Jump to content

Talk:Albert Camus/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Assassination

I removed the following edit from the article:

“The accident seemed to have been caused by a blowout or a broken axle; experts were puzzled by its happening on a long stretch of straight road, a road 30 feet wide, and with little traffic at the time,” Herbert Lottman wrote in his 1978 biography of the author. A book by Giovanni Catelli argues that it was not an accident but rather an assasination by the KGB as ordered by Dmitri Shepilov, the Soviet Union’s minister of internal affairs, who wished to silence the famous critic of Soviet abuses. Catelli cites several sources for that allegation, including the diary of the celebrated Czech poet and translator Jan Zábrana, which states that “a knowledgeable and well-connected man” had told him the KGB was to blame. “They rigged the tyre with a tool that eventually pierced it when the car was travelling at high speed.”[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Catelli 2019.
  2. ^ Flood 2019.

Although sourced, it seems to be speculation and rumor without solid foundation (such as the anonymous "knowledgeable and well-connected" source). I think it needs discussion here on the Talk page before being included in the article. If other editors feel it improves the article, I have no problem letting the edit stand - Epinoia (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I would say that the addition was not sourced, even though two names were given as refs... Cinadon36 19:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It was sourced. You're not obligated to accept the argument or to think the sources credible, but to deny that it was sourced is to deny reality.

It might be worth a brief mention that there has been speculation that Camus's fatal accident was actually an assassination. It's be mentioned in the Guardian, and Radio France Internationale mentions it, saying biographer Michel Onfray thinks it's unlikely.

