Talk:Juan Branco/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

XlnolanX interventions

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)

Waging wars on Wikipedia

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)

This is not an accurate reflection of this article's history: The previous version was deemed a hagiography and nominated for deletion (in part) because of this. Instead of deleting it, it was rewritten (based on the French version) to be neutral. Your concerted attempt to revert to the previous hagiography is not a "bold change" but a transparent attempt at PR. Accusing me of being a sock-puppet is some Trumpian level of projection. XInolanIX (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits by the article's subject himself

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)

Oh and Branco is also User:Elahadji: He forgot to sign this which shows his IP. He later signed the edit as User:Elahadji. XInolanIX (talk) 16:29, 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).

Systematic deletion of sourced informations

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)

Oh boy... This is getting pretty silly. Please stop trying to use the Wikipedia project as your own PR-agency. And stop trying to bully me or other users. XInolanIX (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Lack of adversarial principle.

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)

Restauration

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)

Sourcing

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)

Wikileaks is also considered as Generally Unreliable on WP:RS/P, but the use here could be OK as WP:ABOUTSELF, although if we can source his relationship to Wikileaks to independent sources, then that would be better.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Last "consensual" version?

This is the last consensual version before D.Lazard started intervening on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=941967204&oldid=941404845 Brancojuan (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page and at the page history, I don't see where that version represents a consensus among editors to this article—at the least, certainly not among independent editors. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This version was the fruit of many users work. By giving a quick look at the evolution of the historic of the page, it is possible to check my words and perceive how indeed, the page , which was until then consensually built by many different users, never became consensual again, in a timeframe that corresponds to the begining of the intervention of the two said accounts, D. Lazard and EdgarAllanFrost. It would be, in my opinion, absurd to consider in contrast the current version as "consensual" seen the editorial wars that have sparsed it since they started intervening on the page, with no intent to reach any objectivity, systematically deleting or reducing the importance of positive elements and giving massive space to negative elements, even when based on rumors or interested sources. Preserving their version, without any confirmed perspective of a future remodeling of the whole page that would make it steady, would be acting in a ponce pilatian fashion. It would (secondarily?) signify letting two anonymous individuals using this platform to destroy, for unknown reasons, the reputation of a 30 years old person, by distorting facts, invisibilise most of what he has built during that time, and giving visibility only to what hinders him in the anglophone sphere. Any quick look given at the French version, previous versions of this page, and the reality or simply objective reading (for.ex: one line over Julian Assange, whose collaboration with has triggered tens and tens of secondary sources, four lines over a distorted article published by an french extreme right media over a letter sent to a prisonner rightafter). Over what merit should this behavior be protected by the institution, and how can you justify it, whatever your perception about what should be my role or not over this page ? Brancojuan (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancojuan (talk • contribs)

A "quick look" shows the history is a mess. It is obvious that you have repeatedly edited the article under a number of accounts and while logged out. It is unclear who has edited from the "other side" of the dispute and what interrelations they have. They make a point about the tone issues in your preferred version. It's harder to see where the current version tilts completely to the negative side, when the negative information was so concealed in the other version.

IMO, you need to accept that the article is in its current state, whether it reflects consensus, status quo ante, or it's just The Wrong Version. The way forward is to make specific requested edits and base them on reliable sources. Once the sources are reviewed by independent editors and consensus is reached, the change can be incorporated by independent editors. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred, these elements you are asking for are distributed over the discussion page, have been very clearly enounced, and sourced, but have been systematically withdrawn by the two said accounts, in spite of interventions by me but also by other less systematic contributors which have no link to me, but visibly not the capacity to derail the afforementioned wills. They rely over important sources, were consensual before their arrival, and have been shrinked or erased because they found it interesting to do so, only leaving space to new negative elements that arouse at the same time, in the context of intense polemic in France due to the withdrawal of Emmanuel Macron candidate to Paris Cityhall, after the action of one of my clients. What happens in this situation, in a low intensity page in which it suffices to have a lot of time to impose its view ? Why should their version, libellous be maintained undefinitely, since that no other user whom has taken the time to try to reequilibrate this page has been systematically turned down, and since no experimented administrator has until now taken the time to actually solve the issues ? What you are proposing is de facto an undefinite preservation of the perspective imposed by two users, including a SPA, which have made of this page a playgame to whether their resentment, their subjectivity or their interests, containing false accusations and a disproportionately negative perspective. It is, whilst admitting this version is not consensual nor objective - and not because I say so, but factually - that it should serve as the reference version until someone has the time to eventually look at it. Weaponizing Wikipedia as these users have very efficiently done (and tried to do in the French Version), should not be awarded by the encyclopedia, especially when it is done against (young) living individuals occupying confrontational positions against important institutions and powers, with little capacities to defend themselves. The example of the WP FR should be used to understand the abyss between WP EN version and, not only reality, but what a community consensus can produce. Brancojuan (talk) 21:06, 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)

