Talk:The Camp of the Saints

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Thus we must conclude they are pro-immigrant.  That they are left-wing may be more debatable, but considering there positions are adopted by the left-leaning parties and politicians in the United States, a very good logical case can be made. 208.102.198.209 (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's original research and not allowed, however logical it may be, nor is the use of a source to describe the SPLC that doesn't even mention the SPLC. Doug Weller (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: SPLC declares themselves to be protectors of immigrant rights

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Camp of the Saints. 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://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913401,00.html
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 22:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Cited source for this (SPLC article) isn't a study confirming this. It's an unbased opinion mentioned in one half-sentence of the so-called source. Unbased claim like that has no place in leader paragraph. Kekmon (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: SPLC is a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: SPCL source doesn't describe methodology acquired to reach that conclusion. It is completely unbased claim, and should in fact be removed entirely from the wikiarticle as untrustworthy. Kekmon (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Just look at the "source" you are pushing as "reliable": https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2001/racist-book-camp-saints-gains-popularity. There is no methodology whatsoever presented behind statement "Today, The Camp of the Saints is widely revered by American white supremacists" in it yet. Explain your reasoning why it should be in leader. Kekmon (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Kekmon, do you know how many times I have tried arguing your exact point on a variety of topics across Wikipedia? When it comes to political correctness, Wikipedia chooses to ignore the neutrality, see WP:NAZI. I admire your dedication though 75.130.248.250 (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Revered by white supremacists" 

message: the splc doesn't say "conspiracy theory" & it misleads the reader. the turner diaries sounds like a conspiracy theory novel - the federal government is secretly controlled by a vast jewish conspiracy. but judging but the plot summary, there's no conspiracy in Camp - there's just an invasion, which is the opposite. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says "The premise of Camp of the Saints plays directly into that idea of white genocide". And yeah, that's a conspiracy theory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  googling "camp of the saints" "conspiracy theory" just brings up this article. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The book itself, by the way, does posit a conspiracy, by various "globalists" who facilitate the "invasion".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  source please? and why does the praise in the article body get no weight in the lead? NPalgan2 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

text: I don't believe that section accurately sums up the general opinion of this novel.  It's a grab-bag of random commentators weighted in favor of the novel.  You could find 20 people with wiki bios and quote them saying "yeah, it's racist".  Professional sources like Kirkus and Time and the SPLC should be weighted more than the opinions of randos. Gamaliel (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Randos"? Anouilh was one of the most famous French writers of the 20th century. But a Kirkus Reviews freelancer and an SPLC intern deserve more weight? NPalgan2 (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  conspiracy theory? 

message: The introduction makes vague, unsupported statements claiming that it has been "widely dismissed." What sources supports this assertion? If anything, the sources currently included on this article (and the article itself) state that it has received both praise and criticism from multiple public figures and that it is regarded as a politically significant book. See the dictionary definition of "dismissed" in this context (OED: "treat as unworthy of serious consideration").
These statements either need to be sourced or removed.
Dionysus1886 (talk) October 26 2018
:I dont see the justification for the inclusion of the word "racist" to describe this book in the sources provided. None of the 3 sources used to justify this description provide much except for moralistic subjective bleating from people who dont have the final say over whether anything is or is not "racist". Its clearly just being included in the description for political and biased purposes, and is against the neutral spirit of this website. Please can Grayfell provide solid, *unbiased* reasoning for continuing to edit it in  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.83.28 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: by all means, keep in the description that it has been denounced as such, but dont include the description as indisputable fact. It is still, in essence, unsourced claim when presented as such  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.83.28 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced claims and weasel words in the introduction

message: Re this text in the 'Reception' section:  
Several prominent French politicians, such as François Mitterrand, Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy, François Fillon, Robert Badinter and André Malraux have also read and commented on the book. Samuel P. Huntington, the author of Clash of Civilizations, has referenced The Camp of the Saints and met Raspail in Paris in 2004.
Firstly, what is the point of saying that Huntington 'references' the book if we aren't informed about how/what he says, the Express does not appear to say (though my French is terrible).
Secondly, what the source says about Chirac, Sarkozy etc is a quote from the author himself:
"If I am attacked, I have already prepared my parachute," smiles the octogenarian, pointing to a big black filing cabinet that never leaves his desk. Inside, all the letters from politicians received since leaving the Camp des Saints in 1973. From Malraux to Sarkozy. Nobody knows what they contain … … If some are only polite acknowledgments of receipt - Sarkozy, Chirac, Fillon ... -, others would testify to an attentive reading (not excluding criticism however). And to quote François Mitterrand, Robert Badinter or Jean-Pierre Chevènement, The book can shock, indeed."
So we actually only have the author's word that he has received letters from these illustrious figures, and we have no idea what the letters contain and whether they are anything more than "polite acknowledgments of receipt" of the book. "Read" the book isn't even claimed by the source and "commented on" may amount to nothing more than "thanks for sending ..." - if the author does of course have the letters he speaks of.
I would prefer somone with better Fr than mine to confirm my reading. Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be right. Well, the L'Express piece did consider this worthwhile to mention, probably just to illustrate that the book was well-known among French politicians - whether they disliked or liked it. Perhaps this is in the French tradition when it comes to provocations: according to the article Submission (novel), the novel was read by Francois Hollande because "it's sparking debate". But yes, this is name-dropping without substance. It could be better to just acknowledge it's influence in France more broadly. --Pudeo (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:   Several prominent French politicians … . and  Huntington? 

