Talk:Pierre Laval

message: After years of editing and rewriting I hope people can now accept this article as an objective biography of Laval.
:"General de Gaulle and the French people required immediate show-trials in order to concentrate collective feelings of guilt onto the few. [29][30] [31] Two trials were to be held. Although it had its faults, the Pétain trial permitted the presentation and examination of a vast amount of pertinent material. Laval's own trial illustrated nothing but the inadequacies of the judicial system and the poisonous political atmosphere of that purge-trial era.[32]"
:"Poisonous political atmosphere"? "Inadequacies of the judicial system"? "Show-trials in order to concentrate collective feelings of guilt onto the few"? "Although it had its faults"? These are all judgmental--and non-neutral--statements, no matter how many sources you can find arguing that this is the case. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; it is not for us to cast judgment on Laval's trial or de Gaulle's motives. We can only state what others think--making perfectly clear that it is their opinion, not Wikipedia's. As written the first paragraph violates WP:NPOV. It needs to be either rewritten or removed. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I do not know a single scholar who would not agree with the statement "General de Gaulle and the French people required immediate show-trials" I have removed that sentence from the Trial section.  As to the "poisonous political atmosphere" and "the inadequacies of the judicial system" --- there is enough evidence to make these "facts" and not merely "opinions."  However in deference to your wish, I have rewritten this part of the paragraph.Sirswindon (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the article 

message: Poor Pierre Laval, most definitely the 'man you love to hate.'  Even Marshal Pétain, head of the Vichy state, said of him Ce Laval-quel fumier! (What horse shit).  In a poll carried out Novelle Litterairies in 1980 on the fairness of his post-war trial, only 2% of the respondents said that he should have been acquitted.  Indeed, Laval has become the ultimate scapegoat, the French Judas.  There are still those who would excuse Pétain, believing he acted for noble if misguided motives.  Nobody defends or excuses Laval, who is held to represent the 'unacceptable face' of Vichy.  Even his appearance was against him; he seems the very quintessence of the shifty and disreputable politician.  He was the ultimate wheeler-dealer, reflected even in his nickname, the 'horse trader.'
What defence can be made?  Very little, I suppose, but I will try my best.  First and foremost, he set out to preserve his country, not to betray it.  He was never in that sense a Quisling, and senior French fascists were kept out of the Vichy administration.  His task, as he saw it, was to continue the work of Aristide Briand in ending the emnity between France and Germany.  But whereas Briand had Gustav Streseman, Laval had Hitler.  He was also mindful of the fate of Poland under the Nazis, and saw active collaboration as a way of preventing a similar fate befalling France, thus ensuring that the country would have a role to play in the post-war settlement.  He did not 'believe' in a German victory; but he did expect it.  His chief aim was to conclude a treaty that would end the occupation, bring French prisoners of war home, and secure France's overseas empire.  His chief failure was that he never really understood that the Germans were not at all intrested in maintaining a 'reasonable relationship', only in securing French support in advancing their war aims.  Even his scheme to bring the prisoners of war home in return for sending French workers to Germany produced little in the way of practical returns, France giving far more than it received.  He did his best to save the French Jews from deportation, but only at the sacrifice of those not of French nationality, which had the effect of turning his horse-trading into the grossest forms of moral turpitude.  
He may indeed have been right, that things would have been worse without him, a defence that he made at his 'trial' in 1945.  To the very end he preserved the semblance of an independent French state, and kept his long-standing promise that he would never consent to a declaration of war.  The problem was that he simply lost all sight of the big picture, and that the collaboration which he believed would save France forced him into ever decreasing circle of compromise and betrayal.  A more prudent politician would have said much and given little.  Laval said much and gave even more. Clio the Muse 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To all posters on here, please remember Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion SGGH speak! 12:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An apology for Laval 

