![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
XInolanIX has been acting as a Single Purpose account on this page, focusing on Juan Branco since the polemic regarding Griveaux started. The modifications have crucially distanced this article from an objective status and consensus that had been reached by previous users. I suggest coming back to either adapt changes, either come back to the version before the creation of his account. Elahadji ( talk) 18:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules are clear: "A bold change during an edit war should be an adaptive edit to discourage further warring and not to escalate it; it should never be another revert. Engaging in similar behavior by reverting a contribution during an edit war could be seen as disruptive and may garner sanctions. Never continue an edit war as an uninvolved party." XInolanIX and D.Lazard, refrain from savage reverts agaisnt constructive changes. Elahadji ( talk) 17:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It appears at least one of the IPs involved in the recent edit-warring is Branco himself. The IP used here is the same Juan Branco himself used in an signed edit of the talk page of the French version ( here). As expected, the recent efforts to once again turn this article into a hagiography seem to be orchestrated. XInolanIX ( talk) 15:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This is actually a multiple band billiard game from the subject:
1 - Trying to force falsehoods (academic titles, career achievements) into Wikipedia
2 - Have this serve as "source" and reprinted by official newspapers that do not do due diligence in verifying facts
3 - Use those reprints from legit sources as proof (for WP).
XInolanIX, an SPA, systematically deletes sourced information (PhD and academia affiliation, basic and sourced professional experiences)) whilst distorting other facts. See below. Elahadji ( talk) 11:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I readily admit that objectively editing Juan Branco's Wikipedia page is not a small task. Nevertheless, it seems to me that, from the point of view of the contradictory, this page is unbalanced and violates Wikipedia guidelines in term of objectivity.
I submit the following points for discussion :
1/- The Filippetti passage should be, at least, balanced ("Filippetti later stated that he "demanded to be hired as her chief of staff at age 22", that he "completely lost it when he was refused the position"). Juan Branco has responded to these accusations. At the same time, he denies having asked to be his chief of staff at the ministry and he confirms he was his chief of staff for the campaign at her own demand : https://twitter.com/anatolium/status/1230240371638259714?s=20 . He published evidence suggesting that she volontarily play with the meaning of the expression. Even if the term of "directeur de cabinet" was unsuitable for a campaign, he really became it during François Hollande campaign at her demand :
- An audio file proves she asked him to be. To source it : https://yetiblog.org/archives/22214 an independant source that published the audio recording that proves she offered him a mission of "directeur de Cabinet".
- Moreover, the press has always mentioned him as his "directeur de cabinet" in 2012. https://www.latribune.fr/technos-medias/20120531trib000701243/un-nouvel-enarque-au-cabinet-d-aurelie-filippetti-.html and also https://www.lesinrocks.com/2012/05/24/web/actualite/hadopi/ It is not a question of deciding between the two, but of re-establishing a balance.
2/ "After he was refused a sufficiently high spot on the electoral list of La France Insoumise" : According to Lagardere owned tabloid Paris Match? I didnt know daily mail and tabloid equivalents were considered as legitimate sources. Branco denied that point, and nobody never confirm it. (Maybe a paragraph that would explain that his best-seller, Crépuscule, made revelations on these media could be a good thing. We cannot understand the articles tone on him without that context.)
3/ "In 2018 he outed the homosexuality of his former class-mate Gabriel Attal on Twitter.[9]" That presentation of fact seems to voluntarily let think that it was his purpose. However, it was not a secret (they were Pacsed (sort of civil marriage)) and it was to explain the political ascension of this Attal that this relationship was described. Nepotism denonciation was the goal, not outing ( cf. https://twitter.com/anatolium/status/1052956272675495937?s=20 )
I have nothing against the fact that appears here what some accuse him, on condition however to indicate when Branco denied the facts. It is well done in this passage ("Multiple sources claim that Juan Branco was himself involved in the leak,[18] a criminal offense under French law.[19] This was denied by Branco. ") so why is it not elsewhere? That gives a very branco bashing oriented tone to the article. This entry must escape to a hagiographic tone just as much as a bashing tone.
Ps: The infobox is very uncomplete (compared to the french page), but I'm not an expert and i don't know how to link the information to the wikidata ressources on Branco. For example, it seems to be important to know more about his preofessional experiences and a little bit more about his studies, Yale for example, that sounds an info more revelant for english readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:295:24D0:114D:24D8:365:3741 ( talk) 11:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I restaured last consensual version before it was bashed by two french accounts. Seen the very few English sources, please check on French version (which is heavily controlled by the community) before any substantial modification and avoid adding elements that have not previously reached consensus that could trigger new editorial wars. I'm considering to sue the two French accounts that systematically try to use this page to wage personal wars against its subject, which I've refrained until now to remain in the spirit of the community. But the low-intensity control of this page from the EN community - understandable seen it is not a high value subject on this version of WP - does not provide with much alternatives. For their information, the 3 months statute of limitations is renewed everytime they intervene in this page. To all the other contributors: sorry for the bother, but there are limits to the violence that have been crossed. yours, JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:B16:B300:6DD0:C936:EFFA:A4BC ( talk) 21:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
There does need to be a serious review of sourcing on this article - some sources, like IMDB (generally unreliable according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) are clearly unsuitable. This is a BLP and we should be using high quality WP:RS. Nigel Ish ( talk) 09:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the last consensual version before D.Lazard started intervening on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Juan_Branco&diff=941967204&oldid=941404845
As seen in the historic, after shared and long lasting community work, the page had become consensual and triggered only marginal changes. Once D.Lazard intervened, joined soon after by SPA User:EdgarAllanFrost, both French accounts with visible subjectivity over the matter, no consensus was ever reached again, ending up into a completly, and polemics became systematic.
The current page has become completly desequilibrated, giving much more space to polemics that are presented in altered, biaised perspectives, than to objective facts, let alone positive elements, which are reduced to almost nothing, triggering a very thought and willingfully nourrished negative perception of the matter. Pretending that the current version is consensual is an insult to intelligence, as seen by the historic of the page, and compared to how it was held before these two contributors started modifying it. Re. false claims of SPA or manipulation from my side, I can only reaffirm that all my interventions have been signed, or claimed a posteriori when they hadn't been. I disagree with any reasoning that would rely on these elements to justify this page becoming a bashing exercice. This is not how Wikipedia should be handled. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Juan_Branco&diff=941967204&oldid=941404845 Brancojuan ( talk) 20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
For the record, the so-called "consensual version" is the version at the opening date of the second AfD of this article (see at the top of this page). The AfD discussion shows clearly that this version was a hagiography, and the consensus for keeping the article was reach only because of major edits that were done during the AfD discussion. So, it is definitively a lie to say that this version was consensual. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the lead could still use some rework.