Lead

I think the lead could still use some rework.

The current version:

He was identified as a Yellow Vest defender and one of the French Assange lawyers. He defends some of the Yellow Vests in court and the movement in the media. His 2019 book, criticizing the links between President Emmanuel Macron, the media and wealthy businessmen, was a success on the internet and sold 130,000 copies. He gained supplementary notoriety in France in early 2020 for his involvement in the Griveaux affair.

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:

He worked on the legal team of Julian Assange and has been an outspoken supporter of the Yellow Vest movement, some of which he also represented in court. In 2019 he authored a commercially successful book critical of French President Emmanuel Macron. In early 2020 he gained further notoriety for his involvement in the Griveaux affair.

EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion. D.Lazard (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Book reviews

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

1. Clément Parrot - France Télévisions
2. Étienne Girard - Marianne
3. Antoine Hasday - Slate
4. Eugénie Bastié - France Culture
5. Joseph Confavreux - Mediapart
6. Richard Werly - Le Temps
7. Maurice Ulrich - l'Humanité - PAYWALLED — Preceding unsigned comment added by XInolanIX (talk • contribs) 10:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

L'Antisouverain

1. Baudouin Eschapasse - Le Point

XInolanIX (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Took me a while, but i finally got around to this. Here's my suggestion: Under the section "Writer":

In 2019 he published the book "Crépuscule", a pamphlet in which he criticized the French president, which sold more than 130.000 copies.

The book received mostly negative reviews in the French press. Joseph Confavreux panned the book as a "lampoon", which remains harmless as much as it is "solipsistic", "arrogant and vague", while calling the author "fatuitous" and his style "pretentious". Eugénie Bastié described the book as "simplistic". Antoine Hasday notes that the book is in part interesting but suffers from it's "unverifiable, unsourced and false claims". Ètienne Girard calls the author a "genius of self-promotion" while noting "regret, that the book struggles to support it's claims of political scandals". Similarly, Clément Parrot notes that the book raises valid questions about the elitism of French society and media while faulting the author for failing to source his accusations. Richard Werly writes in his review that Branco should not be taken seriously for his accusations, "which are often inflated, exaggerated, indeed false" but should be taken seriously for his inflammatory rhetoric and his denunciations of nepotism in French society.

His book "Assange - L'antisouverain" was published in February 2020. Baudouin Eschapasse, reviewing the book for the French magazine Le Point, calls it a "self-portrait" of the author and a "literary selfie" while questioning the sincerity of the author.

Given the constant squabbling about this article and the legal threats by Branco, I'd be happy to get some feedback before I add the changes. If someone has access to the review by Maurice Ulrich in l'Humanité, feel free to add a brief summary.

One additional point: The French version of the article has a section about Branco claiming to have been a "special assistant" at the ICC - a claim denied by the court. I'm considering adding it to the Legal Work section. Thoughts? EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I oppose to expand more about Branco books, at least per WP:NPOV: in biographies of French politicians, their books, even when they are best sellers, are not always mentioned, and when they are, are not described in more than one line (I did a quick check on Emmanuel Macron, François Hollande, Nicolas Sarkosy and Ségolène Royal. There is no reason for a special treatement for writings of Juan Branco. D.Lazard (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply, D.Lazard. My arguments for the inclusion are:

1. Branco is not primarily a politician and certainly nowhere near as well-known as Macron, Hollance, etc.

2. His notoriety is at least partly due to his book about Macron (as per the lead).

3. Maybe he can be compared - in style, if not in substance - to political commentators like Dave Rubin or Ann Coulter, whose books are more prominently featured in their articles.

