text:
Talk:Jacques Chirac

Chirac and the Commmunist Party
Chirac has never been a member of the Communist Party, contrary to what is written in this article. It's right the young Chirac had participated to the campaign for the communist-inspired Stockholm Appeal against nuclear weapons. Some people said he seld the communist paper L'Humanité, but he has always denied it. Nevertheless, he has never joined the Communist Party. (Excuse me for my English, I'm French) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.234.112 (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Chirac is "the best president France ever had"
Chirac is a brillian president and after CDG may be the best president France ever had. I am pround to be from Europe where there is a great country France led by such a charmful, intelligent,independent and pragmatic president. He did so much for France and for Europe overall. his antiamericanism encourages every independent thinking soul in the world to heroism and dignity. Oh Mr Chirac you will be dearly missed, so sorry to find out you retire from politics. Who is going to save France from Sarkozy, why De Villepin doesnt run for president. We will all miss you. A great man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--armenianNY 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)--armenianNY 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh yes, a wonderful man. Because wonderful men are often convicted on corruption charges, including embezzlement and breach of trust.  Yes, what a hero. 132.194.70.73 (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Ah, the "brillian" genius of Osirak, right? Chirac d'Orsirak is the idiot (or monster) who tried to sell Saddam the nuclear bomb -- makes him quite the hero, doesn't it? Wonder how much he was paid for that. As far as being "the best president France ever had" -- that's not really saying much, is it? Who's his competition? A bunch of arrogant narcissistic sociopaths like de Gaulle (with the possibly exception of the fellow who died of a heart attack while receiving the oral affections of a prostitute). Scott Adler 00:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The only person very well known for receiving oral affections is Israeli president Kazav( probably your president Mr Adler) If I were you I would be more careful with my lables. I am wondering why you are still not blocked from so called online encyclopedia. If any gentle came and blackmouthed the Jews or Jewish pogroms he would have been blocked immediately. Without any shame or any courtesy, being a real cynical loser, you after signing in, opened your mouth and critisized de Gaulle whose antifascist activities saved your Jewish race during Holocaust. And you have so much hatred towards Chirac because he did something wrong that did not coincide with Israeli interests; he supported Saddam. Good for us. That is one of the reasons he is magnificient. He is independent and very objective. Chirac is a very very good president for both France and Europe overall. After his term he will be dearly missed.--armenianNY 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Actually, armenianNY, almost all of Wikipedia's Middle East articles are controled by Arab-sympathizers. There is a name for the phenomenon, Wikiganda. You say "de Gaulle whose antifascist activities saved your Jewish race during Holocaust." What makes you think that I am Jewish? Actually, de Gaulle did nothing during the war at all, other than drive the British and the Americans crazy with his Gaullic arrogance. There were very few Frenchmen at D-Day. And no one did anything about the Holocaust until the war was over. You appear to be very racist, e.g. "your Jewish race" etc. "And you have so much hatred towards Chirac because he did something wrong that did not coincide with Israeli interests; he supported Saddam. Good for us." No further comment is necessary.Scott Adler 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * "His antiamericanism (sic, but at least you admit that it's entirely racist) encourages every independent thinking soul in the world to heroism and dignity." -- I guess that's why Mark Twain said that "humanity was created one step below the angels, and one step above the French." (I've found that the French don't like getting their crap tossed back at them.) Scott Adler 00:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

I wish Mark Twain's nation contributed as much as the French into human culture and civilization. So far it is still the French making laws in the world of fashion, art and literature. It is still the French inventing the best parfume in the world. It is still the French who lead the world in gastronomy and dining. The only contributions that your nation made so far are Mc Donalds and crap a la Jennifer Lopez. If you look at the same Black race acting in Paris and in New York subway you will realize the  real difference between French and American civilizations. May Twain rest in peace. Things have been change since his death. He would run away from the country where he was born if he were alive.
 * I grant you that the french are the world's greatest cheesemakers and parfumers (if you grant that Americans saved the entire French nation TWICE), but that still doesn't change the fact that Chirac-Osirak deliberately tried to sell Sadam Hussein nuclear weapons, a crime for which he should be in prison today. And go sit in the dark -- An Americn invented the light bulb. Scott Adler 19:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Chirac never sold Saddam nuclear weapons. Osirak reactor is a reactor to test nuclear materials. The presence of WMDs in Iraq is a USA lie. All know that here. You seem to live in the dark.Ocollard 11:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the souvereign right of the French president to sell what he wants and whom he wants. In terms of nuclear weapons,you have to prove that he tried. You accused the innocent Iraq of obtaining and producing WMD and so far havent been able to prove it. You invaded an innocent independent country for no reason, killed almost 600000 Iraqis and capitally punished its leader. Look at yourself before judging Chirac. If I were him I would do the same. Americans need to be shown some teeth all over the world so they will realize the meaninglessness of their bullying. About who saved whom, it is a big question. Soviets also claim they saved Eastern Europe from fascism, they claimed they liberated Baltic states from Hitler. But who asked them to liberate? Did the French ask you to go to save them? I bet you, no. You Americans entered the WW2 when the victory of the Soviets after Stalingrad became obvious, when you realized that France would be "saved" by Russians, when you really wanted your zone of occupation in post war Germany. Therefore, nobody wanted you to liberate or save anybody. Sit and spin in your own country. Iraqis did not ask you to liberate them as well as Afghanitsan did not ask you to stick your nose in Afghanistan. They lived in the stony age and they wanted to keep living like that. Russians built civilization for them, nonetheless they hated Russians who built air base Baghram used by American occupiers at the moment. You boycotted Olympic Games in Moscow because Russians were fighting in Afghanistan. You supported Pakistanis in their fight against Russians in Afghanistan as if you were so concerned with occupation of Afghanistan. When everybody left pain-in-the-ass Afghanitan you decided to "save" them again by occupying it. Who will save "America" one nice day?

 * Spoken like a true Vichyist, if an incoherant one. Actually, it's pointless to argue with this guy. He's really quite clueless. The US entered WWII de facto in 1940, formally in Dec. 1941. The Battle of Stalingrad was from 21 August, 1942 through 2 Feb., 1943. Thousands of American sailors died trying to supply the Soviets through Murmansk. Regarding his thesis that the US entry into the war was was a territorial grab, well, sorry, Americans don't think like the French.