The current version:
Some parts seems rather redundant (e.g. mentioning the Yellow Vests twice). The passive construction "was identified" also seems clumsy. The accusation in the book should not be stated as fact. The word "supplementary" is probably a direct translation from French and doesn't work very well imo.
I suggest:
EdgarAllanFrost ( talk) 09:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to insert some reviews of "Crépuscule" and "L'Antisouverain". To avoid future arguments I'd suggest collecting every available review by reputable sources first. Here is what I found so far, let me know if I missed any:
Crépuscule
L'Antisouverain
XInolanIX ( talk) 19:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Honestly this article is a gross tentative to destroy an individual. There is not a positive or neutral thing that is not immediatley outweighted by gratuitious negative elements. Whom has done this job ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:B16:B300:5C4E:898E:A030:102C ( talk) 11:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Pursuant to a request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected this page. As always, this does not constitute an endorsement of the current version.
I urge all involved editors to remember that our policy on biographies of living persons gives article subjects a wide berth when blanking or otherwise removing content about themselves they may feel is defamatory or libelous, that such edits should not be construed as vandalism, and that complaining about such material does not violate our policy on legal threats.
As for the subject of this article, if he is indeed concerned about bias in the article, he should contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 09:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The 3 tags were placed by a new user, without any discussion on the talk page. The present state of the article results essentially from the consensus supporting the closing decision of the second AfD. So, non-neutrality, and factual non-accuracy require strong arguments to be considered as disputed. The {{ COI}} tag is ridiculous as the main contributors are clearly not favorable to the subject of the article. Therefore, I'll remove the three tags. D.Lazard ( talk) 12:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Juan Branco has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{subst:trim|1=
The whole article is hagiographical. This person is more well-known for publicly trying to be associated with well-known cases, than actually having any substantial contribution to any of them.
All reference to Julian Assange should be removed. Maybe they had some contact at some point, thinking he was serious, but he was not on his legal team. His lawyer was Vey: https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20200907-julian-assange-is-a-victim-of-torture-lawyer-antoine-vey-tells-france-24 There is only one source saying that he was a legal correspondant of WikiLeaks (not Assange) at one point, but that is not notable. There are also sources mentioning him as being on his team, but never when the article is about Assange, this is because he is claiming it everywhere and nobody verifies. If he has been involved at some point, it has necessarily been extremely brief, like in the other cases.
Therefore:
}} 203.69.105.3 ( talk) 10:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
An intense war has waged on this page after Griveaux polemic. Now that a few weeks have passed, there are reasons to believe that reequilibrating it was necessary. I based myself on pre-polemic version and integrated post-polemic version, without reusing the most libelous elements, whilst deleting most self-promoting ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elahadji ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
______
Hi,
I am not sure if this is the proper place to offer those comments but I'll give it a try. I was jumping to this page from the French version and couldn't help notice how widely different they are.
IMHO, the English version still suffers from the hagiography bias and in particular in the section "private life".
On several counts :
• the text states that the alleged victim acknowledged "that every step was consensual": this is actually not the case and there are multiple sources out there (in French sorry) from legit newspapers that specifically state that, in her declaration to the police, she claimed to have been both drugged and physically threatened. Quite the opposite.
https://www.ladepeche.fr/2021/05/02/enquete-pour-viol-contre-lavocat-juan-branco-son-accusatrice-revient-sur-les-faits-9521758.php
https://www.lepoint.fr/faits-divers/juan-branco-accuse-de-viol-ce-qu-a-dit-l-accusatrice-a-la-police-01-05-2021-2424492_2627.php
• the quoted source to support the "every step was consensual" actually doesn't establish this for a fact: it is just a mere claim from Mr. Branco's lawyer trying to exonerate his client. It's a "he said"
• furthermore this source's title (a quote from his lawyer again) is giving the impression that this is a political witch hunt ("abusive arrest"). This could be an intend to pass this as statement from the newspaper.
Finally the latest development is that Mr. Branco has now been recently indicted on the charge of rape. As reported by numerous newspapers :
https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2021/11/24/l-avocat-juan-branco-mis-en-examen-pour-viol_6103425_3224.html
https://www.ouest-france.fr/societe/justice/l-avocat-juan-branco-mis-en-examen-a-paris-pour-viol-a18b0fec-4d00-11ec-a0f2-c7fe53b09c00
_______
Nov 2022 : Sorry, redacting out the "his lawyer claims" part. This is not factual and a lot of he said (not any proof of that AFAIK) to water down the crime accusation / investigation.
_______
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ebtpmus (
talk •
contribs)
09:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
It is not written anywhere that the woman reported "abuse", "coerce" and "threat". Both sides should be described, even if somebody talks through legal representation. D.Lazard: what is your opinion? -- Delfield ( talk) 18:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
D.Lazard: the previous version was not original research, since it only reported what was in the source, the current is, since it used terms and ideas that are not in the sources (abuse, coerce, threat). -- Delfield ( talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello @D.Lazard
Here you have multiple sources, I see you speak french so I keep them french :
« Comment les médias ont (déjà) réélu Macron - Par Pauline Bock | Arrêt sur images », sur www.arretsurimages.net
Daniel Schneidermann, « Emmanuel Macron, «candidat des médias» : autopsie d’un choix implicite », sur Libération
Marie Bénilde, « Emmanuel Macron, le candidat des médias », sur Le Monde diplomatique, 1er mai 2017 Username1789 ( talk) 23:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I see many assertions in this article relying on 1 or 2 sources that are at conflict of Interest with Juan Branco because of his book Crepuscule critizing them and/or revealing their dependancy to their billionaires shareholders. For example, one Parisien article (owned by Bernard Arnault, heavely critized in the book) is used 4 times to quote negative elements on Juan Branco - it's the 3rd citation "Tabet Le Parisien dans les réseaux de Juan Branco". There are also citations from Paris Match that are COI.
Could the person that added these quotes find other more independant sources ? I can't find these elements in other independant articles so if there is no further citations added I might delete the quotes. Username1789 ( talk) 18:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
It is well established that Juan Branco uses sockpuppetry to try making this article more favorable to him. In this talk page and in the history of the article Juan Branco, users Brancojuan, Elahadji, Username1789, RoxxorOscar, Paulk12, Salmasalma2, and sevral IP users are sockpuppets or suspected sockpuppets of Juan Branco.
In § Self-promotion on Wikipedia, it is also documented that Juan Branco uses threats outside Wikipedia for the same purpose. I am a new victim of such a behavior of Juan Branco. Here is a mail received at my personal address:
Monsieur le Professeur d'université émérite Daniel Lazard,
je me permets de vous écrire afin de vous informer de votre identification sur l'encyclopédie Wikipedia, sous le nom d'utilisateur D.Lazard.
Vous avez, au cours des dernières années, et en appui ou avec l'appui d'une autre personne (sous le pseudo XlNolanX, devenu EdgarAllanFrost, et son faux nez , contribué à publier de façon répétée des informations diffamatoires, ne pouvant bénéficier ni de l'exception de vérité ni de la bonne foi.
Ces publications ont atteint lourdement à ma réputation, à mes intérêts professionnels et à ceux de mon cabinet, entraînant de lourdes et violentes conséquences sociales et personnelles. Ils ont atteint aux intérêts de mes proches, de mes clients et des personnes que je défendais. Ils ont non seulement entaché mon honneur, ma considération mais aussi ma présomption d'innocence.
Vos interventions sont en conséquences constitutives des délits de diffamation publique et d'injure, et constituent des faits de dénigrement au sens de la Cour de cassation.
La cour de cassation a établi que le simple fait de rétablir ou de poster des paroles diffamatoires déjà existantes sur une plateforme en ligne est constitutive d'une nouvelle publication poursuivable en tant que telle, y compris lorsqu'ils prennent source en des publications antérieures effectuées par des personnes tierces.
C'est donc avec un véritable soulagement que je vous annonce qu'une plainte pénale sera déposée prochainement à votre encontre.
Je vous met en demeure de toute réitération de vos actes.
Juan Branco
and two mails received by the web master of my university:
Bonjour,
je vous remercie. Votre ancien collège a, de façon obsessionnelle et systématique, arpenté Wikipedia afin d'y publier des informations extraordinairement dénigrantes et violentes me concernant, notamment sur la page Wikipedia anglaise, ainsi que sur d'autres personnes, tout en créant ses propres pages en plusieurs langues.
Je ne sais quels motifs l'habitaient. Je sais cependant les dommages irréparables et la violence indécente qui s'en est suivie pour moi, à des âges où tout est encore à construire. Qu'un professeur honoraire des universités se soit "amusé" à cela, des années durant, usant de son autorité dans le champs mathématique (où il est un grand contributeur de l'encyclopédie), pour détruire un jeune homme, sous pseudo, est dégoûtant.
Cordialement,
Juan Branco
and
Monsieur,
je reviens vers vous afin de déterminer si vous avez pu trouver un contact de M. Lazard. Celui-ci en est à sa 153e publication, en moins de trois ans, me concernant. C'est un harcèlement inacceptable.
Cette affaire est d'autant plus grave que M. Lazard, au regard des éléments recueillis et notamment des adresses IP, a vraisemblablement, pendant une grande partie de cette période, fait usage de vos équipements.
Elle l'est également d'un point de vue moral, au regard de son statut, de son appartenance revendiquée à la communauté normalienne et à la fixation obsessionnelle qu'il semble faire sur la distinction entre "vrais" et faux normaliens, qui par ricochet atteint à de nombreuses autres personnes.
Juan Branco
I do not translate these mails in English to be sure to not change any meaning.
I do not really care of these threats, since they have absolutely no support in French law. Nevertheless, I think that the editors of this page and, more generally Wikipedia, must be informed of this Branco’s behavior. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
The page has been largely expanded recently by a single editor. Should the previous stable version be restored? D.Lazard ( talk) 15:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC).
The page has been largely expanded recently by a single editor, against the opinion of two editors (myself included, see above discussions).
I propose to restore the version of 02:05, 21 March 2023. Here are the reasons:
The only notability criterion that Juan Branco passes, is to have received significant coverage at some time in multiple published news. The article has been the subject of two AfD. The second AfC resulted in "keep" after that another editor rewrote the article into a version that is very similar to the version that I suggest to restore.
The difference between the new version and the previous stable one consist mainly to add details that have nothing to do with the notability of the subject (such as the details of the exams he passed during its education, and the details of the cases on which he worked as a lawyer), and opinion of the subject on various institutions (such as the shools where he studied). Moreover, some of these details are sourced from Branco's CV, which is an especially unreliable source, as Branco is known for embellishing it (and trying to embellish his Wikipedia page).
So the recent expansion go against policies and guidelines of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:Notability (people). D.Lazard ( talk) 15:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: once notability has already been established; independent reliable sources are allowed to be drawn upon to elaborate upon a subject. The content within those sources do not themselves need to be notable Jack4576 ( talk) 03:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes. See my comment in the first paragraphs. 2 editors : - Paulk12 who has never edited another page than this one - Imagritte : whose activity is 80% or more about Branco and his books. Both have been gradually changing the content to embellish this "wikipedia fantasy CV" : e.g. the numerous scandals, now under the so nice section title of "other activity". Last approximately neutral version is the one from D. Lazard, early Feb. Ebtpmus ( talk) 10:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
It seems the last RfC was framed in a way that was not clear enough, as it was noted by an admin. Therefore, I try again.
There are two versions of the articles, and there is a dispute on which one is the status quo that should be the start of a discussion. What version should be the one to build on and to discuss each change from :
Option 1 : the older one https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Juan_Branco&oldid=1165176845
OR
Option 2 : the new one by Imagritte : https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Juan_Branco&oldid=1165219691
--
Delfield (
talk)
21:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1 : - the new text is so long that it becomes impossible to discuss each change, how it is all framed as an advertisement for Branco and to water down critic
It would be too long a discussion to address each point, the question is to see what is the unbiased version to start and argue each change from. An example, this has been totally deleted in version 2: "Branco has previously claimed that he worked as a "special assistant" to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Asked for a clarification by the French journal GQ France, the Court responded that Branco ""claims to have been the assistant of the Prosecutor (..) while in reality he was an intern (...) and then worked at the OTP Public Information Unit".[31]"
@ Nemov In the option 1, there is no section about controversies but about controversial claims, since he is accused by many people to lie on his CVs and to manipulate.
@ C.Fred, EdgarAllanFrost: you have been following the previous similar attempts. Perhaps you could give your pov?
Imo, the article should go back to option 1, be protected, and each change approved like before in such a situation.
-- Delfield ( talk) 21:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1: per nom and per my motivations in the first RfC. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
As a student, he stood out by..., and the entire lead seems filled with rambling minutiae that obscures what he's actually notable for, which is reflected in the body. More generally, the proposed new version (option 2) was dropped in by a single editor with minimal discussion, immediately disputed, and revert-warred in; no consensus for it was ever actually demonstrated - certainly not in the minimal discussion above, which presents nowhere near the consensus necessary to drastically rewrite an entire article like this. What little discussion there has been seems to be largely procedural wrangling to try and assert that their edits somehow don't require consensus or, worse, that a consensus is needed to revert them, which is absurd. It was a WP:BOLD edit, which was reverted and must now be discussed. Proponents of those changes need to break them down and discuss them individually rather than trying to present a complete rewrite of the entire article as accomplished by WP:FAIT. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
is the status quo and the last stable version (which means that if this RFC reaches no consensus or gets a procedural close, we should go back to that one), and, either way, should be used as a basis. It has issues with Franglai-ish phrasing and seeming irrelevancies (Deneuve lived in his neighbourhood?). Option 2 is laughably promotional - hardly a sentence can be found which the subject's role hasn't been massively inflated (eg: He participated in diplomatic negotiations to obtain the right of asylum for Assange, which the Élysée ultimately refused). The attached source makes clear there were no negotiations, Assange wrote an open letter to Hollande's govt requesting protection, not asylum, which was immediately denied. The only truth is that Branco is recorded as part of Assange's Fr legal team, presumably submitting the letter.
@ Imagritte and D.Lazard: I am going to ask both of you to stop disrupting this article. If you are both unable to edit here constructively or without finding consensus, further action may have to be taken. Nemov ( talk) 19:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I have fully translated the French article entirely and double-checked almost every (of the 200) sources over the past 2 months, and as far as I can tell, the current "start-class" version here is just a disaster with large controversial chunks based on 1 (primary) source (e.g. here, see wp:undue and wp:redflag), and on the other hand missing common, widely covered content and cases. Here is what a more neutral and much more complete version could look like. Imagritte ( talk) 11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Nemov: could you clarify your status? You are talking as if you were an admin, but there is no mention of that and if you are, you are editing and debating on content, so you are not an uninvolved admin and you cannot act as such on this article. Thanks. -- Delfield ( talk) 20:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
gross exaggeration of a very tiny role or a very tiny issue" point above.I don't think the Wikipedia editing stuff is central to this biography because it's trivial. Do you have a policy argument for inclusion? I wouldn't expect an editor with no history outside of this article to have one. Nemov ( talk) 20:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Nemov: Kindly avoid commenting on other's behavior because it gives the impression you are an admin, whereas you are not and you are as involved in this dispute as others. I did not remove anything "out of frustration". I tried in good faith to build on option 1, the last consensus, but Imagritte edit-warred with several editors arguing the new version is not option 1. Since a consensus could not be found the new version, I reverted to the last consensus. From this version EACH change should be discussed and agreed upon. I agree with Nemov’s change of title of section though, it should have been discussed first, but let's agree on that now that it is done. -- Delfield ( talk) 06:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Hello @ Bbb23, what do you mean by "this article doesn't need expansion" ? I see that it is rated as "start-class" Imagritte ( talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
The article has recently been largely expanded (almost +50%) by translating the French version. The result is that the new version does not follow the rules of English Wikipedia (that are not exactly the same as those of French Wikipedia, in particular for WP:notability. For example, the details of one year position and the corresponding salaries have nothing to do here. Also the added content contains non-neutral assertions, such as the opinion of the subject on his salaries, and the mention of the opinion of the French President. Also, there are too many details that do not participate to the notability of the subjects and are certainly of no interest for non-French people.
For these reasons, I'll restore the previous stable version, that is the one with the summary edit "doesn't need expansion". D.Lazard ( talk) 14:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Hello @ Bbb23, you said that context on 6th arrondissement was WP:OR but it comes directly from the introduction of 6th arrondissement. Also, if the sentence about minimum income was poorly formulated, why didn't you just reformulate it, or at least indicate it with a template, instead of erasing it ? Feel free to indicate any spot that need reformulation.
I propose to reformulate like this : "In 2018 and 2019, he defended yellow vest protesters pro bono, and therefore lived only with the French guaranteed minimum income (RSA). [6] [73]" Imagritte ( talk) 16:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Another mass amount of edit from Imagritte (30+ edit in the span of 3 weeks) on this article. At least 75% of the activity of this user is about Branco or his books. Every single edit, on any article, often under the guise of "coherence" or "typos" is about changing the articles to water down the scandals (now under the so nice section title of "other activity") or portray him or his books in a more favorable light. This article is now so full of BS and facts are so cherry picked and distorted, it is almost a total fantasy. All changes form Imagritte should be reverted, or even this article deleted for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebtpmus ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Actually looking at it more in detail, the situation is exactly the same with all edits from user Paulk12 (who has never edited any other article than this one) and every single edit of whom goes in the direction of embellishing this "wikipedia fantasy CV". e.g. removal of the comment that Branco attended Ecole Normale Sup as a free auditor (which implies he graduated from that school) when he doesn't even qualify to take the entrance exam. This is utter nonsense ... Ebtpmus
The following discussion 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.
The lead for this article is far too long for this person. It should be around 4 paragraphs tops. Please summarize. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 17:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Imo, most of the facts Imagritte put in the article are not noteworthy. No lawyer has all of his tiny case explained in length in Wikipedia, and here most are not even actual court cases but just one seldom intervention. There is no serious dispute about it since only one user wants to include them, and imo in a promotional way. For example, about the Pfizer contract or the APHP issue, I copy pasted his text but when we check the source, it is a gross exaggeration of a very tiny role or a very tiny issue. -- Delfield ( talk) 07:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
XInolanIX has been acting as a Single Purpose account on this page, focusing on Juan Branco since the polemic regarding Griveaux started. The modifications have crucially distanced this article from an objective status and consensus that had been reached by previous users. I suggest coming back to either adapt changes, either come back to the version before the creation of his account. Elahadji ( talk) 18:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules are clear: "A bold change during an edit war should be an adaptive edit to discourage further warring and not to escalate it; it should never be another revert. Engaging in similar behavior by reverting a contribution during an edit war could be seen as disruptive and may garner sanctions. Never continue an edit war as an uninvolved party." XInolanIX and D.Lazard, refrain from savage reverts agaisnt constructive changes. Elahadji ( talk) 17:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It appears at least one of the IPs involved in the recent edit-warring is Branco himself. The IP used here is the same Juan Branco himself used in an signed edit of the talk page of the French version ( here). As expected, the recent efforts to once again turn this article into a hagiography seem to be orchestrated. XInolanIX ( talk) 15:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This is actually a multiple band billiard game from the subject:
1 - Trying to force falsehoods (academic titles, career achievements) into Wikipedia
2 - Have this serve as "source" and reprinted by official newspapers that do not do due diligence in verifying facts
3 - Use those reprints from legit sources as proof (for WP).
XInolanIX, an SPA, systematically deletes sourced information (PhD and academia affiliation, basic and sourced professional experiences)) whilst distorting other facts. See below. Elahadji ( talk) 11:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I readily admit that objectively editing Juan Branco's Wikipedia page is not a small task. Nevertheless, it seems to me that, from the point of view of the contradictory, this page is unbalanced and violates Wikipedia guidelines in term of objectivity.
I submit the following points for discussion :
1/- The Filippetti passage should be, at least, balanced ("Filippetti later stated that he "demanded to be hired as her chief of staff at age 22", that he "completely lost it when he was refused the position"). Juan Branco has responded to these accusations. At the same time, he denies having asked to be his chief of staff at the ministry and he confirms he was his chief of staff for the campaign at her own demand : https://twitter.com/anatolium/status/1230240371638259714?s=20 . He published evidence suggesting that she volontarily play with the meaning of the expression. Even if the term of "directeur de cabinet" was unsuitable for a campaign, he really became it during François Hollande campaign at her demand :
- An audio file proves she asked him to be. To source it : https://yetiblog.org/archives/22214 an independant source that published the audio recording that proves she offered him a mission of "directeur de Cabinet".
- Moreover, the press has always mentioned him as his "directeur de cabinet" in 2012. https://www.latribune.fr/technos-medias/20120531trib000701243/un-nouvel-enarque-au-cabinet-d-aurelie-filippetti-.html and also https://www.lesinrocks.com/2012/05/24/web/actualite/hadopi/ It is not a question of deciding between the two, but of re-establishing a balance.
2/ "After he was refused a sufficiently high spot on the electoral list of La France Insoumise" : According to Lagardere owned tabloid Paris Match? I didnt know daily mail and tabloid equivalents were considered as legitimate sources. Branco denied that point, and nobody never confirm it. (Maybe a paragraph that would explain that his best-seller, Crépuscule, made revelations on these media could be a good thing. We cannot understand the articles tone on him without that context.)
3/ "In 2018 he outed the homosexuality of his former class-mate Gabriel Attal on Twitter.[9]" That presentation of fact seems to voluntarily let think that it was his purpose. However, it was not a secret (they were Pacsed (sort of civil marriage)) and it was to explain the political ascension of this Attal that this relationship was described. Nepotism denonciation was the goal, not outing ( cf. https://twitter.com/anatolium/status/1052956272675495937?s=20 )
I have nothing against the fact that appears here what some accuse him, on condition however to indicate when Branco denied the facts. It is well done in this passage ("Multiple sources claim that Juan Branco was himself involved in the leak,[18] a criminal offense under French law.[19] This was denied by Branco. ") so why is it not elsewhere? That gives a very branco bashing oriented tone to the article. This entry must escape to a hagiographic tone just as much as a bashing tone.
Ps: The infobox is very uncomplete (compared to the french page), but I'm not an expert and i don't know how to link the information to the wikidata ressources on Branco. For example, it seems to be important to know more about his preofessional experiences and a little bit more about his studies, Yale for example, that sounds an info more revelant for english readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:295:24D0:114D:24D8:365:3741 ( talk) 11:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I restaured last consensual version before it was bashed by two french accounts. Seen the very few English sources, please check on French version (which is heavily controlled by the community) before any substantial modification and avoid adding elements that have not previously reached consensus that could trigger new editorial wars. I'm considering to sue the two French accounts that systematically try to use this page to wage personal wars against its subject, which I've refrained until now to remain in the spirit of the community. But the low-intensity control of this page from the EN community - understandable seen it is not a high value subject on this version of WP - does not provide with much alternatives. For their information, the 3 months statute of limitations is renewed everytime they intervene in this page. To all the other contributors: sorry for the bother, but there are limits to the violence that have been crossed. yours, JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:B16:B300:6DD0:C936:EFFA:A4BC ( talk) 21:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
There does need to be a serious review of sourcing on this article - some sources, like IMDB (generally unreliable according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) are clearly unsuitable. This is a BLP and we should be using high quality WP:RS. Nigel Ish ( talk) 09:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the last consensual version before D.Lazard started intervening on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Juan_Branco&diff=941967204&oldid=941404845
As seen in the historic, after shared and long lasting community work, the page had become consensual and triggered only marginal changes. Once D.Lazard intervened, joined soon after by SPA User:EdgarAllanFrost, both French accounts with visible subjectivity over the matter, no consensus was ever reached again, ending up into a completly, and polemics became systematic.
The current page has become completly desequilibrated, giving much more space to polemics that are presented in altered, biaised perspectives, than to objective facts, let alone positive elements, which are reduced to almost nothing, triggering a very thought and willingfully nourrished negative perception of the matter. Pretending that the current version is consensual is an insult to intelligence, as seen by the historic of the page, and compared to how it was held before these two contributors started modifying it. Re. false claims of SPA or manipulation from my side, I can only reaffirm that all my interventions have been signed, or claimed a posteriori when they hadn't been. I disagree with any reasoning that would rely on these elements to justify this page becoming a bashing exercice. This is not how Wikipedia should be handled. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Juan_Branco&diff=941967204&oldid=941404845 Brancojuan ( talk) 20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
For the record, the so-called "consensual version" is the version at the opening date of the second AfD of this article (see at the top of this page). The AfD discussion shows clearly that this version was a hagiography, and the consensus for keeping the article was reach only because of major edits that were done during the AfD discussion. So, it is definitively a lie to say that this version was consensual. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the lead could still use some rework.
The current version:
Some parts seems rather redundant (e.g. mentioning the Yellow Vests twice). The passive construction "was identified" also seems clumsy. The accusation in the book should not be stated as fact. The word "supplementary" is probably a direct translation from French and doesn't work very well imo.
I suggest:
EdgarAllanFrost ( talk) 09:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to insert some reviews of "Crépuscule" and "L'Antisouverain". To avoid future arguments I'd suggest collecting every available review by reputable sources first. Here is what I found so far, let me know if I missed any:
Crépuscule
L'Antisouverain
XInolanIX ( talk) 19:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Honestly this article is a gross tentative to destroy an individual. There is not a positive or neutral thing that is not immediatley outweighted by gratuitious negative elements. Whom has done this job ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:B16:B300:5C4E:898E:A030:102C ( talk) 11:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Pursuant to a request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected this page. As always, this does not constitute an endorsement of the current version.
I urge all involved editors to remember that our policy on biographies of living persons gives article subjects a wide berth when blanking or otherwise removing content about themselves they may feel is defamatory or libelous, that such edits should not be construed as vandalism, and that complaining about such material does not violate our policy on legal threats.
As for the subject of this article, if he is indeed concerned about bias in the article, he should contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 09:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The 3 tags were placed by a new user, without any discussion on the talk page. The present state of the article results essentially from the consensus supporting the closing decision of the second AfD. So, non-neutrality, and factual non-accuracy require strong arguments to be considered as disputed. The {{ COI}} tag is ridiculous as the main contributors are clearly not favorable to the subject of the article. Therefore, I'll remove the three tags. D.Lazard ( talk) 12:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Juan Branco has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{subst:trim|1=
The whole article is hagiographical. This person is more well-known for publicly trying to be associated with well-known cases, than actually having any substantial contribution to any of them.
All reference to Julian Assange should be removed. Maybe they had some contact at some point, thinking he was serious, but he was not on his legal team. His lawyer was Vey: https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20200907-julian-assange-is-a-victim-of-torture-lawyer-antoine-vey-tells-france-24 There is only one source saying that he was a legal correspondant of WikiLeaks (not Assange) at one point, but that is not notable. There are also sources mentioning him as being on his team, but never when the article is about Assange, this is because he is claiming it everywhere and nobody verifies. If he has been involved at some point, it has necessarily been extremely brief, like in the other cases.
Therefore:
}} 203.69.105.3 ( talk) 10:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
An intense war has waged on this page after Griveaux polemic. Now that a few weeks have passed, there are reasons to believe that reequilibrating it was necessary. I based myself on pre-polemic version and integrated post-polemic version, without reusing the most libelous elements, whilst deleting most self-promoting ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elahadji ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
______
Hi,
I am not sure if this is the proper place to offer those comments but I'll give it a try. I was jumping to this page from the French version and couldn't help notice how widely different they are.
IMHO, the English version still suffers from the hagiography bias and in particular in the section "private life".
On several counts :
• the text states that the alleged victim acknowledged "that every step was consensual": this is actually not the case and there are multiple sources out there (in French sorry) from legit newspapers that specifically state that, in her declaration to the police, she claimed to have been both drugged and physically threatened. Quite the opposite.
https://www.ladepeche.fr/2021/05/02/enquete-pour-viol-contre-lavocat-juan-branco-son-accusatrice-revient-sur-les-faits-9521758.php
https://www.lepoint.fr/faits-divers/juan-branco-accuse-de-viol-ce-qu-a-dit-l-accusatrice-a-la-police-01-05-2021-2424492_2627.php
• the quoted source to support the "every step was consensual" actually doesn't establish this for a fact: it is just a mere claim from Mr. Branco's lawyer trying to exonerate his client. It's a "he said"
• furthermore this source's title (a quote from his lawyer again) is giving the impression that this is a political witch hunt ("abusive arrest"). This could be an intend to pass this as statement from the newspaper.
Finally the latest development is that Mr. Branco has now been recently indicted on the charge of rape. As reported by numerous newspapers :
https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2021/11/24/l-avocat-juan-branco-mis-en-examen-pour-viol_6103425_3224.html
https://www.ouest-france.fr/societe/justice/l-avocat-juan-branco-mis-en-examen-a-paris-pour-viol-a18b0fec-4d00-11ec-a0f2-c7fe53b09c00
_______
Nov 2022 : Sorry, redacting out the "his lawyer claims" part. This is not factual and a lot of he said (not any proof of that AFAIK) to water down the crime accusation / investigation.
_______
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ebtpmus (
talk •
contribs)
09:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
It is not written anywhere that the woman reported "abuse", "coerce" and "threat". Both sides should be described, even if somebody talks through legal representation. D.Lazard: what is your opinion? -- Delfield ( talk) 18:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
D.Lazard: the previous version was not original research, since it only reported what was in the source, the current is, since it used terms and ideas that are not in the sources (abuse, coerce, threat). -- Delfield ( talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello @D.Lazard
Here you have multiple sources, I see you speak french so I keep them french :
« Comment les médias ont (déjà) réélu Macron - Par Pauline Bock | Arrêt sur images », sur www.arretsurimages.net
Daniel Schneidermann, « Emmanuel Macron, «candidat des médias» : autopsie d’un choix implicite », sur Libération
Marie Bénilde, « Emmanuel Macron, le candidat des médias », sur Le Monde diplomatique, 1er mai 2017 Username1789 ( talk) 23:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I see many assertions in this article relying on 1 or 2 sources that are at conflict of Interest with Juan Branco because of his book Crepuscule critizing them and/or revealing their dependancy to their billionaires shareholders. For example, one Parisien article (owned by Bernard Arnault, heavely critized in the book) is used 4 times to quote negative elements on Juan Branco - it's the 3rd citation "Tabet Le Parisien dans les réseaux de Juan Branco". There are also citations from Paris Match that are COI.
