villepin". The "Monsieur" is optional. --Gorodish 02:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I don't think that this article needs cleanup at this point. Let's wait a few days (weeks ?) till the dust settles.82.120.3.118 10:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Compare the quality and content of the article on Condoleezza Rice, also an intellectual and foreign minister. It doesn't need cleanup, but it does need more and better content. I've revamped it a little but it needs more. LeoDV 11:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Alain Juppé

With Alain Juppé barred from holding political office for ten years (2004-2008)

What these years (2004-2008) mean? 2004-2008 is 4, not 10 years? ????

Juppé has not been barred for political office 10 years. This is merely one possible legal interpretation of his conviction: the Court of Appeals reduced the initial sentence to 1 year, but some legal scholars argue that this reduction was illegal. David.Monniaux 19:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Important notice: in 1993, Alain Juppé was not Prime Minister, Edouard Balladur was, and Alain Juppé was Foreign Minister in his cabinet until 1995. Only then did Juppé become PM and appointed Hervé de Charette as his Foreign Minister but by this point Villepin was Sec Gen of the Elysée. LeoDV 06:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good remark. I got mixed up in the dates! David.Monniaux 06:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paris II

What's the info regarding Villepin's time in the University of Paris II? What did he study? It sounds a bit unlikely that an ENA graduate would have to go there to study law, business or administration. LeoDV 07:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ENA is a postgraduate school which specializes in public law and administration. You may enter it only after completing an initial education. It seems that Villepin did this initial education getting 3-year degrees (licences) in law and literature, and he also got a diploma from Sciences Po. Sciences Po is a usual starting point for taking the ENA entrance exam. In addition, it is not uncommon for "elite" people to do dual studies while at Sciences Po (for instance, some students at École normale supérieure do dual curricula at Sciences Po and some humanities university). Paris II (Panthéon-Assas) is probably France's best known law university. David.Monniaux 09:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of all this. What I'm asking is: how do we know whether Villepin attended Paris II? LeoDV 09:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His official bio says he has licences in law and literature. That would seem consistent with him attending Paris II for law studies — though I agree with should check. David.Monniaux 09:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whatever his full academic history is, what matters is that he is an énarque because it is how he became a diplomat and because it says a lot about his character. Within the scope of the article, I'd say the rest is irrelevant. LeoDV 14:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added the Paris II and Paris X info. These are found in the "who's who in France" note published by the figaro on the internet after his nomination was announced. You may still find it in google's cache. Sprotch 05:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I indeed consider that being an ENA alumnus is important, but I think the rest plays a role too. Sciences Po / ENA is classical curriculum for somebody in his position. However, studies in literature aren't. Villepin has a hobby writing poetry, makes epic speeches, etc., so I think literature indeed plays an important life for him and actually influenced his career. David.Monniaux 15:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point, you're right. LeoDV 20:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name

The standard on Wikipedia is to list the full name at the beginning of the article in bold. This include all the given (Christian) names, and the full official family name. Check Charles de Gaulle or Tony Blair for instance. I personally find this naming pattern a bit absurd, especially in the case of French personalities (with their endless Christian names), but this is the standard on Wikipedia, so let's respect it in order to be consistent with other articles. If you disagree with the standard, open a discussion in the appropriate place for changing the naming pattern on Wikipedia, but do not change the standard just for the de Villepin article. For the sake of consistency! Hardouin 14:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hardouin, my Edit summary referred to the effect of my change rather than to its intent. Far from attempting to subvert, let alone change, any "standard on Wikipedia", Hardouin, I was simply trying

1. to lose the rather strange use of parentheses, and of commas to separate Mr de Villepin's given names, as featured in the article before my edit; and
2. to get away from the somewhat risible effect of the wording Dominique Marie François René Galouzeau de Villepin [...] simply known as Dominique de Villepin (oh, the surprise!).