 * Regarding "It is the souvereign right of the French president to sell what he wants and whom he wants," well there's a little matter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which France only signed AFTER the Osirak plot failed. And regarding Osirak itself, see the Osirak article. There is a lot more information in books, such as "Raid on the Sun" by Roger Claire. There is no doubt that the French wanted Saddam Hussein to have nuclear weapons and the French certainly didn't care if he used them. And regarding his question, "Who will save "America" one nice day?" -- certainly not the French. (Oh yes, and the French president who died during oral sex was Félix Faure, who died under the ministrations of Marguerite Steinheil). Scott Adler 07:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Spoken like a true fascist. Actually, it's pointless to argue with this guy. USA entered war not until dec 1941, and against Germany not until 1942. Until that time, US firms were conducting their business as usual in Nazi Germany. Regarding the lies about the presence of WMDs in Iraq, well, sorry, Frenchs don't think like the Americans.

 * Regarding the Osirak reactor, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does not forbid the sale of this reactor to Iraq. This reactor was monitored by IAEA. The allegations about the French selling nuclear weapons to Saddam Hussein are ridiculous as best. USA has been caught lying about Iraq, and France had the courage to oppose them. Still, there are some fascist that still believe Saddam had WMDs. Some people will never learn Ocollard 16:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It's an immense honor to be called a "fascist" by a Gaullist. It's like being called a "communist" by a Stalinist, or an Islamist by the Ikhwan. Actually, Ocollard, Germany declared war on the US on Dec. 11, 1941, but the US Navy had been fighting German U-boats long before.

 * And Saddam was building nuclear weapons when his program was hit during the first Gulf War. "The reactor was monitored by the IAEA" -- very impressive, certainly with the same Inspector Clouseau-style vigor the it is giving the current Iranian bomb program. And why a plutonium reactor? Why would a third world country with vast oil wealth spend billions to re-process plutonium? There is no question by anyone other than a Gaullist that the reactor was intended to produce nuclear weapons, the French knew it, and they still don't care. (And if Saddam didn't have WMD's before the second Gulf War, what was he hiding from the arms inspectors?)

 * In conclusion, if Gaullist propaganda is so important to you, go to the French-language Wiki. By the way, where are you getting your "facts" -- such as the Stalingrad stuff? Scott Adler 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS -- I removed the following text from his comment, "Actually, it's pointless to argue with this guy. He's really quite clueless." It was plagerized from my previous comment. If he wants to say something like that, fine, but he should use his own words. Scott Adler 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * You fail to understand that France is free to sell nuclear reactors to whoever she wants, and Saddam is free to build nuclear reactors if he wants. No autorisation is needed from whoever. The sale of the Osirak reactor was compliant with the IAEA. You should show more respect to IAEA, this organization has actually inspectors, and they have never lied. This is very different with USA. Ocollard 11:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather as some will never learn that "fascist" does not mean "person with whom I disagree."

 * Point well taken.Scott Adler 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know the date when Americans opened the Second Front in Normandy? I think that is the date Americans came to "save" French people, as they "saved" Germans in Dresden. About doing nothing against Holocaust until the end of the war....Well, I do not think that arbeitende volke in Auschwitz, Buchenwald Maidanek had ball until May 9 1945 and went home with good memories.... I think that some people came from the East and liberated and saved them long before the end of the WW2. My facts about Stalingrad? It is a common sense that the breakthrough in WW2 happened in Stalingrad and the battle of Stalingrad predicted that Soviets would be the only real and true winners of the war. After Stalingrad even Turkey declared war on his ally Germany and Americans began to kiss Stalin's ass as tight as possible. FYI Mr Adler (I think your last name tells everybody you are a Jew) it is a complement to be called Communist by Stalin and not only by him.--armenianNY 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Conversation is over, armenianNY -- aside from being a complete idiot, you're a racist, which is your point all along. (And in fact, the second front was opened in French North Africa in 1942, but I seem to recall that the French army thought it best to fight for Germans for a few hours, for their sacred "honor," then do what it has always done best, surrender. Go add whatever you want after this point. Claim that Roosevelt was a Jew, that the Battle of Stalingrad was in 1923, or that the Americans bled not to liberate Europe but to spread venerial disease and the polka-dot plague. I won't dignify it with a reply. Scott Adler 05:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Scott, aside from being a complete idiot, you're a racist, which is your point all along. Your comment about the French are just that. Racism. The turning point in the WW2 in Europe was in Stalingrad, armenianNY is right. Ocollard 11:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To all the armchair generals and statesman who posted above... you guys are tools. Are you sure they are generals and statesmen? Would be nice if you signed you posting or were more precise instead of sending multi-meaning double messages. Yes Jacques Chirac led France in the period of economic cooling or slowdown. He had so many internal problems that he couldnt solve. But we all know about cyclic system of laisez fair market economy. May be the next president Royal will come and do nothing or may be she will try to change it... or implement welfare reforms (Who will need them? we all know that Chirac indeed was very lefty). But, again. as a matter of chance, her presidential period can coincide with economic boom and she can be remembered later as a good reformist leader...Overall, so far as I am on the planet Earth I do not remember any French president who was a bad leader for France. Valerie had lots of internal economic problems as well, but overall he was a very good president. Mitterand was just brilliant. He did so much for France.. And Jacques Chirac was very competent in external affairs, balanced policy, Eurointegration. But most of all I will remember him for his love for French football....I will always remember how he jumped when Petite scored the 3 goal in Stade de France, how he defended Zidane when Zizou really needed that.... I will always remember his modest and humble wife Bernadette, their elegant mannters and intelligent actions. Again, Monsieur Chirac, Mercie beaucoup. we will always love and support you and France. --armenianNY 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Parody
Now don't get me wrong, I hate Chirac as much as any other red-blooded American, but I don't think we should have a section devoted mostly to negative portrayals in an article about a standing head of state. I especially think we should get rid of the picture of the "Superliar" puppet. A brief mention in another section about how he is portrayed should be more than enough.