Jonpatterns (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

- it does sound like a conspiracy theory - the KGB allegedly rigged the tire to blow - the accident occurred on a stretch of straight road - a blown tire on a straight road would not necessarily result in a fatal accident - were the KGB that incompetent? - if they wanted to assassinate someone one would think they would find a foolproof way - and if the tire were rigged it would leave behind the piercing mechanism, so it would be obvious it was not an accident - and installing the mechanism would require access to the car for some time, when did that take place? - and it wasn't Camus' car, it was his publisher's, so how could the KGB be sure that Camus would even be in it? - and if they wanted to assassinate Camus, would they also involve his publisher's family in the accident? - the whole things sounds too outlandish - Epinoia (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Some of your arguments suggest that you have little understanding of how the Soviets and in particular the KGB operated. You seriously think they would have hesitated to kill 'innocents' to get at someone they wanted to kill?! It's not an objection that a depiction of KGB behavior is "outlandish", anymore than to point out that it is in fact a theory about a putative conspiracy.
I tend to agree with you. But it isn't Wikipedians' job to verify how likely a theory is to be true. Only to reflect what the sources say giving due weight. I definitely wouldn't want to give the theory much weight in the article. But perhaps to mention Giovanni Catelli wrote a book on the subject, if it is deemed to be notable enough. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Epinoia. It seems to me that the assassination accusation is a small fringe theory. There are tones of literature about Camus life, novels and philosophy. It would be WP:Undue if a small theory mentioned only by a couple of non-academic articles or books finds it way to the article.Cinadon36 21:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Echoing Jonpatterns, I'd favour mentioning the claim. But to avoid undue weight, it should be given only a couple of sentences at most. "Non-academic" sources can still be considered reliable - RFI and The Guardian are adequate in my view. Meticulo (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- ok, I re-added the assassination theory to the article - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This is stupid, frankly. A book has been written on the subject laying out the evidence, and the book has been discussed by credible news organizations. The fact that some people are not persuaded by the argument does not militate against its inclusion. Epinoia has been utterly dismissive of the sourced addition to this page since about 5 minutes after it was added. His "concession" is merely to mention it in the vaguest possible way, while excluding the citatations and the factually based arguments, and while also labelling it as a "conspiracy theory". That is no 'concession'; that's just another way of dismissing what Epinoia wants to dismiss. If there are no objections, I'm going to repost what was originally posted. It was sourced, it was clear, it was free from rhetorical tricks, and it was to the point. None of that is true of Epinoia's dismissive edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.132.179 (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Pls read the argumentation above. If you are going to repost the original text, I am going to revert. Cinadon36 12:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
It has been included in the article. It should not be given undue weight, as per discussion above. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
It has not been "included" in the article in a meaningful sense. It has been dismissed as a "conspiracy theory", with no discussion of the theory or the evidence - which I went to considerable trouble to distill in the first place. "conspiracy theory" is a rhetorical term that means 'an absurdly convoluted theory that strains credulity and lacks any evidence'. That is not an accurate description of what Catelli or Zábrana state. Their theory is evidence-based, and there is nothing incredible about the idea that the Soviets would assassinate people they regarded as obstacles. What *is* rather dubious is the idea that a simple tire blowout caused a car to fly off a highway; it is so dubious that an earlier biographer of Camus with no knowledge of this theory drew attention to its unlikelihood. As for the argument of "undue weight", a few sentences does not equal undue weight. If the theory *were correct*, it would be a major element in any analysis of Camus' place in 20th century European culture and politics. I cannot help but note that the section as revised by Epinoia continues to dedicate more space to things that have little or no wider consequence (e.g. the fact that a manuscript was in the car; where Camus was buried; a quote from Satre's eulogy). If editors genuinely cared about undue weight in this article, they'd be addressing things like the lengthy quotation from an obscure professor in Montana (with a link to his faculty bio page!!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.140.233 (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The article has been changed vastly in the last half year mainly by hundreds of edits by Cinadon36, and not always for the better. For example, he all but wiped out an interesting section of Camus' interests in football, while adding massive amounts about his own particular hobby horse, anarchism. That included most bizarrely, lengthy discussions/quotations of the opinions of a relatively obscure academic from Montana concerning the various categories of anarchism Camus *might* have found appealing. A lot of his editorial interventions strike me as self indulgent to the point of obscuring important material that isn't to his taste. Among his many deletions of earlier material was a succinct, specific and non-dismissive statement regarding Catelli's theory. What's really necessary to improve this page is not to exclude this information, whose inclusion several people have advocated for, but to go back and reconsider the state of the whole page before Cinadon36 began remaking it in his own image with a blizzard of edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.135.251 (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a paragraph about Camus and football but having a section on Camus and football is really awkward. Camus is known because he was a great writer, philosopher and active at the political scene (not the central political scene though). Hence it is only natural to place more importance his political stance than his hobbies.Cinadon36 09:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC) PS- I removed the quotation. IP was right at this one, it was unnecessary. Cinadon36 09:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Cinadon after reverting my entire set of edits today: "When attribution an opinion, it is a good thing to introduce who says what" I guess when it comes to preserving mention of that obscure Montana professor he keeps adding everywhere possible. But when it comes to mentioning a book about Camus' death, the argument can be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" without mentioning who says what or why.22:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)~
If you think things have been removed or should be removed can you state what, preferably itemised or in separate talk sections. The article DOES include Catelli's theory and Camus's interest in football. Which part of the article do you think gives undue weight to anarchism? Jonpatterns (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I already edited down some of the excessive Aristotelian analysis of Camus' precise species of anarchism. Cinadon ceded some ground too and deleted a bunch of unnecessary stuff about his favorite Montana philosopher.22:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)~
  • I have locked the article for two days because of edit warring. When something is controversial, discuss it here on the talk page, please; don't keep reverting each other. Edit warring is against the rules and can lead to blocks. As for the issues: it looks to me as if the "theory" issue has reached consensus here: to mention it briefly, but as a conspiracy theory. I also see some warring about a few other things, such as his comments about football; I suggest you discuss that and any other disputed issues in separate threads so you can stay focused on the issue. Hopefully by the time the protection expires you all will have worked it out. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Thanks! Cinadon36 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Where's the consensus then? Give us a head count of who you're counting and who you're excluding from your supposed 'consensus'. Because I count 2 editors who insist that the rhetorical term "conspiracy theory" must be used. Another 2 editors have added this information without condemning it as false. And there are several others that have said explicitly that the theory merits inclusion and that it's not the place of wp editors to use their own opinions about the validity of the theory. To me that seems like plain consensus NOT to dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory". ONCE AGAIN, with emphasis, what we are debating is whether a small number of editors may be permitted to insist on using a rhetorically loaded term to dismiss information that they tried and failed to convince others to allow them to exclude entirely. I call bullshit on your and Cinadon's claims that there is consensus to let him have his way. This is the same garbage that always occurs when people without wp accounts find themselves crossing swords with those who have them. The editors with accounts always close ranks and back whichever one of them is engaging in a mindless edit war. It's rather revealing about the gap between the pretensions to intellectual consistency and the ones that actually prevail; I already quoted one of Cinadon's comments above, in which he flat out contradicts himself on the question of whether the people who advance theories need to be named. When it's his favorite Montana philosopher, the man needs to be named over and over again; when it's a theory he doesn't agree with, it should remain nameless, evidenceless, and covered in shame as a "conspiracy theory".04:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.134.243 (talk)
You are the only one wanting the claim spelled out in detail. Epinoia was persuadable either way about including something. Jonpatterns and Meticulo wanted a brief mention. Cinadon wanted nothing but will accept a brief mention. I read this as consensus to include a brief mention; Jonpatterns and Meticulo added it should be no more than that due to WP:WEIGHT.
As for how to characterize it, you are the only one opposing any kind of tag or label. Epinoia said it sounds like a conspiracy theory, adding it is speculation and rumor without solid foundation. Jonpatterns called it speculation. Meticulo called it a fringe theory. Cinadon said it is a conspiracy theory and a small fringe theory. There is clear consensus to label it in some way; I read it as "conspiracy theory", but discussion here could change that to speculation or fringe theory. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Your constant complaints about Cinadon add nothing to your arguments and in fact detract from your point. Discuss the content, not other editors. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Cinadon is part of the issue, he's the one who has been edit warring with various people since long before I first visited this page. Go through the archives; it's clear as day that he picks fights and won't back down no matter how stupid the fight. All theories are speculative; that's why they're called 'theories'. The word means "something proposed". This theory is not in fact based on any "rumor"; my original edit made clear it was based on inferences from evidence (however insufficient that may be to prove the theory). Rumor is not evidence. You do not call a theory that has less than "solid" evidence a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is one that should be dismissed out of hand because it lacks any coherence; it is not formulated in such a way that it can ever be proven true or false; and it posits unnecessarily a grandiose conspiracy by connecting unrelated facts that can be more efficiently (logically) explained without resort to a conspiracy. This theory by contrast is a properly formulated theory - whether or not it will ever in fact be proven either true or false. It is also coherent. And it does not strain to connect facts or try to over-explain what is easily explicable. As I already demonstrated, early on people found it difficult to explain how a simple flat tire could have caused such devastation on a good road. It hardly takes an active immagination to link that strange event to the explicit statement made in the diary of an extremely well connected author behind the Iron Curtain, that someone in the KGB described this plot to him. So why the heck is this a "conspiracy theory" rather than a theory about an alleged Soviet conspiracy? The fact that it presupposes the KGB would risk killing innocent people? Seriously, that's one of a series of dumb arguments Epinoia gave for deleting my editorial additions in the first place. Is anybody but me paying attention to Mr. former KGB, Vlad Putin's decades long reign of terror during which he assassinates pretty much anybody who falls afoul of him - on a regular basis? JFC, that is exactly what the Soviets used to do back in the day. It is not crazy talk to formulate a theory about a KGB plot to kill Camus based upon the explicit statement of a well informed observer that he was told the KGB did so by someone who would have known. It WOULD be crazy to insist that others have to believe the theory, but the theory itself is not crazy. If however you do believe it's a conspiracy theory, then obviously you also have to conclude it does not belong on the page at all. You can't have it both ways. If you include it, don't piss on it. If you're going to piss on it, don't include it.03:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.99 (talk)
"You are the only one wanting the claim spelled out in detail" That is not true. The information about this theory was added to this page a long time ago. It was deleted months ago without explanation or discussion, IIRC by Cinadon. So as I have said previously, I am not the only person who thinks this info belongs.03:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.99 (talk)

It is a theory not supported by any mainstream historian and has been named as a conspiracy theory at least one RS- Britannica. What do we know of Catelli? Is he a historian? Who published the book? What is the editorial policy of the publishing house? Is it peer reviewed? Is it well cited? Best source is an article at Guardian in which, a Cambridge French literature professor, Alison Finch, "was not persuaded" (and names the few person that were persuaded). Also, Britannica has a piece on this conspiracy theory:"Many years after the crash, conspiracy theories began to develop. In 2011 an Italian newspaper alleged that the KGB—the Soviet security agency—had caused the crash. The allegation was based on remarks by Giovanni Catelli, ...Scholars and biographers of Camus have rejected these claims..." (ext link) Lets have a look at the rest of the literature of Camus. Many biographies from academic publishing houses. Does anyone include the information that Camus was murdered by KGB? I can't recall but the burden of proof doesn't lie on me. All I recall (but cannot remember where I read it- I will have dig into Camus biographies again) is that the car model was prone to lethal accidents and was withdrawn from the market a bit later. But I didn't include this piece of info at the article because I thought the death of Camus shouldn't get undue weight. Which will get if we list every minor theory on his death. We shouldn't paying real attention to newspaper's click-bite titles. We should pay attention on what RS say. There are plenty RS (well cited academic books) on Camus.

PS-have a look here:

  • SEP- no mention of the assassination theory. [1]
  • IEP- no mention either. [2]
  • Robert Zaretsky. A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning. Cambridge, Mass., and London: The Belknap P of. Harvard UP, 2013 --> no mention either.
  • Matthew Sharpe Brill Academic Pub (September 3, 2015) Camus, Philosophe: To Return to our Beginnings [3], no mention either.

In my view, we shouldnt include this insignificant conspiracy theory. We should focus on his work. But if we opt to include it, one sentence that dismisses this eye-catching "theory" is enough. Cinadon36 17:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Once again you demonstrate that you're willing to contradict yourself in order to maintain your position. You demand that the theory and its author clear a variety of thresholds - things you clearly do not apply to all the other assertions and opinions that appear on this page, including those you have added. Where are your demands that all the other authors and publishing houses be investigated before other assertions/ideas get to be included? In particular, you demand to know whether Catelli is a professional historian. Are you? Is your favorite Montana professor? (I am.) You then cite a French *literature* professor, not an historian, as if we should dismiss Catelli's theory because this man isn't persuaded. Many is the time I have not been persuaded by a new theory initially, only to change my mind upon further study.
Your arguments from authority are frankly and absurdly all over the map. You demand historians, then don't cite any. You demand professional scholars, then cite and quote an undergrad English major. The author of that brief discussion at "Brittanica.com" that you cite was an editorial intern, who has an undergraduate degree in English lit; the page is under the heading "Companion/Literature & Language", not "History". And to top it off, the author refers NOT to Catelli's book but only to an early reference in an Italian newspaper to the theory.
Your citation of other sites that don't include or don't treat his theory seriously is disingenuous in the extreme. None of them shows any awareness of Catelli's book! The latest citation on the utm page you cite dates from 2008, and in any case it devotes only a few words to Camus' death. It's bizarre to drag this old page into the matter as if it were evidence backing you up. Even more bizarre is your citation of the Stanford page, which devotes exactly one brief sentence to Camus' death and which was first published in 2011. Zaretsky's book was published in 2013, years before Catelli's; Zaretsky also states explicitly that it was meant to supplement his biography of Camus from 1986 by focusing on "certain intellectual or moral themes we have long associated with Camus’ work" that he had slighted in the first book. It proves zero that Zaretsky didn't discuss Catelli's theory. And Sharpe's book, likewise predating Catelli's, is focused on Camus' place in intellectual trends especially post-structualism. Nobody would genuinely expect a discussion of this car accident in such a book.
In raising all these red herrings, you have done one thing very well - you avoided discussing anything I said about "conspiracy theories" much less explaining why this theory should be treated as one. To repeat: A conspiracy theory is an INVALID theory per se because it is formulated in such a way that the theory is not subject to proof or disproof. For example, actual conspiracy theories typically incorporate arguments that the absence of definitive evidence is a form of evidence because the absence shows that a vaguely defined "they" destroyed all the evidence that would have exposed them...a classic way of insulating a conspiracy theory against its being disproved. Catelli's theory is NOT a conspiracy theory no matter how many times you repeat that phrase. What you make of the evidence Catelli cites is your business, but he does cite real evidence and does formulate his theory on that evidence in a way that makes his theory both proveable and disproveable. Whether it is true or not, persuasive or not, it is a valid theory. Many valid theories go unproven for long stretches of time, so that is no objection, and many valid theories turn out to be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.139.149 (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Details on the source and authors are important. Wikipedia:Reliable sources, a content guideline, is very clear: The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Whether you or me or any other editor is historian, is totally irrelevant.

RS do not give so much detail in Camus death, this is guiding us not to treat his death as a really important feature of Camus. RS treat Camus as a philosopher and a writer and we should follow RS.Cinadon36 06:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

- it's clear that the assassination theory is held only by a tiny minority - WP:DUE says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" - so a mention that there is a theory is more than enough - Epinoia (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me the question is whether it's a "conspiracy theory". You need to engage with the question of what makes a conspiracy theory if you're going to insist that is must be called a conspiracy theory. Could equally be said that only a tiny minority insist that it's a conspiracy theory. I think it is not, just a controversial theory with limited evidence. Anyway, keep the goalposts in the same place. Asking whether the theorist is a historian and then saying who cares who's a historian looks suspect.139.147.61.26 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- as noted above, Encylopedia Britannica says it is a conspiracy theory, that is a reliable source WP:RS - Epinoia (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The Albert Camus page on brittanica.com has only a single sentence about his death: "Less than three years later he was killed in an automobile accident." You're pointing to a companion page posted by a named individual, so it is more like a blog post than the encyclopedia's authoritative Camus page. You can't avoid explaining why it is a 'conspiracy theory' by saying 'well Haley Bracken uses that term'. She was a college student intern when she wrote that post, not an expert.139.147.110.177 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I guess the undergrad English major is a reliable source WP:RS because Cinadon and Epinoia say she is. Also, don't assume that this is a reliable "Talk" page; it's a "Talk Past Those Challenging Your Assumptions" page.00:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.135.137 (talk)
It is a conspiracy theory because too few consider it as a valid theory. It is not only Haley Bracken that dismisses it, it is the literature prof. from Cambridge as well. I have to say though that it is wrong not to take into consideration what H. Bracken wrote. It is on Britannica, not a blog, and the Britannica discloses its editorial policy (see "Britannica's editorial process". Reliability comes in many shades- it is not black and white. What do we have on the other hand? A book by Giovanni Catelli, of which we do not know his credentials, or the editorial policy of the publishing house. Moreover, we do have not read a review on his book (apart from the article in the Guardian). If you feel too strong about it though, you can take the discussion to a noticeboard to get more wikipedia-editors involved. Ie Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Cinadon36 07:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Whether or not it is true, it is a conspiracy theory - that the Russian secret service conspired to kill Camus. The term 'conspiracy theory' often has negative connotations, but it isn't necessarily meant in this way. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Now you're both just talking nonsense. A "conspiracy theory" is not merely a theory about a conspiracy, the phrase has been used only in the pejorative sense for a very long time, and it inevitably implies that the theory is false. Jonpatterns' claims are preposterous and should hold no weight. There is a WP Conspiracy theory page, which states in its opening paragraph: "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof." Catelli's theory does not resist falsification. The WP pages goes on to say: "A conspiracy theory is not simply a conspiracy. Barkun writes that conspiracies are "actual covert plots planned and/or carried out by two or more persons". A conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is "an intellectual construct", a "template imposed upon the world to give the appearance of order to events". Positing that "some small and hidden group" has manipulated events, a conspiracy theory can be local or international, focused on single events or covering multiple incidents and entire countries, regions and periods of history. Conspiracy theorists see themselves as having privileged access to special knowledge or a special mode of thought that separates them from the masses who believe the official account." Catelli does not claim to have privileged access to special knowledge or a special mode of thought. He cites evidence and draws inferences from it, in the normal mode of historians.
Cinadon is as per usual just plain wrong. "because too few consider it as a valid theory" is not anybody else's definition of a conspiracy theory. This is the first time he directly addresses why he demands the use of the pejorative term "conspiracy theory", and that's the best he can come up with. The fact that he is utterly determined to keep doubling down on his appeal to authority even after his supposedly "reliable source" turns out to be an undergraduate English major, also shows that his opinion deserves no weight. He still has not acknowledged that he also blundered with the other "reliable sources" he cited in his list as "negative evidence" against the theory (viz the fact they did not mention Catelli's theory was supposed to prove that they rejected the theory). Cinadon's argumentation from beginning to end has been laced with ludicrous assertions and gross errors, showing that he isn't looking seriously into the question of whether in fact Catelli's theory is a "conspiracy theory"; he's just looking for any means to justify his desire to label it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.132.228 (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The handful of people who insist on calling it a "conspiracy theory" cannot even agree amongst themselves on what the term means; each of their explanations is in conflict with the others' explanation. Nor do they offer an explanation that coheres with what is stated at WP Conspiracy theory. Therefore one thing is plain. "Conpiracy theory" cannot be used in this page. Either it has the common meaning (a theory that can never be proven or disproven), in which it doesn't apply to this theory, or it has no commonly agreed upon meaning, in which case the term has to be treated as impermissibly vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.132.228 (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Your disagreements with the term "conspiracy theory" are your personal opinions and they are irrelevant. The article can use the term if that is what a consensus of editors decides upon. I certainly see no consensus against using the term. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
No they are not just my personal opinions, nor is defining one's terms irrelevant. I quoted from the WP page. I did not just blather like the others here who tried to define what the term means and only came up with a list of adjectives that define nothing. I notice from your Talk page that you're quite ready to insist on the use of what you describe as exact terminology.03:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Your comments obviously reflect your personal opinions, it is completely irrelevant what the Wikipedia article Conspiracy theory states, and editors here can certainly decide to use the term "conspiracy theory" if they wish. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The evidence-based argument on this Talk page on behalf of labeling this a "conspiracy theory" now is based on 2 things: (1) an undergraduate intern "expert" used the term once on line, so that must be given great weight; (2) what the WP Conspiracy theory page says is "completely irrelevant", so it should be given no weight. In other words, it is being pushed by people who can't and won't try to explain what a conspiracy theory is. This discussion has been a mockery of both reasoning and evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.136.62 (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The evidence-based argument on this Talk page on behalf of labeling this a "conspiracy theory" now is based on 2 things: (1) an undergraduate intern "expert" used the term once on line, so that must be given great weight; (2) what the WP Conspiracy theory page says is "completely irrelevant", so it should be given no weight. In other words, it is being pushed by people who can't and won't try to explain what a conspiracy theory is. This discussion has been a mockery of both reasoning and evidence.01:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.136.62 (talk)

Now you are misrepresenting the arguments that are opposing your opinion.(typical strawman). (1) There is evidence that disregard this Catelli theory (Article at Britannica, yes written by interim but yet Britannica is one of the best tetriary sources. And also a prof of french literature at Cam. University- see article at the Guardian). .On the other hand, no RS gives any significance to this theory. (2). Conspiracy theory is ": ...a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators". per Merriam-Webster. Cinadon36 08:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not I who has misrepresented. (1) Nobody denies that there are people who aren't persuaded by the theory; that's not the issue here. An intern is an intern is an intern - you're just grasping at straws trying to preserve the credibility of the one webpage you've found that terms this a "conspiracy theory", because it's basically all you've got to recommend using that term here. (2) Citing simplistic dictionary definitions is what mediocre students do in essays they toss off without much thought or research. You would not be fighting tooth and nail to preserve the use of the term here unless it were pejorative to the theory's credibility. The Mafia constitutes powerful conspirators, right? Thus when the police investigate their activities they're pursuing a conspiracy theory, right? That's the essence of your argument, and it's false. As the passages I quoted from WP Conspiracy theory demonstrate...passages that you refuse to engage with. PizzaGate and QAnon are conspiracy theories, Catelli's is not. The fact that you cannot or refuse to see the difference between a "conspiracy theory" and a theory about a conspiracy speaks volumes about your insight. Some institutions like the Mafia and the KGB do/did routinely engage in conspiracies and it is not flippant to investigate when a source tells you explicitly that they did so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.133.102 (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