If you remain unconvinced, how about the following compromise: As with the above mentioned article of Dave Rubin, the book could be described as follows

Branco's book "Crépuscule", a pamphlet in which he criticized the French president, was published in 2019. It was commercially successful[ref] but received mostly negative reviews in the French press [multiple refs].

EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This would be fine. D.Lazard (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Neutrality

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)

Please be more specific and provide reliable sources to anything noteworthy you would like added to the article. Please also note it's not the job of Wikipedia to provide "positive or negative" elements, but to provide information based on reliable sources. I'm leaving the POV flags for now, but baseless claims do not a POV constitute.

To give you a bit of background information: The article was twice written as a hagiography. The first time it was deleted, the second time the community voted to rewrite it. Mr. Branco has been interfering on this page and Wikipedia in general for many years (see relevant section). Showing up with substantive reverts without prior discussions and flinging accusations therefore is not the proper way to handle this matter. EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

what is this bulshit page ?? Who are you EdgarAllanFrost ? Please let the neutrality advice and keep all the crap aside ! Quote English things, you french ! And stop using SPAs !!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.133.7.219 (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Protection

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)

Crosspost from user-talk-page for visibility: I disagree with your re-inclusion of the dispute/POV tags which I removed in accordance with policy (When to remove: "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given"). There are no factual elements in dispute, merely unsourced accusations of "bulshit" [sic] and a "gross tentative to destroy an individual". Other administrators have already been involved (notably here). As for the substance: I defer to the convincing arguments made by C.Fred above. The article has quite the illustrious history; if you are fluent in French I'd suggest reading this article (archived here). EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Tags

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

{{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:

• The second line of the introduction is not neutraly worded in any case. It could be: "He has been briefly associated or tried to be associated with a number of cases or well-known organisation or persons. He has been involved in various political movements, lost an election for La France Insoumise and afterwards has been refused substantial positions."

• The education is not neutral either, and there plenty of statements without serious sources (imbd!). It could be: "Branco was born in Estepona, near Málaga. He is the son of film producer Paulo Branco. He studied at the École normale supérieure. He got in 2016 a doctorate in Law with a thesis on the Germain Katanga ICC's case,. He was a senior research fellow for one year at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law from 2015 to 2016.

• Section: "Politics" and not activism
  • "He became a vocal supporter of the [[Yellow" to "He supported the [[Yellow"
  • Delete: " and a critic of President of France Emmanuel Macron thereafter" It is not information-worthy and he was nowhere to be important in being so. Already a mention of his book below.

• Section: not "Legal Work" but "Claims and attempts of involvement in well-known cases"
  • "After his admission to the Bar of Paris, he represented Jean-Luc Mélenchon beginning in 2017. His work with Mélenchon ended in 2018 for unknown reasons." should go to "political activism" and the following sentence about his father in the education section. Or both in "other".
  • The last sentence is like a CV. The sources' title are about the firing and the expulsion. Tt should be: "He was fired by the UN less than a week after it gave him a mission in 2018, where he has tasked with developing a strategy for investigations conducted by the Special Criminal Court in the Central African Republic, but, once in the country, accused peacekeeping forces of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) of having been involved in a massacre in the city of Bangui - an accusation denied by MINUSCA. He was expelled from the country.. "

• Section "writer" should be "other"
  • The first sentence about writing for magazines has no serious source and the statement is not even in the French even more laudative version of the article: to be removed.
  • The statement of the success of the book has no available source, it should be deleted and at least neutraly worded: "Branco's book "Crépuscule", in which he criticized the French president received negative reviews in the French press."

}} 203.69.105.3 (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

These changes will certainly be controversial, so please get consensus for the changes before requesting an edit. I recommend breaking the changes up into smaller sections, and working on them independently. With this many changes it will be difficult to get consensus for the whole kit and kaboodle at once. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Revision

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)

Multiple editors found consensus on the latest version. Turning this article into a hagiography unilaterally only raises suspicions regarding your motives. Assume good faith and make constructive suggestions. XInolanIX (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I'll take the time to answer in detail as this case is important for me.

I do not agree on the objectivity of the current page, nor on the justification regarding consensual agreement over a page that has been widely and almost exclusively edited by an SPA, and widely differs, negatively, from the main one (French), and presents an orientated narrative that is clearly negative. Correcting it by neutralizing is in no ways a temptative to render the page hagiographic.

