Talk:Ségolène Royal

message: 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)
thread_title:  Questions and comments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Better foto? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Political policies & career" section 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: Swimsuit episode

message: 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)
thread_title: Gerard Royal and the Rainbow Warrior bombing

message: 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)
thread_title:  Advertisement tag 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Désirs d'avenir" vs. "Wishes for the future"

message: *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)
thread_title: Recent articles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Economic policies? 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's an insufficient review. LuciferMorgan 21:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Turkish Language ext. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Indef blocked. yandman 16:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Segolene Royal 2007 Official Anthem

message: 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)
thread_title: Re: Nomination for merge with [[Gérard Royal]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: 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"?   Tomertalk 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost put a  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)
replies: text: 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"?  Tomertalk 09:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Recent controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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...  Tomertalk 09:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hillary Clinton

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Newsweek article on Segolene Royal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Some suggestions for tidying 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  PACS and not marriage 

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

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quotations section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New pictures of Ségolène 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Origin of Name ?  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Should pact Royal be in external links? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Not Influenced by the U.S.

message: 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)
thread_title: More family claims

message: 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)
thread_title: Gaffes

message: I am trying to source the last  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1995 presidential race? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Three Way? 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Good Article &mdash; NOT 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV-check needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you.  Corrected now - those were my mistakes in the first place... Thermaland 08:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bordeaux or Limoges

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  trivia on Royale and anime 

message: 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  (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)
thread_title:  English biography 

message: No mention of religion. -   Culnacréann  18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
thread_title:  What Religion is she? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  La Raz-le-Bol des bébés zappeurs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Puerto Rican section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Increasing marginalized" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  many aspects of page biased 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Non-practicing Roman Catholic

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ségolène Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ségolène Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ségolène Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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