If we are, indeed, to discuss Wikipedia standards, however -- and they are, by the way, the common law of usage and practice, not statutory provisions -- I think I should point out that

1. Your statement The standard on Wikipedia is to list the full name at the beginning of the article in bold is incorrect insofar as it applies only to those cases where full names are given. You need look no further than the articles on Mr de Villepin's 30 post-war predecessors in the post of prime minister of France: in scarcely more than 10% of cases are full names listed.
2. Your examples of Charles de Gaulle and Tony Blair are not well chosen, in that in the first case the added clause commonly referred to as le général de Gaulleis not a reference to the omission of André Joseph Marie in everyday parlance, and in the second the (different) formulation Anthony Charles Lynton "Tony" Blair is used, once again, not to indicate the omission of given names, but here to point to the fact that Anthony ("call me Tony") Blair uses a shortened form of his first name.

I cannot see that it is common practice, let alone a "Wikipedia standard", to use "Alpha Beta Gamma Delta, simply known as Alpha Delta". That is not the way that Georges Jean Raymond Pompidou or The Right Honourable James Harold Wilson, Baron Wilson of Rievaulx, to take just two examples, have been dealt with. The norm is to take the article title itself as representing the most commonly encountered usage. What complicates matters in the case of the present article, however, is the inclusion in the introductory paragraph of a soundfile giving the pronunciation of "Dominique de Villepin", and this must perforce come immediately after a written mention of "Dominique de Villepin" (or must it?). I'm not saying that I found the best answer -- clearly not -- but I do still find that "simply known" bothersome: expressed that way, following the "interminable roll call" of Mr de Villepin's given names it looks and sounds, however unintentionally, like a satirical dig... Picapica 18:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Repetition of the title heading

Also, please note that officialy in France (i.e. as recorded on birth certificates by the État Civil) the given (Christian) names are not separated by coma (or by hyphens), they are separated by blank spaces. Hardouin 14:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right. LeoDV 14:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but writing as such gives a very wrong idea to non-French speaking people. The thing is, in general, the second and next given names are never used anywhere except on official documents like birth certificates. Occasionally, some people choose to use their second or other given name in daily life, but that's rare and anyway they could also pick any nickname or pseudonym.

So I think that for French names we should stick to First_usual_name (Sequence_of_other_given_name) Last_name. If you insist on using the names as written in official documents, then they are often written Last_name (First_given_name, Second_given_name, etc). David.Monniaux 15:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not true. The official way is given names first, family name last. That's how it always appears on État Civil records. Family name first is sometimes found, usually when people want to sound more formal (such as at a court audience), but in that case it is fake formality, because the only official form is the État Civil form. On the other hand, your idea of putting non-used given names in parenthesis for French people articles is an interesting one, but it has to be discussed in the appropriate place, leave some weeks for people to express their views, then if consensus is reached, we'd have to change ALL the articles about French personalities. This goes way beyond the single case of Dominique de Villepin. You should check the discussion page at Charles de Gaulle. Back last year, I replaced the given names with just Charles, and I was severely lectured by other users that it was a no no. Some angry user even said that if French encyclopedias do that, then they are bad encyclopedias! So better create a relevant discussion page and build consensus before making any changes. Hardouin 16:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the form Last_name (First_given_name, Second_given_name, etc) is used by the Journal Officiel in group nominative measures, such as the granting of decorations or the promotion of officials. See this example. David.Monniaux 18:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The document you are presenting is of a different nature. It is a list of recipients listed by their family names (with the given names only added in parenthesis to avoid ambiguities or homonymy I suppose). It is not a list of people arranged by full names. Actually, the JO almost never uses full names. Check this for instance: [2]. As you can see, his real name "Galouzeau de Villepin" is not even mentioned. So the JO is not helpful for the discussion here. Hardouin 18:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When in doubt, stick to the norm of Wikipedia articles. As Hardouin pointed out, Charles de Gaulle and Tony Blair do show that on Wikipedia you put in all the silly names and titles, and go on to point out the name they go by (which should be the title of the article). LeoDV 20:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Character

The entire section on M. Villepin's Character appears to be a personal ad. Aspiring poet? I don't think this is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Can someone provide justification for it? --Henrybaker 23:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This describes him as a self-published poet. How is it not appropriate? I'd say that a major political figure's interest in writing poetry would be quite relevant. LeoDV 06:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your link is unnecessary; i'm not disputing that M. Villepin is an aspiring poet. I am however saying that the fact that he is an aspiring poet is totally irrelevant to this article. If he were a well known published poet, this might be relevant, but that doesnt seem to be the case. Furthermore, I think the entire section on "Character" is irrelevant. It is not critical or skeptical at all. It is simply a glowing despcription of M. Villepin. This is an encyclopedia article, not a campaign advertisement. For example,

Villepin is known as a fervent patriot and a republican in the French sense, i.e. a believer in democracy and the principles of liberty and equality enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Now tell me, how many major French Politicians are not believers in "democracy and the principles of liberty and equality..." This is like saying that George Bush is a "believer in the principles of liberty and rule of law as stated in the US Constitution and the Declartion of Independence" While the statement is true, it's irrelevant because it is true of every American politician.

Unless someone can provide justification for this section - and not just verify that the statements it contains are factually correct - then it needs to be deleted. --Henrybaker 15:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have a point, however this is a glowing description in your point of view. The fact that Villepin is a member of the State nobility and an ENA alumnus makes him despicable to a lot of people. Besides, perhaps unfortunately, not every French politician is a patriot or a republican. Besides, the most of what Villepin did as Interior Minister was to reaffirm republican principles agianst the (perceived?) threat of radical islamism. I'd say that makes the fact that he believes in what he does, unlike many politicians, relevant. Establishing these traits and others like his poetry are especially relevant to Villepin because his romantic, idealist personality clashes with the utterly pragmatic and unideological character of his mentor, Jacques Chirac. However, you're right that the whole "Life" section is badly arranged and I'll try to edit to take your remarks into account. LeoDV 16:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of justification for the "character" section of this article, I am deleting that section. --Henrybaker 05:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Villepin has never contested an election. (?)

The above sentence in the opening paragraph makes no sense? Is it unusual never to have contested an election? Is everybody else running around contesting the elections in France like in some banana republic? Some context is needed I daresay Preisler 13:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Umm...it means he's never run for election to any office. john k 16:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Heh.. It means both things then doesn't it.. The "to call into question and take an active stand against; dispute or challenge" was what sprang to my mind... All the times I heard the words election and contest in the recent American election must have erased the intended meaning from my mind Preisler 16:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could find another wording for non-english users? Peco 17:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll change the wording. LeoDV 09:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Date(s) new ministers took office

• Financial Times [3]: Chirac "on Thursday [2005-06-02] named the new government".
• actu-environnement.com [4]: Serge Lepeltier was replaced by Nelly Olin on 2005-06-03? ("aujourd'hui" = today according to Google and my Oxford "Take off in French dictionary")
• People's Daily Online [5]: "At the first cabinet meeting on Friday [2005-06-03], Chirac called on the new cabinet".
• CRI 2005-06-04 [6]: "the new prime minister said the cabinet line-up would be announced by the end of the week [2005-06-05, 2005-06-10, or 2005-06-12?].".

Can someone please give a source of the date(s) the new ministers were sworn in, specifically Nelly Olin's? On 2005-06-03? — Jeandré, 2005-06-26t00:30z

As far as I know, ministers are not sworn in. The nomination decree is from June 2, published on June 3 in the JORF. David.Monniaux 12:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography help?

I just added some bibliography to the article, so with two exceptions it now corresponds to that shown in the WikipediaFrance Villepin entry. The two exceptions are two books of poetry, apparently written by him, which are listed there as follows:

• "1986 : Parole d'exil, recueil de poésies"
• "1988 : Le droit d'aînesse, recueil de poésies"

-- I don't find any references to either of these in the BnF's BN-Opale, or the CCF, or Poésie/Gallimard, or La FNAC, or anywhere else...

The official website shows both: http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/acteurs/biographie_5/premier_ministre_m146. There is a bibliographic reference of sorts given in a L'Express article -- http://www.lexpress.presse.fr/info/france/dossier/villepin/dossier.asp?ida=345129 -- but even there all they say is "(ed. Poésie)".

Because the two titles don't appear in BnF records I am sceptical: French copyright law would have landed an entry there, I think. So I have excluded the two here. If it weren't for that L'Express cite, it would seem to me that we have some sort of Internet circularity going on here: cross-citation -- somebody maybe put these two up in error, somewhere, and then everybody else has been referring to that, even the Matignon site? In Villepin's "Eloge des voleurs de feu" book there is a section, at p. 77 ff., entitled "Le droit d'aînesse" -- and the words form a common phrase in French, as do "parole d'exil".

I hope I'm wrong, and that these two books really do exist, as I'd like to read some poetry-written-by-the-p.m. I'm enjoying his other writing very much. Interesting phenomenon on its own, tho, if this in fact is Internet circularity -- what goes around comes around, even digitally -- perennial need for human editors, maybe, in whatever media. --Kessler 20:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I just read "Character", up above here, a little more closely and may have answered my own question: there is a reference there to a BBC article suggesting that Villepin is a "self-published" poet, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2768503.stm.

But I still wonder whether even the BBC has got this one right: wouldn't something "self-published" still be submitted to the BnF for dépôt légal / copyright protection -- I believe it's a requirement, in France, not an option -- so that the BnF and other dépôt légal libraries there, at least, would possess copies of Villepin's poetry books? I'm still worrying that all these references to his having "published his own poetry", even just self-published it, in fact are thinking of his "Eloge des voleurs de feu" book, which is about other people's poetry but not his own.

A real bibliographic reference -- library catalog entry -- publisher or at least printer and date and ISBN # etc. -- would help me pin this down. I like the guy's writing, & I'd love to say "he's a poet" too, but still looks to me like this may not be so... You'd think the mainstream publishers of his other stuff would have picked up his poetry and done that, by now...

So, any thoughts, here? Why can't these poetry books of V's be found? That "Internet circularity" idea is interesting here too: Internet qua rumor-mill...

That bit just-mentioned about copyright deposit being mandatory, in France: as the BnF puts it, "Le dépôt légal est l'obligation pour tout imprimeur et éditeur de déposer chaque document qu'il imprime ou édite à la BnF ou auprès d'un organisme dépositaire." http://www.bnf.fr/pages/zNavigat/frame/infopro.htm -- so even if he "self-published", Villepin's printer / imprimeur would have had a legal obligation to give copies to the BnF and / or several other dépôt légal libraries in the country... and BnF cataloging, or their national union catalog the CCFR, would be showing those entries...

--Kessler 00:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Mystery partially solved: per recent announcements online, one of those two "poetry volume" titles appears to be not a book but a single poem --

• 2005 : Urgences de la poésie ([Casablanca] : Eds. de la Maison de la Poésie du Maroc, July 2005) tr. into Arabic by Mohamed Bennis, illustr. by Mehdi Qotbi; includes three poems by Villepin himself, "Elegies barbares", "Le droit d’aînesse", and "Sécession".

-- so an initial Internet posting error, by someone, maybe was taken up and copied / re-copied by lotsa others? -- wouldn't be the first time... --Kessler 22:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Irony

Someone wrote "Villepin's aim is therefore to restore the French people's trust in their government, an achievement for which he has publicly set himself a deadline of a hundred days from the appointment of cabinet, a statement which can be viewed as ironic from a man whose first published book is titled The Hundred Days or the Spirit of Sacrifice". I'm not sure that all the readers will understand the irony.That's why Y add this link. --Geremy78 22:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It's De Villepin. Cheers -- Szvest 01:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

No it isn't: not in France, anyway... Best / most conclusive evidence would be his own website, I'd think: they wouldn't get that wrong -- http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/en/acteurs/biography_44/premier_ministre_m146/ -- and there it's "de". Cheers. --Kessler 00:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why this link [about a commentary] ?

A comment on his Financial Times Editorial. This comment appears today seriously wrong. De Villepin is now a serious candidate for the next election, and currently faces NiColas Sarkozy (the political expert doesn't even write correctly his name) with real political skills. De Villepin seems to be trusted even by a large part of left-wing voters (according to several sondages). This link should be retired, the comment has been revealed absurd by the facts. (des français ne pourraient-ils pas confirmer?)