Could the person that added these quotes find other more independant sources ? I can't find these elements in other independant articles so if there is no further citations added I might delete the quotes. Username1789 ( talk) 18:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
It is well established that Juan Branco uses sockpuppetry to try making this article more favorable to him. In this talk page and in the history of the article Juan Branco, users Brancojuan, Elahadji, Username1789, RoxxorOscar, Paulk12, Salmasalma2, and sevral IP users are sockpuppets or suspected sockpuppets of Juan Branco.
In § Self-promotion on Wikipedia, it is also documented that Juan Branco uses threats outside Wikipedia for the same purpose. I am a new victim of such a behavior of Juan Branco. Here is a mail received at my personal address:
Monsieur le Professeur d'université émérite Daniel Lazard,
je me permets de vous écrire afin de vous informer de votre identification sur l'encyclopédie Wikipedia, sous le nom d'utilisateur D.Lazard.
Vous avez, au cours des dernières années, et en appui ou avec l'appui d'une autre personne (sous le pseudo XlNolanX, devenu EdgarAllanFrost, et son faux nez , contribué à publier de façon répétée des informations diffamatoires, ne pouvant bénéficier ni de l'exception de vérité ni de la bonne foi.
Ces publications ont atteint lourdement à ma réputation, à mes intérêts professionnels et à ceux de mon cabinet, entraînant de lourdes et violentes conséquences sociales et personnelles. Ils ont atteint aux intérêts de mes proches, de mes clients et des personnes que je défendais. Ils ont non seulement entaché mon honneur, ma considération mais aussi ma présomption d'innocence.
Vos interventions sont en conséquences constitutives des délits de diffamation publique et d'injure, et constituent des faits de dénigrement au sens de la Cour de cassation.
La cour de cassation a établi que le simple fait de rétablir ou de poster des paroles diffamatoires déjà existantes sur une plateforme en ligne est constitutive d'une nouvelle publication poursuivable en tant que telle, y compris lorsqu'ils prennent source en des publications antérieures effectuées par des personnes tierces.
C'est donc avec un véritable soulagement que je vous annonce qu'une plainte pénale sera déposée prochainement à votre encontre.
Je vous met en demeure de toute réitération de vos actes.
Juan Branco
and two mails received by the web master of my university:
Bonjour,
je vous remercie. Votre ancien collège a, de façon obsessionnelle et systématique, arpenté Wikipedia afin d'y publier des informations extraordinairement dénigrantes et violentes me concernant, notamment sur la page Wikipedia anglaise, ainsi que sur d'autres personnes, tout en créant ses propres pages en plusieurs langues.
Je ne sais quels motifs l'habitaient. Je sais cependant les dommages irréparables et la violence indécente qui s'en est suivie pour moi, à des âges où tout est encore à construire. Qu'un professeur honoraire des universités se soit "amusé" à cela, des années durant, usant de son autorité dans le champs mathématique (où il est un grand contributeur de l'encyclopédie), pour détruire un jeune homme, sous pseudo, est dégoûtant.
Cordialement,
Juan Branco
and
Monsieur,
je reviens vers vous afin de déterminer si vous avez pu trouver un contact de M. Lazard. Celui-ci en est à sa 153e publication, en moins de trois ans, me concernant. C'est un harcèlement inacceptable.
Cette affaire est d'autant plus grave que M. Lazard, au regard des éléments recueillis et notamment des adresses IP, a vraisemblablement, pendant une grande partie de cette période, fait usage de vos équipements.
Elle l'est également d'un point de vue moral, au regard de son statut, de son appartenance revendiquée à la communauté normalienne et à la fixation obsessionnelle qu'il semble faire sur la distinction entre "vrais" et faux normaliens, qui par ricochet atteint à de nombreuses autres personnes.
Juan Branco
I do not translate these mails in English to be sure to not change any meaning.
I do not really care of these threats, since they have absolutely no support in French law. Nevertheless, I think that the editors of this page and, more generally Wikipedia, must be informed of this Branco’s behavior. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
The page has been largely expanded recently by a single editor. Should the previous stable version be restored? D.Lazard ( talk) 15:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC).
The page has been largely expanded recently by a single editor, against the opinion of two editors (myself included, see above discussions).
I propose to restore the version of 02:05, 21 March 2023. Here are the reasons:
The only notability criterion that Juan Branco passes, is to have received significant coverage at some time in multiple published news. The article has been the subject of two AfD. The second AfC resulted in "keep" after that another editor rewrote the article into a version that is very similar to the version that I suggest to restore.
The difference between the new version and the previous stable one consist mainly to add details that have nothing to do with the notability of the subject (such as the details of the exams he passed during its education, and the details of the cases on which he worked as a lawyer), and opinion of the subject on various institutions (such as the shools where he studied). Moreover, some of these details are sourced from Branco's CV, which is an especially unreliable source, as Branco is known for embellishing it (and trying to embellish his Wikipedia page).
So the recent expansion go against policies and guidelines of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:Notability (people). D.Lazard ( talk) 15:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: once notability has already been established; independent reliable sources are allowed to be drawn upon to elaborate upon a subject. The content within those sources do not themselves need to be notable Jack4576 ( talk) 03:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes. See my comment in the first paragraphs. 2 editors : - Paulk12 who has never edited another page than this one - Imagritte : whose activity is 80% or more about Branco and his books. Both have been gradually changing the content to embellish this "wikipedia fantasy CV" : e.g. the numerous scandals, now under the so nice section title of "other activity". Last approximately neutral version is the one from D. Lazard, early Feb. Ebtpmus ( talk) 10:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
It seems the last RfC was framed in a way that was not clear enough, as it was noted by an admin. Therefore, I try again.
There are two versions of the articles, and there is a dispute on which one is the status quo that should be the start of a discussion. What version should be the one to build on and to discuss each change from :
Option 1 : the older one https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Juan_Branco&oldid=1165176845
OR
Option 2 : the new one by Imagritte : https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Juan_Branco&oldid=1165219691
--
Delfield (
talk)
21:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1 : - the new text is so long that it becomes impossible to discuss each change, how it is all framed as an advertisement for Branco and to water down critic
It would be too long a discussion to address each point, the question is to see what is the unbiased version to start and argue each change from. An example, this has been totally deleted in version 2: "Branco has previously claimed that he worked as a "special assistant" to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Asked for a clarification by the French journal GQ France, the Court responded that Branco ""claims to have been the assistant of the Prosecutor (..) while in reality he was an intern (...) and then worked at the OTP Public Information Unit".[31]"
@ Nemov In the option 1, there is no section about controversies but about controversial claims, since he is accused by many people to lie on his CVs and to manipulate.