message: This section as written is intolerable. First of all, it is simply bad style to include a massive block quote standing alone. Secondly, it is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT to have one person's point of view--regardless how notable it may be--take up so much space in the article. Third, it is inherently a violation of WP:NPOV, because it is presented uncritically and without any balance or alternative points of view. Fourth, it is not for Wikipedia to present a retrospective assessment at all, as we are a neutral tertiary source. Rather, we may only provide brief summaries of the main opinions represented within the secondary source literature. Last, and least, the article is entirely too long, and removing this section goes some way toward alleviating that problem.
I would also like to add that I consider Sirswindon's edit summary of his reversion, below, to be entirely inappropriate. 
:"This summary was approved to be included some time ago. Do not remove without an Editor's approval."
While I would have appreciated a revision that attempted to explain why the section was important and begin working towards a consensus, Sirswindon's does not do so. Rather, his edit summary suggests that he believes himself to be the owner of this article. Furthermore, this edit summary is based on a fallacious argument to authority. I see no discussion on the talk page regarding Sirswindon's decision to add this block quote, nor do I see any "approval" from anyone other than himself. Even if some consensus in favor of including that block quote did exist, it would not be immutable. In deleting that section I was being bold and following the correct, established policy of WP:BRD. Finally, allow me be blunt: I am an editor, and last I checked this was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. While I am perfectly happy to work towards consensus and have no intention of engaging in disruptive editing or edit warring, it is not Sirswindon's place to tell me or any other editor what I may or may not edit. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retrospective Assessment 

message: I have reorganized the article in an effort to streamline it, by removing the "Biography" heading and moving all of its subheadings up a level. Similarly, I have created a new Goverments heading to include information on the various governments Laval headed, and removed duplicate information there. In addition, I have moved certain out of place segments around, trimmed some peacock language, fixed a number of grammatical and formatting errors, and removed a number of quotes which were of dubious relevance, unnecessary, or excessively long. I've also flagged this as of high importance to WikiProject France, and will be adding this talk page to the Second World War WikiProject. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Restructuring, Trimming, and other Gnomery 

message: Dear Sirswindon, your analysis of these statements is relevant, but without attribution to reliable sources, it appears to be WP:Original Research. If you, as you claim, are a  scholar of these events/biographies, then it should be very easy for you to add more authoritative views on this topic. Surely there must be sources (in Fench if not English) that provide a more comprehensive analysis of Laval's role in the deportations, different opinions etc. As you see, I have altered the statements so as to clearly indicate that these statements are opinions rather than facts. You can add other published opinions. Please refrain from adding your personal opinions or analysis, unless published by third-party reliable sources. In particular, you can refer to your own publications on the subject, if any. Thank you. - BorisG (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear BorisG, you are right on!!!   There are many valid references as to Laval’s role in deportation of non-French Jews to Germany.  But as to the so-called conversations between Boegner and Laval, there are none.  Fishman references Marrus and Paxton.  They in turn Reference Les Eglises.  But nowhere in Les Eglises (1946) (which is in French) are the so-called conversations presented – this monograph itself lacks citations,  For years, I have tried to verify if the conversation between Boegner and Laval ever took place --- and if it indeed did --- what was said.  Every mention, in everything that has been written on this subject, always leads back to Les Eglises.  Therefore I have concluded we shall never really know.  I agree with Warner --- the author of what is considered to be the most objective biography of Laval --- better to omit this kind of hearsay material and get on with what are FACTS.  There are enough negatives written about Lavel, --- we don’t need unproven ones. Sirswindon (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear SirSwindon, if Warner makes this statement, can you qoute him, instead of your own analysis? Please understand that your own analysis cannot be included unless published by third-party reliable sources. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the article can not include my own analysis; the discussion section may. What I am trying to eliminate is unproven hearsay material which lacks valid citations.  Warner's statement to me was in a discussion I had with him back in 1968.  (I am now age 87).  At that time it was difficult separating fact from fiction.  As an aside, I first met Laval’s son-in-law in 1948 when I was attending the University of London.  That is when I first became interested in Laval. Sirswindon (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I kind of guessed your age... You may be the oldest wikipedia editor on the block. All the best. I am still wondering, if these statements have been proven unfounded, why nobody published a rebuttal? - BorisG (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there were not that many compulsive neurotics around!!!!!  Actually, because it was easy for almost everyone to believe the worst about Laval. The French people needed a scapegoat --- Laval received that nomination. Sirswindon (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis of the credibility of statements in [[reliable sources]] 

message: This article is an editorial and grossly biased toward a sympathetic view of Laval.
I understand that apparently there are people (such as the author of most of the article) who sympathize with Laval, but their point of view is the only point of view presented in the article. Other viewpoints have been excluded entirely. Blcklbl (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please point out specifically what in the article is biased?  Or specifically what opposing viewpoints are missing? For the latter, be sure to provide reliable sources that support those opposing viewpoints. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

text: By "biased", you of course mean that it doesn't match your own views. "Other viewpoints have been excluded entirely." The article has a neutral viewpoint. This is, of course, unacceptable to those who insist that the subject must be demonized. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a Biased Article 

message: Why does he look Indian? 190.113.103.183 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian