Talk:Louis-Ferdinand Céline

References, notes, etc

Hello all

The article had numerous subheadings for references, notes, bibliography, further reading etc. These sections often repeated the same references or had references which had very little relevance to the article. I have consolidated the references to books, articles and links to external sites and will go through them progressively to put them in standard format. Happy to discuss. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography

Hello all

I have changed the major heading from "Bibliography" to "Selected works" because the list of Céline's works isn't complete. I have added some works based on the list provided in Vitoux's biography but a complete Bibliography would require a lot of work and perhaps a separate article. The current list includes all the major works that have been translated into English and some notable works that have not. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Céline-Jünger relationship.

Hello all

At the request of Aemilius Adolphin, who removed a recent edit of mine on the grounds that I would have delved too deeply into the relationship between Céline and Jünger, I agree to open a public discussion on the issue. I have already explained in detail in the justification for the reinstatement of my modification, why I do not agree with the justifications of my in-depth proposal' deletion. I add here that before the new deletion of my edit, I corrected and delved a little into Ernst Jünger's page regarding his meetings with Céline. The problem is that on Céline's page the Céline-Jünger relationship was barely mentioned and completely decontextualized. In my opinion it was necessary to add something to clarify the issue better. If you check the Céline pages in French, German and Italian, you will see that the issue is covered in more depth than I have done here, in the English one. It's true that I made additions there, but there was already more than that in English before I intervened. It seemed unfair to me that English-language readers were deprived of information present in WP in the most widespread languages ​​in Western Europe. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

As discussed on your Talk page, the problem with your additions is that they are focused on Jünger, not Céline and are full of unnecessary detail which doesn't add to our understanding of Céline's antisemitism or his work. Céline's alleged statement to Jünger is already in the article with a link to the Jünger article. All that needs to be said in an article about Céline is the nub of the antisemitic statement that Jünger alleged Céline said to him. Where and how often they met is a matter for the Jünger article. Whether Céline appeared under a pseudonym in Jünger's war diaries, what that pseudonym was, and which newspaper Jünger revealed this to in 1994 are all unnecessary details which are best included in the Jünger article. Most of this is already included in the Jünger article, so no one is being "deprived" of this circumstantial detail. If a reader is really interested they can click on the link and read about it. It's not as if Céline's antisemitism was a secret revealed by Jünger in 1994. As the article states, there is abundant evidence that Céline was an antisemite and collaborator and he was convicted as such. There's no need to put so much emphasis on the circumstantial details of Jünger's allegation. But let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@NONIS STEFANOAn alternative would be to put the circumstantial detail in a footnote. Having it in the text gives it undue importance. Please also note that according to Céline's biographer Vitoux, the French translation of Jünger's war diaries published in September 1951 used Céline's real name. Céline sued the publisher for defamation and the diary was republished with the pseudonym "Merline". Vittoux also states that Jünger only spoke with Céline three times. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aemilius AdolphinIt seems to me that you are recognizing that the topic is quite important and, therefore, cannot be treated hastily. Especially since Céline's article is part of a project High Importance, as you well know. As for Frédéric Vitoux' book, it is an excellent source, but, on this point it is not exhaustive. First of all because his biography was published in 1988 in France (English translation in 1992), before the 1994 article in the German magazine Der Spiegel appeared, in which Jünger confirmed for the first time that "Merline" was actually Céline, but as I wrote in my contribution, he didn't want at the time to offend him. He also says that when the French translation came out, the editor and writer Banine, who hated Céline, chose to use the name “Céline” rather than “Merline”. This led to Céline's defamation lawsuit against Jünger. Jünger, when questioned, to "protect" Banine, who was his friend, said that it was a printing error. I wrote all this on Wikipedia in French, German and Italian, obviously with the necessary sources. However, I decided not to give too much space to this on the English Wikipedia, because in it there was barely a mention of the Jünger-Céline relationship. However, the sources I used cover everything I said above. In particular: Ernst Jünger, Antonio Gnoli, Franco Volpi The Coming Titans. Conversations with Ernst Jünger, Adelphi, Milan, 1997, pp. 93–94, in which Jünger also says that he met Céline “several times”, how many times is not known, but nevertheless they knew each other quite well. As you can see, if we consider the matter carefully, in the end one could argue that what I wrote on Wiki-English is too little, rather than too much. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin As for the proposal to put some details in a note, I could agree. The following part of the text:

Jünger described Céline as a fierce anti-Semite and confirmed in an interview with Der Spiegel in 1994 that the character of the staunch collaborationist "Merline" in his Parisian diary (Strahlungen) was identical to Louis-Ferdinand Céline, but he changed his name so as not tooffend him.

could be rewritten like this:

Jünger described Céline as a fierce anti-Semite and created the character of the staunch collaborationist "Merline" in his Parisian diary (Strahlungen), inspired by Céline. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think any of your proposed additions should be included because they introduce too much peripheral and disputed detail which distracts readers from the main point: that Jünger accused Céline of making an antisemitic statement. It gives undue weight to Jünger, and Jünger's version of events, and to the circumstantial details of an alleged statement Céline made to Jünger. Your proposed details (which are based solely on Jünger's version of events) are also disputed: eg, Vitoux states that Céline only met Jünger three times and had far closer and more important relationships with other German officers and officials. Vitoux also states that some of Jünger's statements about Céline are demonstrably false and the statements in question are "certainly distorted". However, in the spirit of compromise, I wouldn't object to some additional uncontested factual details if included in a footnote. I suggest that the existing statement "The German officer and writer Ernst Jünger claims that Céline told him in 1941 that he was stupefied that the Germans did not exterminate the French Jews" could contain the following footnote with citations: "The first French edition of Jünger's Paris War Diaries, published in September 1951, named Céline as making this comment. Céline sued the publishers for libel. The German edition of the war diaries and subsequent French editions used the pseudonym "Merline" for Céline. In 1994, Jünger confirmed that "Merline" was Céline." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Also please see the relevant policy on this point: "an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." See WP:PROPORTION Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Gladly accepting the proposal to revise my previous modification from @Aemilius Adolphin, whom I thank for his collaboration, I would reformulate the text in this way:

The German officer and writer Ernst Jünger claims in his Paris War Diaries Radiations that Céline told him in 1941 that he was stupefied that the Germans did not exterminate the French Jews". In 1994, Jünger confirmed that "Merline" was Céline. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@NONIS STEFANO Thanks for compromising on this. I put your proposed second sentence, "In 1994, Jünger confirmed that "Merline" was Céline" in the footnote because it soesn't make sense as an isolated sentence in the main text. Let me know if you have a problem with this. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aemilius AdolphinI could have agreed with your second proposal, but I absolutely disagree with the fact that you published the reformulated text that I had inserted into the discussion. First of all because you did it before asking me. Secondly because the discussion was not exhausted and other people might have something to object. You certainly collaborated, as I recognized, but the idea, most of the material and the sources were and are mine. I had to be the one to republish the text I proposed, otherwise what you did could constitute copyright infringement, put that way. I therefore advise you to delete everything, considering that now you can no longer intervene in the reason for the change. “Normal” Wikipedia readers don't read the discussion page and may mistakenly think that what you published after our discussion was only your work, while it was only thanks to my availability that we arrived at a mutually satisfactory result. All this makes me very uncomfortable, and gives me the impression of having been manipulated. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to delete the text and repost it. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@NONIS STEFANO Sorry, I see that you want me to revert to the stable version so that we can wait a few days and see if anyone else wishes to comment. Then you wish to insert the agreed text. I am happy with this. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Just to make it clear to others, this is the proposed text for comment: The German officer and writer Ernst Jünger stated in his Paris war diaries that Céline told him on 7 December 1941 "of his consternation, his astonishment" that the Germans did not "exterminate" the French Jews.

@Aemilius AdolphinNo problem with the last change. I put "of his consternation, his astonishment" (instead of "stupefied") and "exterminate" in quotation marks, because they are Jünger's words in the 2019 English translation, covered by the diary quote. I removed the quotation marks from Paris War Diaries, because in the English translation (2019) they are "War Journals, 1941-1945". If there are no further discussions and proposals, I will publish the text in a couple of days, indicating in the justification that "the previously canceled modification is largely republished but structured differently, after in-depth discussion. See Talk". NONIS STEFANO (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@NONIS STEFANOThose changes look ok. Sorry about the earlier mix-up. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aemilius AdolphinApology gladly accepted. Hoping to do something pleasing to English-language readers, I have replaced the quotation from the original German edition of the diaries with that of the English translation. Now it will be possible to read the entire passage which talks about "Merline" and from which the quotes in quotation marks in the text are taken. It will be enough to go and see in the first chapter what Jünger noted on 7 December 1941. I then explained better the question of why in France in 1951 Merline was replaced with Céline. It wasn't understood before. Of course everything is covered by the sources I had already included. I really hope these are my last changes. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

References

British English

Hello all

I have added a British English template as this is the predominant form of English used in the article as it stands.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

In Re: recent reversion

@Elmidae, could you explain your objection in depth here? The article covers his antisemitism extensively and it is a large part of his legacy. With that in mind, I don't see why you reverted it. Carlp941 (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears to me that putting "antisemite" as a defining characteristic into the first lede sentence is something we practically never do. Not even the various Third Reich leaders get that epithet. Similarly, raging racists like Asa Earl Carter don't get labeled "racist" in that prominent position, albeit this facet is covered extensively in the text body. I suppose the intention is to identify a person by their roles, not their labels. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Carlp941I agree with @Elmidae Céline's notability is as a novelist. If he had been a plumber who happened to be an antisemite there wouldn't even be an article about him. His antisemitism is adequately covered in the lead and the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Both of these are very fair objections!! Thank you both for taking the time to reply. Happy to leave it as is. Carlp941 (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)