 * Hem... Jacques Chirac is heavily criticized in France and is heavily parodied. To many people, especially the young, he is very much represented by the Superliar character. David.Monniaux 04:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * But this is true for many head of states across the world, my dear. I see no mention of SNL ( Darrell Hammond ...) in the US Presidents entries for instance, same thing for Blair, Berlusconi, and a lot of others. You think that caricature of heads of state is a French thing ?82.120.3.118 05:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * 82.120.3.118 has a point. I agree we should give less importance to parodies. Peco 06:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, how come there's not parody section in the George W. Bush article? --Hottentot

 * Uhm, may I venture to suggest that it might be because many consider George W. Bush himself a parody of a real Head of State? Sam Hocevar 23:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the "Super Liar" picture. If no one has a problem with it, I'll remove the parody section alltogether.--Cuchullain 04:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * To David Monniaux, perhaps you have no idea about the countless number of parodies of George W. Bush because you are from France, but since there's no parody section in the Bush article there shouldn't be any parody section in this article. --Hottentot

 * Having stayed in the US, I can attest that none of the parodies of the politicians there have as much impact as the Guignols have on France. I suspect that none of the people who have intervened in this discussion have ever watched French TV. Am I correct?
 * Furthermore, I totally disagree with this idea that the pages about heads of state around the world should be modeled after that of George W. Bush, which would be a clear case of americanocentrism. I wonder how people would react if sections were cut off articles about the US president or the British prime minister because equivalent sections or topics are not discussed in Jacques Chirac's entry. David.Monniaux 06:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Les Guignols de l'Info is a very influent parodic show in France. I think it's really important to explain what image JC have cause/thanks to this show. I also really don't understand the point that as Bush's article have no parody section all other article about president mustn't have one! Aoineko 07:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * First, I admit that David had a point (a funny point, to boot) about pages not having to be be modeled after George W. Bush's (although some dose of comparison can be sometimes useful in Wikipedia, when speaking of standards). I, for one, am not French (I am a North American Quebecois) and I do watch TV from France and know very well the Les Guignols de l'info show (thanks to the, err, wonders of the information superhighway). As such, I guess I'd suggest the compromise of leaving a brief section speaking of the Chirac parody phenomenon while NPOV-ing (if you will...) the language and leaving the Super Menteur picture and more expressive descriptions to the Les Guignols article itself. --Liberlogos 23:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Guys. Your little edit war about parody has led to the removal without discussion of non parody related content. Could you check and discuss before making such major changes. Thanks. PS: the Super Liar thing is quite stale now in France. It has not been used in this TV show for a long time. 82.120.14.238 05:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I reinserted the information. David.Monniaux 09:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hottentot, if you remove this parody section one more time, I'll file a request against you. I don't give a damn whether we do not have a parody section in GWB's article. This is an article about a French president, and the French like parody a lot. David.Monniaux 13:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, David, this is not the way to go. There is disagreement about this section. The supermenteur parody is outdated. The guignol changed a lot and don't call Mr Chirac supermenteur anymore. Peco 08:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a reason to delete the whole section. It is a fact that Chirac was caricatured in Astérix, was pictured as Superliar in the Guignols, etc. You are free to update the section, but let's not rewrite history. David.Monniaux 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Frankly, if there is no parody section on GWB, it should be added there, rather than removed here. Besides, parody is so important that there have been theories about Chirac being more popular than Jospin because Chirac makes a funnier parody. It certainly is a relevant topic. Rama 21:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Corruption

 * Why is there no mention of this in the article? 83.245.17.212 16:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Chris P

- source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1448471.stm

What are the allegations against Chirac?

There are several cases under investigation, of which the four biggest are:

Paris public housing (or HLM) contracts backhanders: This investigation, initially opened by Judge Eric Halphen in 1994, concerns bribes allegedly paid for the allocation of public housing contracts, which are thought to have contributed to the financing of the RPR and other political parties. The allegations against two people close to Mr Chirac - the late Jean-Claude Mery and Michel Roussin - prompted prosecutors to ask how much he knew about the scam.

Chirac's career 1976-1994: RPR President

1977-1995: Mayor of Paris

1974-1976 and 1986-1988: Prime Minister

Since 1995: President In September, the Court of Appeals threw out the case because of procedural flaws, but replaced Judge Halphen, with another magistrate, Armand Riberolles, who observers say may be able to resume the investigation.

Cash-for-tickets, linked to bribes on secondary school contracts: Backhander payments are also reported to have been made in return for contracts to refurbish secondary schools in the Paris region. The scheme, thought to have been put in place in the late 1980s, is said to have benefited all major political parties. Once again, Mr Roussin and Mr Mery were implicated, leading the investigation, which opened in 1997, in Mr Chirac's direction.

In July it was revealed that large sums of cash, allegedly totalling almost 2.4m francs ($320,000), had been used to pay for trips for Mr Chirac and his family and close colleagues between 1992 and 1995. He says the money came from his personal allowances, but investigators believe it may have been one way of spending the illegal commissions.

Fake RPR jobs: This investigation, opened in 1996 by Judge Patrick Desmure, relates to fictitious jobs given to members of Jacques Chirac's RPR party by private firms - who would be granted public contracts in return - and the Paris town hall between 1988 and 1995. It is alleged Mr Chirac knew of the arrangement.

Sempap fraud: This investigation, which began in 1997 and is headed by Judges Armand Riberolles and Marc Brisset-Foucault, examines allegations of fraud and favouritism towards the Sempap company, responsible for the Paris town hall's printing requirements between 1986 and 1996 while Mr Chirac was mayor.

 * Do not forget his closeness to Juvénal Habyarimana. --Ionius Mundus 13:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Going to the US
Funny thing, the info about JC's problems when firstly going to US because of his left wings ties I could only find it on the en.wp but not on the fr.wp. Is there any reference to that? Thanks! --Vlad 00:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Chirac de A à Z definitely mentions that he had problems with the French military because he was considered what would be called in the US a "pinko commie", and also mentions he went to the US. I'd have to dig out the book to see whether it also mentions visa difficulties, or whether these were sourced in another book.