An anonymous "knowledgeable and well-connected" source doesn't make this a conspiracy theory. It just means we don't know the name of the original source - like with a lot of news reporting that we accept. Do you people even know what a conspiracy theory is? You can't even agree on what it means but you insist on using the phrase? The level of argument here is comical.70.105.247.75 (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be comical because of the lack of logic and consistency, except I think what is going on with this page has to be described as bullying by a small number of hyper-opinionated contributors who aren't seeking consensus at all. I tried to revise the section slightly, and one of them started an unusually aggressive edit war the minute I finished my own edit.71.161.99.45 (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, one man's "bullying by a small number of hyper-opinionated contributors" is another man's "one single compulsive IP editor consistently unwilling to accept consensus". Cause, you know, who's the hyper-opinionated one here? (BTW you could have the decency of getting an account, even a throwaway account, so editors don't have to go and figure out who's who.) Drmies (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Cinadon36 lays it out pretty well, I think. A reliable source argues it's a conspiracy theory, no accepted biographies mention it, the only book that mentions it is questionable in many ways (I tried to figure out who the publisher is, to no avail) and is written by someone whose credentials are unknown, and we have a Guardian article that spends a few paragraphs on it. So, no. There is just not enough to it, and I'm wondering, MelanieN, if it isn't time to consider a rangeblock to stop the disruption coming from this IP, with their ongoing edit warring, their singular obsession with bringing this stuff in, and their way-too-long posts on this talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a nice batch of edits indicating disruption and a fondness for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not a single editor who criticizes you or who tried to add this material in a constructive way. Or who pointed out that calling it a conspiracy theory is wrong. But you just ignore corrections and/or claim you don't understand. It's beyond silly. Now you're saying you can't figure out what the book publisher is? How about looking at the original citations that got deleted by one of your group. Somebody pointed out all the mistakes Cinadon36 made. I looked at the history, Cinadon36 is the worst edit warrior here. I could see a case for blocking Drmies, the way they reverted my edits yesterday and kept getting more aggressive about it.71.161.99.45 (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Drmies, and thanks for looking at this train wreck of a discussion, where one user is refusing to accept consensus, and as of today has started edit warring again. I completely agree that a block of the current IP, 71.161.99.45, is warranted because of their edit warring at the article (6 reverts today and counting) and their disruption at the talk page, and I will impose one. As for the idea of a rangeblock, I don’t do rangeblocks and would suggest asking someone who does. But offhand, looking at the history, there seems to be one stable IP at a time for a period of a week or more, and the ranges may be too widely separated for a reasonable rangeblock. Might be more to the point to consider imposing a block for disruption whenever a new version of this person shows up and restarts the battle. And of course semi-protection of the article when needed. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Actually I misread the history. The current IP has done some disruption here and a lot of edit warring, but all of it today. Previous versions of this person have used at least a dozen IPs with at least four different ranges. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You keep using the word "consensus" Melanie, but I don't think it means what you think it means! Off the top of my head I have seen at least 6 different people here and at the NPOV page who have endorsed including this information, said it is not a conspiracy theory, and raised concerns about the behavior of this little band of edit warriors. But you think Cinadon and Epinoia and a handful of others have reached "consensus" amongst themselves. Sure...as long as you exclude all the other people who disagree with their edits. Fwiw, the fact that you and your little band of friends imagine that 72.86.137.99 is the same as 71.161.99.45 and also 70.105.247.75 shows that you don't understand something as basic as ISP addresses. That's on top of the fact that you and they don't know what a "conspiracy theory" is and refuse to look into it. Just a pathetic display of ignorance and smugness.01:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.62 (talk)