@ C.Fred, EdgarAllanFrost: you have been following the previous similar attempts. Perhaps you could give your pov?
Imo, the article should go back to option 1, be protected, and each change approved like before in such a situation.
-- Delfield ( talk) 21:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1: per nom and per my motivations in the first RfC. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
As a student, he stood out by..., and the entire lead seems filled with rambling minutiae that obscures what he's actually notable for, which is reflected in the body. More generally, the proposed new version (option 2) was dropped in by a single editor with minimal discussion, immediately disputed, and revert-warred in; no consensus for it was ever actually demonstrated - certainly not in the minimal discussion above, which presents nowhere near the consensus necessary to drastically rewrite an entire article like this. What little discussion there has been seems to be largely procedural wrangling to try and assert that their edits somehow don't require consensus or, worse, that a consensus is needed to revert them, which is absurd. It was a WP:BOLD edit, which was reverted and must now be discussed. Proponents of those changes need to break them down and discuss them individually rather than trying to present a complete rewrite of the entire article as accomplished by WP:FAIT. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
is the status quo and the last stable version (which means that if this RFC reaches no consensus or gets a procedural close, we should go back to that one), and, either way, should be used as a basis. It has issues with Franglai-ish phrasing and seeming irrelevancies (Deneuve lived in his neighbourhood?). Option 2 is laughably promotional - hardly a sentence can be found which the subject's role hasn't been massively inflated (eg: He participated in diplomatic negotiations to obtain the right of asylum for Assange, which the Élysée ultimately refused). The attached source makes clear there were no negotiations, Assange wrote an open letter to Hollande's govt requesting protection, not asylum, which was immediately denied. The only truth is that Branco is recorded as part of Assange's Fr legal team, presumably submitting the letter.
@ Imagritte and D.Lazard: I am going to ask both of you to stop disrupting this article. If you are both unable to edit here constructively or without finding consensus, further action may have to be taken. Nemov ( talk) 19:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I have fully translated the French article entirely and double-checked almost every (of the 200) sources over the past 2 months, and as far as I can tell, the current "start-class" version here is just a disaster with large controversial chunks based on 1 (primary) source (e.g. here, see wp:undue and wp:redflag), and on the other hand missing common, widely covered content and cases. Here is what a more neutral and much more complete version could look like. Imagritte ( talk) 11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Nemov: could you clarify your status? You are talking as if you were an admin, but there is no mention of that and if you are, you are editing and debating on content, so you are not an uninvolved admin and you cannot act as such on this article. Thanks. -- Delfield ( talk) 20:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
gross exaggeration of a very tiny role or a very tiny issue" point above.I don't think the Wikipedia editing stuff is central to this biography because it's trivial. Do you have a policy argument for inclusion? I wouldn't expect an editor with no history outside of this article to have one. Nemov ( talk) 20:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Nemov: Kindly avoid commenting on other's behavior because it gives the impression you are an admin, whereas you are not and you are as involved in this dispute as others. I did not remove anything "out of frustration". I tried in good faith to build on option 1, the last consensus, but Imagritte edit-warred with several editors arguing the new version is not option 1. Since a consensus could not be found the new version, I reverted to the last consensus. From this version EACH change should be discussed and agreed upon. I agree with Nemov’s change of title of section though, it should have been discussed first, but let's agree on that now that it is done. -- Delfield ( talk) 06:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Hello @ Bbb23, what do you mean by "this article doesn't need expansion" ? I see that it is rated as "start-class" Imagritte ( talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
The article has recently been largely expanded (almost +50%) by translating the French version. The result is that the new version does not follow the rules of English Wikipedia (that are not exactly the same as those of French Wikipedia, in particular for WP:notability. For example, the details of one year position and the corresponding salaries have nothing to do here. Also the added content contains non-neutral assertions, such as the opinion of the subject on his salaries, and the mention of the opinion of the French President. Also, there are too many details that do not participate to the notability of the subjects and are certainly of no interest for non-French people.
For these reasons, I'll restore the previous stable version, that is the one with the summary edit "doesn't need expansion". D.Lazard ( talk) 14:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Hello @ Bbb23, you said that context on 6th arrondissement was WP:OR but it comes directly from the introduction of 6th arrondissement. Also, if the sentence about minimum income was poorly formulated, why didn't you just reformulate it, or at least indicate it with a template, instead of erasing it ? Feel free to indicate any spot that need reformulation.
I propose to reformulate like this : "In 2018 and 2019, he defended yellow vest protesters pro bono, and therefore lived only with the French guaranteed minimum income (RSA). [6] [73]" Imagritte ( talk) 16:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Another mass amount of edit from Imagritte (30+ edit in the span of 3 weeks) on this article. At least 75% of the activity of this user is about Branco or his books. Every single edit, on any article, often under the guise of "coherence" or "typos" is about changing the articles to water down the scandals (now under the so nice section title of "other activity") or portray him or his books in a more favorable light. This article is now so full of BS and facts are so cherry picked and distorted, it is almost a total fantasy. All changes form Imagritte should be reverted, or even this article deleted for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebtpmus ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Actually looking at it more in detail, the situation is exactly the same with all edits from user Paulk12 (who has never edited any other article than this one) and every single edit of whom goes in the direction of embellishing this "wikipedia fantasy CV". e.g. removal of the comment that Branco attended Ecole Normale Sup as a free auditor (which implies he graduated from that school) when he doesn't even qualify to take the entrance exam. This is utter nonsense ... Ebtpmus
The following discussion 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.
The lead for this article is far too long for this person. It should be around 4 paragraphs tops. Please summarize. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 17:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Imo, most of the facts Imagritte put in the article are not noteworthy. No lawyer has all of his tiny case explained in length in Wikipedia, and here most are not even actual court cases but just one seldom intervention. There is no serious dispute about it since only one user wants to include them, and imo in a promotional way. For example, about the Pfizer contract or the APHP issue, I copy pasted his text but when we check the source, it is a gross exaggeration of a very tiny role or a very tiny issue. -- Delfield ( talk) 07:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)