The French wikipedia does mention this event:
 * Il signe en 1950 l'Appel de Stockholm, contre l'armement nucléaire, d'inspiration communiste (cela lui vaudra d'être interrogé lorsqu'il demandera son premier visa pour les États-Unis, pays pour lequel il nourrit une réelle admiration)

I.e. "he signs in 1950 the Call of Stockholm, against nuclear weaponry, of Communist inspiration (which resulted in him being interrogated when he requested his first visa to the United States, a country for which he has a genuine admiration)". David.Monniaux 05:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Mayor of Paris
I added his function as mayor of Paris because, if one does not mention that in the list, the reader gets the feeling Chirac didn't do anything but be the president of a party during this long period. Vb 13:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Woops. Bad maneuver, sorry about that. I thought that you had deleted the box... David.Monniaux 15:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV - suggested nepotism?
''the military wanted to de-rank him because they did not want a "Communist" to become an officer. However, Chirac's extensive family acquaintances had him ranked back at his former position.'' - Unless there is a source for this, we cannot really include it. It looks to me like a subtle attempt to portray Chirac as the aloof aristocrat...of course he may actually be an aloof aristocrat, but Wikipedia convention dictates that we give sources, so can anybody provide one for this? Peeper 11:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC) PS - same goes for this:  Chirac volunteered to be deployed in Algeria while the Algerian War of Independence was raging, even though his family connections would easily have allowed him to obtain a safe position away from the war. Peeper 15:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Source: Chirac de A à Z, unless I'm mistaken. David.Monniaux 00:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-election
I was reading an online BBC article and noticed that it said "Mr Chirac, who plans to run for re-election in 2007..." I was kinda surprised, so I came here to see what our article said about this, and saw that we were saying it was uncertain if he was running again. Anybody know if the BBC just got this wrong, or we're out of date, or what? Everyking 08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Chirac apparently fancied the idea for a little while, but given his dysmal approval ratings, another candidacy is just unthinkable now. David.Monniaux 21:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. The BBC should read Wikipédia for up-to-date information :) Thbz 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Iraq veto
This part Chirac threatened to veto any resolution in the U.N. Security Council that would authorize the use of military force to rid Iraq of alleged weapons of mass destruction, and rallied other governments to his position. is incorrect. I read at the time precisely what Chirac had said and it was not as clear cut as the article is making out (Tony Blair has been using this dodgy excuse to justify his failure at the UN). Clair Short has pointed this out on Television and in her book so it's a prettty well established fact.--MarkB 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition, this issue was discussed on the BBC - here's a transcript of a Panorama program.

Veto
Does and did Chirac not veto a law that was "passed" by the National Assembly? Does this warrant a mention??

 * No, because he cannot do that. David.Monniaux 23:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Chirac's controversions
Hmm.. no info about Chirac's famous activities during crisis over "corridor" from Kaliningrad, during negotations in Nice and finally famouse "you lose the occassion to shut up"? Szopen 13:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

After the next election
Assuming that he either doesn't stand, or is defeated, then will he lose his immunity from prosecution over alleged wrongdoings whilst he was mayor of Paris ? If so, it is likely that he will be charged, or at least investigated ? --219.77.165.93 13:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Google synopsis
Google lists this as an article about the current French president. I presume this is an inaccuracy in some preview code in this article. Can someone explain what the casue of this datedd assertion is, and how to fix it? Maybe fix it too, cuz I sure don't know nothing bout this here intertubes. 65.185.93.86 (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC) peach out homeyz; tha motherfucking G Dawg; Jersey Shore 4 Life

Why no information on his children?
86.16.159.212 15:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Andorra
Does Co-Prince of Andorra need to be in the infobox? It's a piece of historical trivia, not an important part of what Chirac actually does, and is already mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. john k 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears on Nicolas Sarkozy's page as well; it's part of the standard infobox and apparently part of the title.--Gloriamarie 09:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV revert on brothel issue?
user Sensi.fr reverted an edit concerning Chirac sustaining an injury during a visit to a brothel. This edit was not made to malign Chirac, just a statement of fact. Was the revert done to suppress an inconvenient truth?

Trivia
Is the trivia section really needed if it's only one piece of trivia?

Reigning Monarch? Why is listed under this?

What about the advantages of Chirac's two presidential term? Sensing an ad hominem fallacy in the article
Hello. I see that the article has a certain tilt towards outlining only the criticisms of Chirac's two presidencies. I am disappointed to see that the entire article is a concentrated critique of him as a person and none to his actual policies. There were no highlight of the policies that rendered positive results during these two terms. Aside from the NO vote against the Iraq War, is there anything else that can be said about his presidency putting aside the party politics, corruption speculation et al?

I am in the predisposition that the article be reformatted and have portions that deals with a comprehensive analysis of his economic policies, foreign policies (such as his success in strengthening the Franco-German Bloc in the EU with ex Chancellor Schroeder perhaps?), military, and other domestic issues which were not tackled as much as the personal criticisms were. The entire bulk of this article should maybe be classified under the subtitle "Criticisms During Chirac's presidency" or something of this sort.

Although I sense some impartiality in this article (except of course the Biography portion), I think that the writers and the contributors to this article have aptly illustrated how great a political tactician Chirac is when it comes to finding leverage during elections.

Happy if anyone can enlighten me on these matters. Thanks much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abrionesknox (talk • contribs) 08:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Former New Yorker
Would it be worth mentioning that as a young man JC spent a Summer as a waiter in New York?

Osirak & Saddam
To who undid my modification. do you deem it normal that more than half of the PMship section is devoted to the relation with Saddam Hussein (common to all democracies of the time) and Osirak ? do French politics of that era amount only to that (in fr: there is not a word in fr:Jacques Chirac, and I never saw it mentioned in short biographies). Half of the section, really ... 81.250.60.215 15:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverted again. Hold a discussion and achieve consensus before removing a chunk of sourced text. -- Y not? 15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So if WP has room enough for every warm word of welcome given in the past to a current dictator, no problemo. The articles will be a little crowded, though. Is there anybody who dissents with the suppression of Chirac's address to Saddam (I didn't remove the Osirak affair itself, which has much more impact) ? 81.250.60.215 16:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

81, I disagree with your removal of "The Osirak Controversy" section. This was not simply a "warm word of welcome given in the past to a current dictator", this appeared to be an ongoing relationship which resulted in significant financial deals, sales of nuclear reactors and significant military sales ("It is reckoned that during the 1980s, 40% of France's arms exports went to Iraq") and with both Chirac and Saddam referring to each other as "Dear friends". Of course, it is true, that at the time Saddam had warm relations with many world leaders. For example, as noted by the BBC News, Donald Rumsfeld was another Western political figure with question marks over his head concerning his dealings with Saddam. Certainly, Donald Rumsfeld's article includes an image of him meeting on what appears to be friendly terms with Saddam in 1983 and a section detailing the meeting and the fact that Rumsfeld "brought many gifts from the Reagan administration. These gifts included pistols, medieval spiked hammers even a pair of golden cowboy spurs". To include this kind of information is not unique to the Chirac article.