Look. I come into this from the NPOV board. I do not have a horse in this race, however I did write a thesis on Camus so I am not exactly ignorant here. What exactly is ridiculous about the idea that the KGB assassinates people? We don't know because it was not investigated, fine. Yet. The rule is that were there is controversy, we do not attempt to litigate it ourselves, no? Camus is definitely most important as a novelist and philosopher, but he was also a journalist, and the inexplicable death of a journalist is notable. A sentence or two seems in order, along the lines of "An Italian author believes his death was a KGB assassination (cite) but many disagree (cite Guardian)" or some such wording, is completely appropriate. It is a long article and the man's many accomplishments are explored. A possible irony seems worthy of mention. I also suggest using cite templates rather than this format, to make credibility easier to assess, but that may be a case of diminishing returns. But it is in my humble opinion inappropriate to revert cited information as if it were vandalism. Is it an affront to the good name of the KGB? Be serious. Elinruby (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The version of the book on Google Books is printed by Parole et silence, a Swiss publisher distributed by Gallimard. Elinruby (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- my understanding was that there was consensus to add the assassination theory to the article - there was an objection to its being characterized as a "conspiracy theory" so I changed it to "speculation" as a simple solution to avoid clumsy constructions such as "unconfirmed theory", "unsubstantiated rumors", "unproved conjecture", "claim with limited evidence", etc. - the section on Camus' death currently reads, "There has been speculation that Camus was assassinated by the KGB because of his criticism of Soviet abuses.[30][31]" - with citations to Catelli and Flood - hope this is acceptable - Epinoia (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
If it is a conspiracy theory it should not be in wikipedia. But it is not. It is a theory, in a published book distributed by a large French-language publisher, that one can agree with or not, but is certainly notable. Therefore compromising by calling it a conspiracy theory is also fallacious. I would be ok with "theory". It is, after all, that. It does have evidence to support it, although it is fundamentally unprovable. But sorry folks, a book is a reliable source, almost always, and I see no reason why this one should be different. It is a reputable publisher who is not some publicity-seeking band of kooks like QAnon. Elinruby (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Stating or even suggesting that KBG did it just because we know that KBG carried out many assasinations, it is confirmation bias. There is not one RS that making such a claim, just a theory from an unknown source that was dismissed by real Reliable Sources. Cinadon36 23:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you do not know a source does not make it unknown. I pointed out the KGB's reputation because the discussion to date reminded me of what happens when you edit Putin's bio. Perhaps that is unfair. Gallimard is a well-known publisher. The book is in French. This happens when dealing with French authors. The theory is plausible, fits the known split between Sartre and Camus over the Communist party, and new. The fact that the sources that predate its publication in 2019 do not discuss it is the most ridiculous of tautologies. It is obviously notable, but pending further information does not have to be extensively discussed, since Camus was known for much more than the way he died. This is the difference with the other case this reminds me of, King Leopold's Ghost, which also upended some long-standing ideation, but in a way that was more central to the way that Belgian historians portrayed him. In this case, Camus was who he was regardless of how he died, but the fact that this book has been published is notable and also speaks to his enduring importance. I have other things going on and would prefer not to be drawn into this, especially since some of the editors appear to dismiss French-language sources, but I am not ruling it out. Meanwhile, I have said what I think. The article should briefly include the book and the question it raises for the moment, and perhaps expand the mention later if further research emrges that validates the theory. Elinruby (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Incidentally, a google search for "Camus KGB" turns up over a quarter-million results. We don't have to demonstrate that something is true for the question to be notable. I did not vet each and every one of them for RS but most of the top results indeed are. RFI, Guardian, RFI and New Yorker for a start all thought the theory was worth a mention, even though, based on snippets, not all of them seem to agree with it. But that is not a requirement for noting its existence. Elinruby (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Lots of plausible theoies are conspiracy theories or even fringe opinions.The specific one does not seem to be playsible but we shouldnt be discussing this, it is not upon us to tell...A sentence on this theory has already been included at the article. Do you know whether Gallimard discloses its piblishing policy,whether the books are peer reviewed, or edited? I am not even sure if we should treat this as a primary or secondary source as Gallimart was involved in the accident that killed Camus...Cinadon36 05:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Gallimard is a very reputable and well-established publisher. Of course its books are edited. Elinruby (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Epinoia: I thought I answered you last night, but apparently I didn't hit publish. "Speculation" is an improvement but still sounds like something from two guys in a bar. How about "Some have suggested", perhaps followed by "but many remain unconvinced"? It is true that many are unconvinced. I'd suggest citing RFI as well on the first part and NYT as well on the second. Elinruby (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elinruby: - I think any expression of doubt is fine, "It has been alleged..." (allowed by MOS:ALLEGED) - but I don't think we need "but many remain unconvinced", the expression of doubt covers that - Epinoia (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Mmm I kinda dislike both "alleged" but what you suggest is an improvement, if I understand what you are proposing. "Some have alleged" would get us away from the use of passive tense. Or a similar wording in active voice if you don't like "some". I take it you dislike "suggested"? How about "some have alleged that the KGB tampered with the car"? This gets us away from "assassination". Although I would still prefer another word than alleged.Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I 'd suggest first we address the lack of RS claiming that the "assassination theory" is a valid one, and after that we can look into the proper wording. Many users raised concerns on this subject. Cinadon36 22:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd respectfully suggest that you first consider the possibility that you're a moron, Cinadon. You can't even frickin' count. You are outvoted, and have been outvoted for a long time on this subject, and yet no matter how many new people come onto this page and tell you are (a) wrong and (b) talking nonsense, you keep just flapping your gums at them. We already know that you don't believe this theory. We also know that your opinion of it doesn't matter in the slightest, not least because you wouldn't recognize a "reliable source" if it walked up to you with an undergraduate English degree in hand and slapped you upside the head with it.20:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.139.99 (talk)