Pls sign your posts...

I disagree with you about removing the link. The article as-presented currently contains very little which is not either simply factual or downright laudatory, besides this one link to this one blog. Villepin is a controversial figure -- any politician is -- and some indication of the parameters of the controversy belongs in the article, if only as links. Instead of eliminating this one, then, I'd suggest adding another, balancing, link to a pro-Villepin website. These are just links, they don't bulk up the article at all, and the "balancing" adheres to the NPOV idea. But there is great controversy, about Villepin and his ideas now, and the article would be dishonest to pretend there isn't.

It's not the way things are done in France, perhaps. The seated prime minister there is accorded greater cordiality than might be the case elsewhere. See Wikipedia articles on other public figures from other countries, for examples. Perhaps the fr.Wikipedia article might be more formal and neutral. But here on en.Wikipedia I believe that indicating controversy -- without taking sides -- in an important part of NPOV.

--Kessler 17:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Trouble editing this / possible glitch?

Someone please take a look at this article and tell me why the system truncates a full-article edit, somewhere in the Career/Diplomat or Career/Politician sections?

I do the full-article edit, then go to "Show Preview" and the article is cut off at those sections. Happened three times now and never has done this before, either here or at other articles -- also just tested this with a couple of other articles today. Must be something about the code in this one? --Kessler 23:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Too POV

This article seems considerably biased against Villepin, with negativity across the entire article and particularly some highly subjective statements about him that don't fit into a NPOV context. Hauser 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Peco 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe on the last section (Villepin's first cabinet), but the rest of the article seems fair to me. -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

De Villepin shows he got a pair

what about this this video about the arguiing with leftist Holland (Socialist Party leader & husband of Segolene Royal). does someone have the time to sub it so it can bu used as a media link in the article? Shame On You 04:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

updt: this version is even better. Shame On You 04:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Post

Will he lose his post now that Chirac is out of office? Therequiembellishere 05:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess this goes without saying now. Therequiembellishere 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Date term ended

The article says his term as Prime Minister ended on 17 May. However, the French Wikipedia says 15 May. Which date is correct?--A bit iffy 13:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not PM anymore

I've changed the language in the Prime Minister section to past tense, since Villepin is no longer PM. It might be interesting to get an assessment of how successful he was with his "100 days" objective. -- Hongooi 06:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Va te faire foutre

Someone keeps changing this to give a translation of "appoint another prime minister" when the actual translation is more like "go fuck yourself". I don't want to get in an edit war or get blocked for 3RR or anything, but I do think an accurate translation (or some indication of how rude this phrase is) needs to be put there rather than just the reason he said it. 87.112.4.95 09:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Dominique de Villepin. 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/20120728074842/http://www.liberation.fr/page.php/?Article=391985 to http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=391985
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071024155244/http://www.cbsnews.com:80/stories/2006/05/22/world/main1640276.shtml to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/22/world/main1640276.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120223190157/http://www.alalam.ir/english/detail.aspx?id=80490 to http://www.alalam.ir/english/detail.aspx?id=80490
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060211180435/http://www.ambafrance-il.org:80/diplomatie/archive.php?rub=1&periode=2003-02 to http://www.ambafrance-il.org/diplomatie/archive.php?rub=1&periode=2003-02#

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: 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dominique de Villepin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628115027/http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/salle_de_presse/communiques_de_la_presidence/2007/mars/remaniement_ministeriel_communique_de_la_presidence_de_la_republique.74914.html to http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/salle_de_presse/communiques_de_la_presidence/2007/mars/remaniement_ministeriel_communique_de_la_presidence_de_la_republique.74914.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071002223656/http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/salle_de_presse/communiques_de_la_presidence/2007/mai/demission_du_gouvernement_communique.76618.html to http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/salle_de_presse/communiques_de_la_presidence/2007/mai/demission_du_gouvernement_communique.76618.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611073025/http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=5161 to http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=5161
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ambafrance-il.org/diplomatie/archive.php?rub=1&periode=2003-02
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024154214/http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/article.php3?id_article=4882 to http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/article.php3?id_article=4882

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) 09:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)