If you feel that there is an undue weight issue, then please, feel free to write more about Chirac's period as Prime Minister between 1974–76. However, the relationship which developed between Chirac and Hussein during that period has been discussed extensively in the worldwide media. I understand you are French, or that you live in France, and it is possible that you are not fully aware of the extensive international news media's coverage of Chirac's relationship with Saddam when he threatened to use France's veto in the UN Security Council and in the lead up to and in the immediate aftermath of the war. I feel Y was correct to revert your removal of this section, but I would encourage you to consider writing more about Chirac's period as PM. Also, please note that the English Wikipedia does not take its lead from the French Wikipedia. That the French Wikipedians have chosen not to write about this is of no consequence to en-WP, nor is the coverage in other biographies you may have read. Though, I can tell you that if you google both names together, you will find thousands of articles which reference their relationships. As well, Chirac was questioned directly by the Western media on numerous occasions and there are various transcripts of these interviews available on the internet. Sarah 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two points to discuss : removal of a section title, which after all was a bad idea, at least at the moment (there is no other section yet, so let's see). The removal of the quotation is what matters most.
 * As a day-to-day reader of UK and US press, I'm quite aware of Chirac's depiction here and there. I also disagree with the extensive treatment of the Saddam - Rumsfeld relation during the Reagan era. In both cases, the stress put on things higly insignificant per se worries me. Just to show the issue is not americano/franco-philia/phobia, Rumsfeld's relations with Saddam are also dealt with very briefly in fr:. I believe we have different views about "notability" and "trivia". I feel that accumulation of noise does not make music. Moreover, in both cases, the choice of stressing unimportant things, without the slightest intent of giving the general background (how many world leaders have been called "friends" by Chirac ? it would be shorter to list those that haven't, I believe) seems POV to me. 81.250.60.215 21:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not like Chirac, he was a corrupt president, but I am not sure the American people hate him for good reasons. I think this section is misleading. One could believe that these France-Iraq deals are the reason of Chirac's opposition to the second gulf war. It should be put into context: France sold about $12 bn worth logistics/weapons from 1974 to 1988, while only from 1984 to 1987 the Reagan adm. provided Saddam with $40 bn aid to buy logistics/weapons and sent him $billions more to keep him away from the Russians. The arms were bought indifferently from the US, UK, France, Russia. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein, and details in the National Security Archive http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/) while the French provided a nuclear plant, the Americans provided chemical weapons... what is worse...? tie? There is no mention of all this in the Reagan biography (why ?) Therefore one could think that France was the main, or worse, the only weapons supplier (it was the main supplier... after the US and Russia !). I think we should add a paralel of this section in the Reagan Bio, if not, recall here that Saddam had even more military help from the US and particularly the Reagan adm.

One should also recall that in 1990 Chirac strongly backed the US and the first Gulf War and the dismantle of saddam's regime. He regretted that Europe had not a stronger stance against Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait (see for instance "Jacques Chirac : une certaine absence de l’Europe", Georges Suffert, Interview de Jacques Chirac, Le Figaro 12&13 janvier 1990, page 6). Now you can quote the seemingly friendly words of Chirac to Saddam in 1975. But remember that in French diplomacy, you have to use "cher ami" (dear friend) for an ally, whoever he is, since in French "ami" (ally/friend) is the natural opposite of "ennemi" (enemy). And of course Saddam was considered an ally by the US, France, UK...against Iran.

Sarah: of course if you google it, you will find thousands of articles about a "saddam-chirac friendship", as well as thousands articles saying that the french have forgotten what the US did in WW1&2. Now come back to reality: these articles were all written after 2003 by Americans/Australians (international coverage, eh ? The same journalists would try to prove there were WMDs in Iraq). Of course, if you go to France and ask around you (as I did), everybody still remembers that the US freed them twice. Similarly, looking back at the unclassified docs of National Security Archive and at the news coverage in the 1980s, it seems that the Reagan-Saddam ties were stronger in 1986 than the Saddam-Chirac ties ever were in 1975 (when Saddam was not yet the dictator and the mass murderer he became a few years later).

In conclusion, Chirac had corruption scandals, which has to be strongly emphasized. But when it comes to Iraq, you cannot pick a few facts here and there and forget others, in order to suggest that he supported Saddam's dictatorship more than everybody else in the western world. What Chirac said about Saddam during first Gulf war say it all. Either say nothing, or say everything. ɝ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.96.214 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Chirac "used personal relations" to get his army commission and posting to Algeria. Does this mean he "used his relatives' influence" or he "used personal connections (with people who presumably weren't relatives)"? Probably not written by a native English speaker - somebody who knows the answer should correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Smith" :
 * "Naufrage de la Françafrique — Le président a poursuivi une politique privilégiant les hommes forts au pouvoir.", Stephen Smith in L'Histoire n°313, October 2006 (special issue on Chirac), p.70
 * "Naufrage de la Françafrique — Le président a poursuivi une politique privilégiant les hommes forts au pouvoir.", Stephen Smith in L'Histoire n°313, October 2006 (special issue on Chirac), p.70

My cleanup
As part of my cleanup iof the article, I have today removed the quote by Chirac expressing his admiration foe Saddam. I feel that this is not directly relevant to the narrative of Chirac's biography; his friendship is already well described in the article. Chirac's comments are part of the flowery diplomatic niceties permitted of a French president, and I am certain many examples of his expression of admiration of other leaders exist, and is thus no reason for inclusion of any such quotes in this article. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This was most likely just diplomatic niceties. And such a reference would need to be put in context vis-a-vis Western support for Iraq against Iran at that time to avoid violating NPOV. JanvonBismarck (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Freemason
I came across a couple of sources today saying that Chirac is a Mason. One is here:, the other is , page 86. Any objection to including that information? Jayen 466 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, let's hold our horses; there is some dispute about that, see . Needs a bit more research on how to formulate this, if we include something about it. Jayen 466 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Heavy smoker
I think the article should mention the fact that Chirac was a chain smoker until the late 1980s, since this is almost certainly what caused his stroke in 2005. (92.7.28.205 (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

Opinion on hijab?
This title should be changed as well as the whole section should be re-written. This section makes him look like he's anti-islamic. But for real, not only hijab has been banned under his rule, also turbans are banned, which serve religious, traditional importance towards millions of people. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 * The section is indeed not very reliably sourced. But its first three sentences (if they can be reliably sourced) do give his opinion on hijabs, which is independent of the wording of the 2004 law. (Note that the law, as mentioned in the linked BBC article, only bans religious clothings in public schools - the law is no stricter than the anti-hijab law in (pre-Erdogan) islamic Turkey.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Opinion on Hijab
I decided to be WP:BOLD and delete this section. It is unreferenced, but deals with a controversial topic that could damage Chirac's image to certain readers. In that vein, it either has to be solidly verified or it should be gone. Plus, it is just tagged in there and doesn't fit in any way with the flow of the article, like an afterthought. If solid, reliable sources can be found to verify that Chirac is against the wearing of islamic headwear, then it can be readded in the article in a better way that better flows. (I do understand that Islamiphobia is rather widespread in France right now). Until then I felt that removing this section was necessary per WP:BLP. 69.14.38.40 (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jacques Chirac. 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:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/08/08/alstom_1.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Jacques Chirac. 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/20150618133955/http://www.hattemer.fr/fr/l-ecole/association-des-anciens-eleves/ to http://www.hattemer.fr/fr/l-ecole/association-des-anciens-eleves/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.humanite.fr/1995-05-08_Articles_-Jacques-Chirac-sabre-au-clair
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gouvernement.fr/acteurs/premier_ministre/histoire_chefs_gouvernement_28/jacques_chirac_55/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/archives.php?id=8465
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607120523/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyHbiQwT8A2VnasPh30A3G8kbt3w to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyHbiQwT8A2VnasPh30A3G8kbt3w
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fondationchirac.eu/en/the-fondation-chirac-prize-for-conflict-prevention/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saintolav.com/grandcrossawards/headsofstateroyals.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419000000/http://www.lrp.lt/lt/prezidento_veikla/apdovanojimai/apdovanojimai_256/p40.html to http://www.lrp.lt/lt/prezidento_veikla/apdovanojimai/apdovanojimai_256/p40.html

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) 07:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jacques Chirac. 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/20090413170546/http://elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/interventions/discours_et_declarations/1995/juillet/allocution_de_m_jacques_chirac_president_de_la_republique_prononcee_lors_des_ceremonies_commemorant_la_grande_rafle_des_16_et_17_juillet_1942-paris.2503.html to http://elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/interventions/discours_et_declarations/1995/juillet/allocution_de_m_jacques_chirac_president_de_la_republique_prononcee_lors_des_ceremonies_commemorant_la_grande_rafle_des_16_et_17_juillet_1942-paris.2503.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100406023134/http://www.netmarine.net/bat/porteavi/cdg/index.htm to http://www.netmarine.net/bat/porteavi/cdg/index.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.capital.fr/Actualite/Default.asp?source=RE&numero=270226&Cat=GEN
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504061046/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/searchSimpleResults/iw/1/keyword/Jacques%20Chirac%20not%20sarkozy to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/searchSimpleResults/iw/1/keyword/Jacques%20Chirac%20not%20sarkozy
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225090059/http://www.ldainfos.com/politique/presidentielle_2002/chirac.htm to http://www.ldainfos.com/politique/presidentielle_2002/chirac.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013114054/http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1509&p=2 to http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1509&p=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303201504/http://news.pdousteblazy.com/ to http://news.pdousteblazy.com/

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) 22:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jacques Chirac. 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.fondationchirac.eu/en/the-fondation-chirac-prize-for-conflict-prevention/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212013423/http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/anglais_archives/jacques_chirac/biography/biography.39706.html to http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/anglais_archives/jacques_chirac/biography/biography.39706.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113015438/http://www.info.gov.za/aboutgovt/orders/recipients/1996.htm to http://www.info.gov.za/aboutgovt/orders/recipients/1996.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119135445/http://www.elysee.fr/president/la-presidence/les-presidents-depuis-1848/histoire-des-presidents-de-la-republique/jacques-chirac-1932.5308.html to http://www.elysee.fr/president/la-presidence/les-presidents-depuis-1848/histoire-des-presidents-de-la-republique/jacques-chirac-1932.5308.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509164203/http://www.lexpress.fr/info/france/dossier/chirac/dossier.asp?ida=434072 to http://www.lexpress.fr/info/france/dossier/chirac/dossier.asp?ida=434072

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) 19:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 25052006 lula chirac.jpg