Whatever happened in the history of this page does not justify the obfuscation of verified, sourced elements, the use of speculative wording, including suggestions of criminal behaviour that have never been investigated or been qualified as such in the public space, and so forth. Those have been severed by my corrections, without any temptative to supress factual elements that were adopted.

Many examples can be taken, but the apperantly most insignificant are revealing, for example the use of "populist" in order to qualify "La France Insoumise", the systematically negative presentation of his political engagement, as with the quote of a "colister" of Branco's 2017 candidacy: legislative candidates in France have no "colisters". Those elements are sparsed in a widespread manner. It is difficult to presume good faith when seeing them accumulated, although I do presume that most editors, which do not master French and have not seen French version or have direct access to the French sources, do not perceive it.

The individual concerned by this article has been at the heart of a huge polemic, and important attacks both from some media (heavily quoted) and individuals, which have tried to hinder his reputation, have come along. This has clearly affected this page, whatever, once again, the considerations that could be made regarding the previous versions.

Having proceeded to the deletion of all informations coming from previous sources - albeit not contradicted since - does not seem to me to be compatible with wikipedia standards.

I'll go more into details. The current version is lacunary on essential points. My modifications tend to preserve all the critical aspects that have been added recently, even the most anecdotical ones, whilst adding sourced factual elements (mainly regarding the career) that are missing and are yet of critical importance for context. Those elements are beeing added in the most objective and sober way.

I'm also suggesting a neutralization of the wording when it is clearly excessive, inaccurate or incomplete. For example, Branco's carrer elements that were previously mentionned, were sourced and have visibly a critical importance, had disappeared for no reasons (Foreign affairs ministry, international criminal court). His ICC submission, yet considered as a main element by many outlets, was also deleted without reasons. It is impossible to elaborate a biography that cuts away objective elements of such importance, and there is no reason to consider than adding them back is hagiographical.

I am not, at this point, entering in any modification that could be considered as unconsensual. I do not consider that the hierarchy of information currently used is legitimate, as it puts in the spotlights anecdotical elements (all negative) whilst hindering structural elements that are either neutral, either positive.

I'll be limiting my modifications to elements present in the French version, which has reached a consensual point of equilibrium after two months of heavy redrafting by many contributors which have a more direct access to the original sources than we do.

I'm reestablishing MINUSCA as a suggestion, but I'm thinking of transferring it to the MINUSCA page and only keep a shorter version in order not to uneven the page. I'd be glad if any modification happens.

Finally, according to Google Trends, Juan Branco was widely known before the Griveaux Case in France, especially regarding his involvement with the yellow jackets (which surprisingly also disapeared). I'm therefore taking away this line, but will not intervene back if it is severed.

I have amended my modifications and will be glad to discuss each of them, but I do not consider that general revert would be justified at this stage.

I consider that in the current situation, the best way to handle things would be to require a new translation work from the French Version, or to at least refer more extensively to it. In the current situation, the "Abdeslam" information, which is anecdotical, takes more space than most of the substantial elements that were previously held.

I suggest to you too to assume good faith regarding this current work, and to respect the temptative to improve the current page. Elahadji (talk)

I will refrain from answering to the far-flung accusations/personal attacks or from commenting on the obvious burst of SPA- and IP-activity which clearly speak for themselves. I will therefore only address specific points:

1. The description of La France Insoumise as "populist" is taken from the English Wikipedia page ("La France Insoumise is a democratic socialist, left-wing populist political party in France). The term populist is also not in and of itself "negative" in English. I added the "democratic socialist" part just in case.

2. The quote from his former "running-mate" is taken form newspaper articles. Original research has no place on Wikipedia.

3. The subjects involvement with the ICC and the French Foreign Ministry has been discussed by multiple newspapers - it appears he was merely an intern - nothing worth mentioning on a Wikipedia page.

4. The "yellow vest involvement" has been mentioned.

5. I added a paragraph on MINUSCA that translates the French version.

6. I'm not sure what the point about Abdeslam is - this was WIDELY reported in French newspapers. Of course it is an "anecdote" (which literally means: "a brief, revealing account of an individual person or an incident" - See: Anecdote), but so what? It even has it's own section in the French article. Edits: XInolanIX (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

XInolanIX (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I maintain you are an interested and biaised SPA.

3Untrue. Multiple newspapers have confirmed it wasn't an internship, and a few have tried to contest it with no formal source. Including last article from Le Point, which tries to correct itself as it can.

You do not justify deletion of full carreer steps, including ministry of foreign affairs and ICC. There are more or less fourty indicating the latter is true, and a few trying to create a polemic out of unsourced elements. Le Point had to correct it's article (Ce que Juan branco dit de Assange), by still trying to argue they were right pretending it was not really a contract although he sent the contract etc. There is no serious contestation of this point.

Those profesionnal experiences have less importance than an anecdote you quoted ? Why, if not because you have an oriented perspective on the matter ?

You do not justify the transformation of senior research fellow to junior research fellow (it is a title Branco held, not a subjective qualification anyone can comment on, as the sources clearly indicate).

This was based on the (old) version. Apparently this is when it was inserted. I have changed it and added a source. XInolanIX (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You do not justify the deletion of his academia information, as the deletion of the PhD title, and other sourced elments.

6 An anecdote has no place on an encyclopedia, and certainly not subjective interpretations of it.

In sum, you keep on imposing a subjective denigration of the subject by the obfuscation of factual facts that is libellous.Elahadji (talk) 11:18, 1 April 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) 

Sorry but the text as it is pretty balanced in terms of representing the 2 sides :

- she claims she was coerced

- he claims it was consensual

Nothing in the source says she eventually "consented". Ebtpmus (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit-war

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)

It is the way of summarizing that is original research. D.Lazard (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The text right now is just false. Nothing in the source says that she accused him of "abuse", "coercion" or "threat", only that she "felt he would become violent" and that she pushed him away twice when he approached her, nothing else. Delfield (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Emmanuel Macron's ties with French billionaire shareholders of French Press

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)

These sources can clearly not be called “neutral”, as they are medias asserting that “the medias” have not the same political choice as they have. This is self-contradictory, at least. D.Lazard (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@D.Lazard That's WP:POV. Of course medias owned by billionaires (90% of French press owned by 9 billionaires) will not critizice their owners. The 3 independant sources are crearly stating in the core text the ties between Emmanuel Macron and big French billionaires shareholder in the press, please don't stop at the headlines. Username1789 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Many assertions relying on sources that have conflict of Interest with Juan Branco

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)

Threats

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)

RFC about the content recently added

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).

Discussion

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)

Hello @D.Lazard, all the content I added is translated content from the French article fr:juan branco (which is of higher quality : rated "B-class", while this one is only "start-class") following WP:Translation. I checked the informations and the vast majority comes from journalistic biographies of the subjects [2][3][4] so it seems to be relevant to assess his pathway according to the journalists.

I don't know much about this article's history, but you could have provided the link to the section you already created on the topic, where I already responded :Talk:Juan Branco#Recent expansion of the article.

And also Talk:Juan Branco#Expand French for 2nd editor, where you see that he is not "against" expansion with translated content, but actually asked me to "expand it myself", which I did.[1] Although it is true that he then found my expansion undue, I don't know if he speaks French and is able to check the sources.

Finally, on the WP:notability criterion, as already said, I don't understand why you refer to this policy which is only for article creation, not for content as written here : Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. But anyway, I think you are forgetting his book and lawyer activities which have received a significant coverage (many sources on these topics already in the article). Imagritte (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) D.Lazard, the opening statement here doesn't comply with WP:RFCNEUTRAL, could you please provide a neutral introductory question and move your argumentation to a discussion section? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC) –  Done. D.Lazard (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This RfC is written such that it's hard to tell what the issue is. So, an article almost got deleted for lack of notability and then one editor added more content to it? If the content is well sourced, encyclopedic, and neutrally phrased, then bravo to that one editor. What's the problem? That the information added might not be important enough? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Yes, the amount of WP:UNDUE material that has been added is enormous. The problem is the editor expanding the article is operating under the theory that anything in the fr.wiki version must also belong in the en.wiki version, without regard to our guidelines on these issues. I have no idea what the fr.wiki guidelines are for such things, but I suppose there are at least two possibilities: (1) they are much more liberal than ours or (2) they are similar to ours but haven't been enforced on the Branco article. Either way, it's immaterial to the issues here.

A recent example, although not as bad as some, is the addition of the "Media activities" section, which is more an advertisement than anything of Branco's writings, including articles and a book. It's circular in that it cites to the articles themselves, not others' comments on his writing or articles.

I keep trying to let this go because, as an administrator, I don't like getting embroiled in content disputes, but for some reason it sticks in my craw. All that said, I'm not sure the only choices should be leave all the added material in or take all the added material out, but a more nuanced approach would be much harder and probably not suitable for an RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Now you are making suppositions on a "theory" driving me ? Sorry but I am very surprised of how this discussion is going. It's the only page where I feel like adding (translated and checked) content is a bad thing ! It's also the only page where someone (you) took out the Expand French Template (on a "start-class" article) and told me that I was "slapping" a template and "should better expand it myself", that was litteraly our first interaction ! What's going on ?

Now on the substance, could you explain which, and on what basis, the content is undue ? Also, could you say if are you able to read French (thus to check the sources) before saying this ? (it is not written on your user page)

For media activities, you're partly wrong : the part about the book is sourced by journalistic reviews. For the rest, I checked and there is indeed a long-lasting activity in several national journals, some of which are indicated in his biographies (Le Monde Diplomatique activity cited here for example : [2]).

But anyway, it seems that sourcing a media acitivity by itself is acceptable from what I read here : WP:ABOUTSELF. Imagritte (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, the "more nuanced approach" hoped by Bbb23 is not possible, in view of Imagritte's behavior. This was already clear, after I did some tentatives which were immediately reverted by Imagritte; for example, here is a very partial revert of his additions, immediately reverted here. This, and the above discussions, strongly suggests that every change of Imagritte's edits would need endless discussions and edit wars. It is because I am not willing for this that I opened this RfC. D.Lazard (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@D.Lazard Accusatory inversion. Your first move was to revert all my contributions.[3] Then, you kept refering to WP:notability [4][5][6] even though I showed you that it does not apply for content.[7] Then again, you asked to revert all my contributions in this RFC.[8] And now, as it seems that it's not going your way,[9][10] you are trying to go ad personam on me (based on a lie : "I did some tentatives" --> actually only one)[11] just like @Bbb23 kept doing [12][13] even though I warned him one time already.[14] Imagritte (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Imagritte:, did you read and check the French sources yourself or just translate the content? To the best of my knowledge, there's no rule absolutely requiring you to do so when translating from another Wikipedia, but did you happen to go above and beyond requirements on this one? @Bbb23: and @D.Lazard: Did you check the content against the French Wikipedia sources that Imagritte brought over and find them wanting in some way or did you revert based solely on your assessment that the content was inappropriate no matter how it was sourced? Again, there's no rule against you doing that, but did you happen to go above and beyond requirements on this one? (There's also no rule saying that sources for the English Wikipedia have to be in English, but no one's accused them of being inappropriate for not being in English.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this current version is a pretty bad example of what you get when you represent every single possible factoid on a living person. Imagritte, a few pointers. Your rhetorical victory in this edit isn't as big as you like; if D.Lazard replaces "notability" with "noteworthiness" that point is gone. There's a lot of edits and a lot of stuff here and in the history (plagued with sockpuppetry), and I have no intention of reading and commenting on all of it, but this edit summary of yours, "Both informations are in the journalistic biographies of the subject (and on French Wikipedia page) and seem relevant to the journalists to assess his pathway (6th arrondissement is one of the richest in Paris) is worth addressing. First of all, that something is in the French wiki means nothing for us; esp. for current topics and BLPs the English wiki is superior in terms of sourcing--and I can say that with some confidence, having translated from the French wiki. Second, "relevant to the journalists"--we're not writing for the journalists, but I think I see where you are going (though you should make those points more clear): you are basically saying "they wouldn't have written that up if they didn't think it was important", and so the "pathway" via the 6th is relevant. That is a clear example of WP:SYNTH, which is closely related to WP:OR--you are putting things together that make perfect sense to you, connecting things as one does in academic writing for instance, but the combination of those things and the conclusions drawn from that are yours. That's not a thing we can do here.

To answer the first question: no, this article does not need expansion etc.: what it needs is solid editing and organization into paragraphs, not a a list of factoids--I see you did the same thing with Draft:Vin's, and I am going to decline that submission for the same reason. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 Yes, I confirm that I checked every accessible source myself (and double-checked those questionned by others), and sometimes I had to erase unsourced infos and/or reformulate when a couple were detourned.

And therefore @Drmies, I am surprised when you call these informations as "factoids", because again, they mostly (Education, Career) come from journalistic biographies of the subjet [2][3][4], or were widely covered by French (or sometimes international) press, thus showing the "notworthiness", which refers to WP:DUE here if I correctly understand.

About info "lives in 6th arrondissement", please note that it is not on the page anymore since 12th may. I let it go as it indeed seems a bit private even though mentionned here : "New Year's Eve in this huge flat in the very chic 6th arrondissement of Paris". However, I will keep advocating for bringing back 2nd info about him beeing a "lawyer living with minimum income" because that's the title of a whole paragraph of a biography.

To conclude, I only refered to French article (in brackets) because it is better rated (B-class) than this one ("start-class"). Thus meaning the latter was lacking important informations, which I tried to bring after @Bbb23 said "better expand it yourself". Please ultimately note that the expansion process is not complete yet : some infos might be doubled, introduction is not coherent yet, infobox neither, and I was indeed planning to organize the Education section into paragraphs for readability.

PS : my draft is a translation of the French article fr:Vin's based on reliable sources. The source you called "tabloid" is actually a French specialised hip-hop media. As for the formulation/structure of the article, I will rework on it. Imagritte (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, and we have no objections about the quality of the sources cited, correct? Then this is about the editorial issue of whether the content belongs in the article, whehter it earns the space it takes up on the page and the energy it takes from the reader's patience. We're not talking about bright-line verifiability issues about which all reasonable people must agree but rather the subjective editorial decision about which information is important enough to be in the article, about which reasonable people may disagree. The last time I was in a dispute like this one, there was only one bit of data in dispute. Can we list the individual points, for those of us Wikieditors who aren't familiar with the subject? I think we could restructure the RfC around that is what I'm getting at. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed @Darkfrog24. I already proposed to the 2 other editors to directly put templates on the article, where they find content undue.[15] But we can also do it on the talk page if that's simpler. Will the policy guiding our choice only be WP:DUE ? Or are there other that we need to get familiar with ? I would like to add WP:COISOURCE because from what I read in Belgian Press, subject seems to be in conflict with many French mass media after his book Crepuscule criticized them, and also, it seems that his book Crepuscule was ""censored"" by French press even though it was a commercial success [16].

Thus, we might want to be carefull and use more international sources, or non-conflicting French sources, while judging information's weight. Also, this german national newspaper calls the subject an "investigations journalist for Le Monde Diplomatique" which we might want to add to the "media activities" section. Imagritte (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• It's difficult to give a specific recommendation on this RfC. The current version of the article has a lot of problems. There's too much trivial information that's not required for a biography. Also, the controversy section needs to be reworked so it doesn't violate WP:CRITS. I guess I'd recommend rolling back to the status quo and only adding items that are reported by multiple sources and that would pass the ten year test. - Nemov (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hello @Nemov, thanks for your comment. Could you specify which informations you find trivial ? Please note that the translation from French article is not finished (yet) : Political activity and Controversy sections are still missing infos, and introduction is not coherent yet. As for the controversy section, content hasn't changed, I just broke it into several paragraphs as @Drmies asked for, so rolling back would not solve this issue. How would you see this section reworked ? Imagritte (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, I think my contributions even go in your way @Nemov : I moved 2 paragraphs from the old "controversial claims" section (now called "Controversy") to the Education and Career section (skyblog and l'Express) Imagritte (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I updated the controversy section titles to comply with WP:CRITS, but feel free to change them to something else if find a better phrasing. Biographies should avoid controversy section titles. I don't have a comment on the other stuff since you mention the article in progress. I don't really see the point of this RfC since there's so much in motion. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 16 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)

Hello back @Darkfrog24, @Bbb23, @Jack4576, @Drmies and @Nemov,

It seems that @D.Lazard along with 2 single-purpose and very occasional but coordinated contributors - @Ebptmus (who also showed agressivity) and @Delfield - are trying to force against this RFC's discussion the supression of 75% of this article's sourced content (and in majority translated from B-class French article), while also adding an enourmeous chunck of WP:Undue primary-sourced material. I have tried to make concessions but they don't seem to want any, nor discussion. I have worked dozens of hours to improve and expand this article but currently it's a disaster and a huge stepback (I let you check), please help, Imagritte (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I have rolled back to the status quo. The additions violated WP:CRITS. It would be wise to avoid wide sweeping changes since they're contentious in nature. That will make this easier to make the changes digestible. Remember things must be reliable sourced and be included with due weight. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

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

RFC : Which status quo to build on?