message: Disclaimer: I personally think that The Camp of the Saints is a racist novel, but
I have raised concern regarding the use of non-specialized references in the article's lede. Academic papers should be preferred to journalists when it comes to analysis and opinions for a wide variety of reasons (journalists' salary depends on how many copies they sold, they don't have a PhD, and their articles are not peer-reviewed by specialists").
As per WP:NEWSORG, "[e]ditorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" and "[s]cholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics."
We need to be especially prudent when using terms like "racist", "far-right" or "white nationalist" in articles. As scholars have noted, "many of those who term themselves 'anti-racists' use the term 'racism' in a highly generalised and indeterminate way" (Taguieff 2001 [1988]) and "the modern ambiguities in the definition of the 'far-right' lie in the fact that the concept is generally used by political adversaries to disqualify and stigmatize all forms of partisan nationalism by reducing them to the historical experiments of Italian Fascism [and] German National Socialism." (Camus & Lebourg 2017).
Please find a literary scholar, a political scientist, a philologist, or a similar peer-reviewed paper written by a PhD that states "The Camp of the Saints" is racist literature. Otherwise, this needs to be replaced with the following:  Azerty82 (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a quote from Prof.Dr. Jean-Marc Moura describing the racist overtone of the plot (he does not clearly state that the book is racist though). You can see the difference in the quality of the analysis compared to, for instance, journalist Linda Chavez' quote featured in the article ("a sickening book" (...) "racist, xenophobic and paranoid"), hence the need to respect the hierarchy of information. I hope you'll understand my point of view regarding this issue. Best regards, Azerty82 (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what a 'peer review' is in the context of a novel. Clearly the term makes sense in the context of scientific/medical/other academic research papers, where methodology as much as conclusion is being assessed, but who peer-reviews a novel? Pincrete (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (?) It's not the novel that is peer-reviewed, but the analysis of the novel. Azerty82 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'racist' not supported by peer-reviewed articles in the lead 

message: I think it's fair to point out the elephant in the room with this book: modern political developments have brought this 1973 book back into the spotlight. This book was essentially irrelevant in the 21st century until it hit the 2011 best seller list and received praise by various members and aides of the Trump administration and Marie Le Penn's National Rally party. The ongoing debate of immigration in the United States, the Trump Administration's policies towards immigration, as well as the development of the European Migrant Crisis have brought this book's subject matter to the forefront. The question is whether we should elaborate on this in a separate section of the body or if the already existing elements are sufficient as they are. In my opinion, the previous debates over this page make it self-evident that it is of a unique relevance. But I would like to hear others opinions on this. AdvancedScholar (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of a "Resurgence in popularity" section to body 

message: Putting racist in the opening sentence seems awkward and out of place to me. The lead of the article goes on to state that the book "conveys themes of racism...." so shouldn't that be enough? Jorge1777 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The current consensus on the talk page is to remove this mention from the first sentence of the lead, but the change hasn't been made yet. Alcaios (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well in which case I've just gone ahead and removed it.Jorge1777 (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the community consensus, as summarized by Mgasparin on 12 May, was to remove it from the opening sentence, but still mention it in the lead, which is the case now. Thanks, Alcaios (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not quite. The word was absent from the article first sentence when I added "conveying" to the lead just the other day.  It appears a user re-added the word against consensuses since then.  I'm not good at posting diffs anyway, so I'll just AGF that the user was not aware, and since now everything is as it should be.  Ditch ∝ 03:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist in opening sentence? 

message: The description, in the first line, should be to a "French, satirical, dystopian novel ....". Anyone who has read it, whether in original French or, certainly, its English translation, will know that it is a satire, yet there is no reference at all to this in the description. Its description of the reactions of the various national governments' reactions as the commandeered vessel makes its way past Australia, around the Cape, up the west coast of Africa and, finally, into the mediterranean, is piquant satire of the very highest calibre, the joke being on the national governments, charities and the great religions. If that does not constitute satire, nothing does.
In case it is at all relevant, which it should not be, I am a black man and, whilst the book is undoubtably shocking, it is also hilariously funny. 2A01:4B00:84A0:DD00:C002:171:C63A:693D (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: For pretty much anything to be added into a Wikipedia article, it needs to be backed up by reliable sources. This is an example of exactly that. — IVORK Talk 06:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021