Recent deaths: not fit for mainspace?
Here is a discussion/!voting showing that editors find this article missing quality, to be linked from from main page (Recent deaths). Whatever, I invite each and every editor to improve this article to make it acceptable (even while we don't know what that standard is, I add cynically). -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Class-B
I have upgraded this article to class-B. See also WP:ASSESS. Those who wish to challege this, are invited to discuss. IOM, this implies the article is suitable for mainspace linking (WP:ITNRD). -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you need to clear those 2 orange tags on the sections before the article can be posted in ITN. STSC (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * class-B says: " without major problems but requires some further work". Two tags in forty sections: within limits, I say. BTW, you too can remove those. -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But orange tags are not acceptable for ITN. Yes, I would help if I have the time. STSC (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , oh, so it was you who rated this a B. How convenient. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose Class B Referencing for an article about such an important figure is extremely poor. This article is not even close to B quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the ratings to C class. This article is going to need a lot of work to get to B. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not B-class, not that it really means anything when it counts for adherence to WP:BLP. If (or anyone else for that matter) is keen to get the article to B-class (a noble pursuit) and keen to get it posted at RD (also, a noble pursuit), they should, as a minimum, address the dozens of unreferenced claims in the article. Until that's fixed, we have a very poor C-lass article with multiple BLP violations which is completely unsuitable for the Main Page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They should ... -- Why not "someone", or "we"? -DePiep (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You, User:The Rambling Man, wrote (bolding added): If [x] is keen to get the article to B-class ... and keen to get it posted at RD ... they should ... address the dozens of unreferenced claims in the article. My response was, of course: why not you yourself? -DePiep (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What?  I think you're missing the whole point of this project, but I may be wrong of course.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have quoted your posts literaly. That is not about missing the whole point, it is replying to your actual posts here. You did write that "someone else" should edit, not "we". Is what I pointed out. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry, let me be "more clearer". THERE IS NO OBLIGATION FOR ANY OF US TO UPDATE/FIX/RESOLVE ISSUES WITH AN ARTICLE THAT FAILS TO MEET POLICY.  Is that clear enough?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jacques Chirac


text:
Pigs in a blanket

In the United States, pigs in a blanket are small hot dogs or other sausages individually wrapped in pastry, commonly served as an appetizer.

They are distinct from the British dish of pigs in blankets, where the sausages are instead wrapped in bacon.

Ingredients and preparation
In the United States the term "pigs in a blanket" typically refers to hot dogs in croissant dough, but may include Vienna sausages, cocktail or breakfast/link sausages baked inside biscuit dough or croissant dough. American cookbooks from the 1800s have recipes for "little pigs in blankets", but this is a rather different dish of oysters rolled in bacon similar to angels on horseback. The modern version can be traced back to at least 1940, when a U.S. Army cookbook lists "Pork Sausage Links (Pigs) in Blankets".

The dough is sometimes homemade, but canned dough is most common. Pancake dough is also sometimes used, although this combination is more commonly served like a corn dog and sold as a pancake on a stick. The larger variety is served as a quick and easy main course or a light meal (particularly for children) at lunch or supper while the smaller version is served as an appetizer. In Texas, kolaches or klobasneks are a similar dish which originates from Czech immigrants. The meat or savory part, often a sausage but not always, is wrapped in kolache dough and not croissant dough. This dish in Texas is most commonly referred to as "kolache", although traditional Czech-style kolaches are a sweet dish, not a savory dish.

Serving
Smaller versions of the dish are commonly served as an appetizer or hors d'oeuvre, sometimes with a mustard or aioli dipping sauce, or are accompanied by other foods during the main course.

Similar dishes
The cuisines of a number of countries have similar dishes under a variety of names.

In Belgium, this is a traditional dish from the city of Namur, where it is called avisance. Historically it was a sausage or sausage meat in bread dough, replaced nowadays with puff pastry.

In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, a hot dog wrapped in bread is called a fransk hot dog (lit. 'french hot dog'). The name is a reference to the bread's similarity to a baguette. In Denmark and Norway, American-style pigs in a blanket are known as pølsehorn, meaning "sausage horns".

The German Würstchen im Schlafrock ("sausage in a dressing gown") uses sausages wrapped in puff pastry or, more rarely, pancakes. Cheese and bacon are sometimes present.

In the Netherlands, is a puff pastry roll filled with seasoned minced meat.

In the United Kingdom, pastry-wrapped sausage meat is known as a sausage roll.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Pigs in a blanket


text:
Talk:Timeline of the early universe

Error in Acceleration time?
You have an error in the acceleration time. That acceleration started 6.2 billion years ago, that is, 7.6 billion years after the Big Bang. [Note: Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.215.80.188 (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)]
 * FWIW - the above comment about the time the universe expansion began accelerating seems supported by astrophysicist Ethan Siegel "... about 7.8 billion years old, or about 6 billion years ago, some 1.5 billion years before our Solar System formed." - however, a note by astronomer Joshua Frieman at CalTech notes => "the Universe began accelerating at redshift z ~ 0.4 and age t ~ 10 Gyr." [Note: "9.4" Gyr? determined using a cosmological calculator. ] - estimated time that expanding universe began accelerating may need clarification - comments from others welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * BRIEF Followup: The "7.8 billion years old" age of the accelerating expanding universe seems to be supported by comments made on the following talk page => "User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc" - see copy below:

Copied from "User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc":

HELP: Clarify Time Expanding Universe Accelerated?

Hello Josh:

IF POSSIBLE => may need help to clarify the best known Time the expanding universe began accelerating - this refers to several Wikipedia pages including "Accelerating expansion of the universe", "Timeline of the formation of the Universe" and "Talk:Timeline of the formation of the Universe" - Times presented on these pages (and related ones) seem to vary and include "7.8 billion years old"/astrophysicist ESiegel ; "10 Gyr" (z ~ 0.4)/astronomer JAFrieman ; "9.4 Gyr" (determined from z = 0.4 per Fermilab calculator) ; perhaps other values as well - any help to clarify the Time the expanding universe began accelerating would be appreciated - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 10 Gyrs is approximately right. It is going to occur at a redshift that solves the equation $$\Omega_\Lambda = \Omega_m (1 + z)^3$$ Roughly, $$\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$$ and $$\Omega_m = 0.3$$, so it's actually closer to $$z=0.3$$ which I think puts it closer to the 7.8 billion year estimate. jps (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @jps - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and clarifications - they're *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