Lettres à un ami allemand -style question

A lot of Camus' writing has individual articles about individual titles, often in English as well as French. I did some wikignoming and added wikilinks within the article. Lettres à un ami allemand is one of the works that does have an en.wiki article, but the English title is not a literal translation of the French title. This happens quite a bit with literary works, often enough for the manual of style to cover it, probably, though I don't want to go down that rabbit hole right now. What I have done in this instance is wikilink the French title to the en.wiki article about the translated work under the title of the translation, while leaving the literal translation of the title in parentheses behind it. It might actually be better to wikilink the french article to the French title, and but that would require explaining the piping on the English title, perhaps in a note. Yet generally it is considered good practice to provide a translation of the title. Leaving as an item for discussion right now, in case someone knows or has an opinion on this. Elinruby (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The question also arises in the Absurdism section, where the French title was literally translated as The Wrong Side and the Right Side whereas the title of the English translation is Betwixt and Between. In this case I made the change and wikilinked the correct title, but there may be value in also providing the French title and a literal translation. Open to input on this. Elinruby (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not certain that wikilinking to french wikiproject or to wikidata is the best option available. I can not understand the reasoning behind linking to this non-existent article.[4]. Cinadon36 22:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
If there is no English WP article to link, use {{ill}} to link to the next best article on the work (whether French or another language WP). The template will redlink the work while also linking to a foreign language version for interested readers. czar 15:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Czar, thanks for the tip but I think that the 3 essays by Camus that are red link, might not be notable. I didn't find any articles on these essays at French WP and I feel that it is pretty safe to assume no other WP project has any relevant articles. Maybe it is better to remove the internal link... Cinadon36 08:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep, if the essay is unlikely to ever have its own article, best to not link it at all. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

“He joined the Communist Party but was not a Marxist”

He joined in 1935. (The quote here is in the second para. of the Formative years subsection) It’s clear that later he wasn’t a hardline communist. And he left the Communist Party a year later. Did his views veer away quickly from those he would have been expected to hold? Many nowadays are very happy to describe themselves as marxists even though they also say they are pro-democracy (and not a democracy of the Soviet kind). Boscaswell talk 10:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Consensus on nationality

Can we come to a consensus on Camus's nationality to stop these constant changes from French to Algerian? When the article underwent a GA review on 18 April 2020, he was described as French Algerian. There is a Talk page discussion here (in Archive 1), which seems to indicate that French is preferred.

Please indicate which nationality should appear in the article:

  1. French
  2. Algerian
  3. French Algerian
  4. Algerian French

thanks! Epinoia (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

- could we leave nationality and citizenship out of the first sentence of the lead? It is done this way in the T.S. Eliot article to avoid endless edit wars over whether he was British or American. Eliot's nationality and citizenship are addressed in a subsequent paragraph.
With Camus, the second paragraph begins, "Camus was born in French Algeria to Pieds Noirs parents." That clearly states his origin. The first sentence would then read, "...was a philosopher, author, dramatist and journalist." This would avoid edit wars over whether he was French or Algerian and, really, the information is the first sentence of the lead is a repetition of content explained more fully in the next paragraph - we don't need the information twice - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Pessimism

The article is...odd...about pessimism. It has the 'Philosophers of pessimism' category, but the articles only mention of the topic is

"In 1933, Camus enrolled at the University of Algiers and completed his licence de philosophie (BA) in 1936; after presenting his thesis on Plotinus. Camus developed an interest in early Christian philosophers, but Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer had paved the way towards pessimism and atheism."

Which doesn't say anything about Camus and the topic. Do we have any reliable sources that associate him with this philosophy? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Assassination speculation

I think Wikipedia should not have this in the article:

"There has been speculation that Camus was assassinated by the KGB because of his criticism of Soviet abuses"

Why? Let's dig in to the source.

Catelli believes a passage in Zábrana’s diaries explains why: the poet wrote in the late summer of 1980 that “a knowledgeable and well-connected man” had told him the KGB was to blame. “They rigged the tyre with a tool that eventually pierced it when the car was travelling at high speed.”

This is the source of speculation:

"late summer of 1980 that “a knowledgeable and well-connected man” had told him"

After 20 years of his death, an author claims something without credible proof, and this gossip finds its way onto Wikipedia. Yes, this is no more than a gossip. I think it fails fit in Wikipedia:Reliable sources rules. Therefore, it should be removed. TarantaBabu (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

On top of my previous comment, I should note this:
Olivier Todd, a former BBC correspondent in Paris, whose biography, Albert Camus: Une Vie [A Life], was published in English in 2000, told the Observer that during research in Soviet archives he had not come across any reference to Moscow ordering the author's assassination.
Source
Zábrana’s claim falls into category of WP:BLPGOSSIP TarantaBabu (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wisdom Quote

Albert Camus has been credited with the phrase, "Do not walk behind me, I will not lead. Do not walk in front of me, I will not follow. Just walk at my side me, and be my friend." Do the Universities in France have some reliable sources for this?JohnEC Jr (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_Camus/Archive_2&oldid=1231090921"