 * In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

✅ - corrected timing of "Accelerating universe" on the "Timeline of the formation of the Universe" article in the "Acceleration section" - to "7.8 billion years (6.0 Gya)" [ie, universe was 7.8 billion years old; 6.0 billion years ago from the present time] - should now be ok - please discuss if otherwise of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Nature timeline
Is the (the new graphic next to The first second) really appropriate? In this article, time is view more logarithmically and extends long past the present. The graphic presents time linearly, backwards from present, which doesn't seem directly comparable to the text in question. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - although comments from others first may be indicated - and helpful - should note that discussions re a very similar timeline (at "Template talk:Life timeline") may also apply to the  - esp the comments re the "reverse ordering" of the timeline - which may be entirely ok after all, according to some commenters (at "Template talk:Life timeline") (ie, the most recent rocks are at the top, not bottom, of a "geological stratum" - and may represent the best scientific convention of such ordering in the responsible literature) - in any case - hope this helps in some way - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/split
This page has two problems: --dab (𒁳) 20:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * it is a cfork of Chronology of the universe
 * most of it is no longer about the "formation of the Universe" in the sense of physical cosmology. Of course, since everything is part of the universe, the formation of anything is technically part of the "formation of the universe". This is patently silly: "13.791 billion yrs (7.6 Mya): Betelgeuse forms" is no more relevant to the "formation of the universe" than would be "13.798999998 billion yrs (2 ya): World Trade Center is built". Such information belongs in a "list of stars", not a page on the big bang timeline.
 * Chronology of the Universe doesn't have a timeline. If we merged this timeline with that article, it would just be unmerged again.  Serendi pod ous  20:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dbachmann that putting a bunch of galaxies', stars', and planets' ages in this article feels unnecessary -- especially since they all have to be kept up to date as more research is done on each of those celestial objects, and on galaxy/star/planet formation ain general. What about just including the oldest known galaxy/quasar, star, and planet? 2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 * It's an exact match for what should be at the redirect page -->Epoch (cosmology) except for the lead section. It should be moved there and a lead written to suit. ~ R.T.G 00:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

File:CMB Timeline300 no WMAP.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:CMB Timeline300 no WMAP.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 26, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-10-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Dating question
The diagram at the beginning (today's picture of the day) says that "Big Bang Expansion" is 13.7 billion years. Wouldn't this just be the age of the universe, which, per information elsewhere in the article, would be about 13.8 billion years? John M Baker (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The picture might be a little bit out of date. 2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Habitable Epoch
I'm confused why it matters that the early universe was of the right temperature for liquid water at some point. There wasn't enough oxygen for water to exist, nor enough silicon or other heavy elements to form rocks, nor enough carbon or nitrogen for any CNOH-water life to evolve. It isn't made clear why a habitable temperature would matter, or make that span of time Habitable. Today when we find gas giants in the habitable zones of their stars, we don't call them habitable because they don't have rocky surfaces and are mostly made of hydrogen -- just like the early universe. 2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone added it, citing an article that it's possible that life commenced that far back. I suspect it qualifies as WP:FRINGE, particularly since temperature isn't the only important variable, entropy matters too. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 00:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this correct?
13.733 billion years (66 Mya): first mammals. - Is this line corect. I thought that it was 160 million years ago --Daduxing (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, and it's also not relevant to the article. Removed.  Serendi pod ous  10:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Age of stars
It seems that the age of many stars mentioned in the timeline is wrong by orders of magnitude. Massive stars - like Mu Cephei, Beta Orionis, etc. - cannot be up to 10 GYr old. --Geheimrat Viper (talk • contribs) 22:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Yeah, Mu Cephei is 10 million years old, not 10 billion years old. Lemme look at the timeline (sic) of those additions having been made. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 03:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed Rigel and Mu Cephei. They'd been there for years, I don't have the patience to track down who added them to see what else they did. Don't spot anything else as egregious as those two, if you spot anything else, fix it or mention it here. In general, I think the timeline is far too dense and could use at least an order of magnitude thinning down. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 03:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Dark Energy Acceleration
This article claims the Dark-Energy Dominated Era began at 7.8 Gy of cosmic time, without a citation. Elsewhere on the Wiki, the time is given as 9.8 Gy cosmic time, with a citation from 2006. I'm correcting this article by moving the Acceleration sub-headline to 9.8 Gy time. Until a source for the 7.8 Gy figure can be found that is more recent than 2006. 2601:441:467F:E7D2:D041:8BC2:333D:F4B0 (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, I found a source from 2008 giving the figure 8.8 Gy cosmic time (5 Gya, z=0.5) and put the Acceleration there. 2601:441:467F:E7D2:D041:8BC2:333D:F4B0 (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Should this article be changed to "timeline of the past"?
Given that the article of events in the future is called "timeline of the far future", wouldnt it make more sense for this article to be called "timeline of the past"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.227.192.150 (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Megan B....   It’s all coming to me till the end of time  14:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of epochs in cosmology → Timeline of the early universe – I'm not sure if this is the best title for this article, but I definitely need it needs to change. If you have any ideas on what it should be, then please let me know. Interstellarity (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Timeline of epochs in cosmology → Timeline of the universe (which should be lowercase, and Timeline of the Universe should be a redirect to Timeline of the universe) with a hatnote to Timeline of the far future (which is totally crystalball listcruft, but it's featured crystalball listcruft). "Timeline of epochs" is not a good title; it'd be like "Timeline of years", just kind of awkward. The unit of measurement of the timeline shouldn't be in the title of the timeline. What it is is a timeline of the universe, and the current dab page doesn't need to be a dab page, so let's just give it that title. And besides, we don't know if the time period between the Big Bang and the present is the "early" universe or the "late" universe :-) Levivich harass/hound 06:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polaris is not 7 billion but 70 million years olds
Should we remove this? It's probabbly an error in conversion of scientific notation. Also Capella is 590–650 Million years old and is listed here as 8.08-8.58 billion years (5.718-5.218 Gya)Celestialobjects (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Go ahead.  Serendi pod ous  04:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Could the size of the universe be added at different time points?
I stumbled on this page completely by chance, but I love it. What I kept thinking, though, was "how big was the universe when this or that thing was happening?" Could this be added, or would it mess up the structure of the article, or is it just impossible given current knowledge? This isn't my area of expertise, so I'm reluctant to add anything myself, but if another editor could make suitable changes that would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. RomanSpa (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Age of the universe???
While yes, I know the current agreed-upon answer is 13.8 Billion yrs, but the JWST took pics of really young galaxies, that were basically fully formed really close to the big bang. Should we try changing the big bang time to 26.7 billion? or do we not have enough evidence for it? I guess you would need to recalculate the rest of the events to correspond with it Periodicpro18 (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Timeline of the early universe