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/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&oldid=1165176845

OR

Option 2 : the new one by Imagritte : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&oldid=1165219691

--Delfield (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion and votes

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

• There is a history of Branco attacking this article through multiple accounts, you can see the talks about how this account follows the same trend of trying to make the article a long hagiography, claiming that anything with a source is relevant etc. WP is not a CV for PR.
• Btw, Imagritte accuses me of being a single-purpose editor, and to be "coordinated" Ebptmus, I don't see how on earth, we even reverted each other several time, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=prev&oldid=1125322024 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Branco#Edit-war The user "brancojuan" used the same kind of accusations regarding SPA and sources above. In terms of credibility, D. Lazard has 30.000 edits were Imagritte has a bit more than 500, mainly on this one in terms of length of text added.
• It is not because these techniques were successful in the French version that it should be in this one.

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)

• (Summoned by bot) The purpose of an RfC is usually to get uninvolved opinions. "Dear person with no knowledge of this subject, here are two totally different entire articles; which one is better?" is not usually a good way to do so. It would be useful for Imagritte and Delfield to give some specific examples of why one is an improvement over the other. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks! I gave an example. This paragraph has been deleted: "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]" Like many other information not favorable to the author. This article has a history of being targeted by the subject of the article. Delfield (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  It has not been deleted, I let "He has worked at the International Criminal Court for a year" without further precision since that info is in many sources, but the ICC claim is only in one primary source: it would need independent secondary sources to attest notworthyness and stay, Imagritte (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 and procedural close @Rhododendrites Actually, there was already an RFC two months ago on the exact same topic which concluded that:

1) The content added (which was mostly WP:translated from the French B-class article) is reliably sourced.

2) If there is an editorial dispute about some parts being WP:undue, they should be listed, or stated directly on the article (which the requester never did), not just suppress 75% of the content along with 150 reliable sources.

As for the rest, this RFC violates WP:FAITH, WP:Canvassing, and content, WP:COISOURCE, WP:UNDUE and WP:UNRELIABLE :

- WP:FAITH because of @Delfield's "Imagritte is not editing in good faith", and also by @Ebptmus just above (I let you check their contribution timing and topics yourself.. here and there, please also look at the schools attended by our article's subject..)

- WP:Canvassing because @Delfield pinged 2 contributors he selected instead of pinging everyone who participated in the last RFC : @D.Lazard @Darkfrog24, @Bbb23, @Jack4576, @Drmies and @Nemov.

- WP:COISOURCE because the "old" version is based mostly on French sources conflicting with the subject since his book Crepuscule criticised them, as explained in Belgian Press

- WP:UNDUE and WP:UNRELIABLE because of this enormous chunk based only on one primary source added by @Delfield. GQ source is also primary, did other independent secondary sources relate this info ?

More details and arguments in previous RFC. Best, Imagritte (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Close this RfC and maintain the status quo. Open discussion on each piece under contention. If there's a discussion that reaches an impasses then open a RfC on that small piece. The reason the last RfC didn't go anywhere is because it's not clear what it's about. Nemov (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Option 1: per nom and per my motivations in the first RfC. D.Lazard (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @D.Lazard, do you mean your argument, which was refuted by 3 different contributors [17][18][19], after which you stopped responding, not even to @Darkfrog24's questions [20] and proposal for a consensus [21] ? Imagritte (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This article has been nominated twice for deletion. It was deleted in 2016, and created again soon after. In 2020, it was recognized that Branco's notability is borderline with respect to Wikipedia criteria. In fact, there are only two noteworthy events in his career, a pamplet against the French President, and his implication in Benjamin Griveaux affair. As a politician activist, he was never elected; he never got any noteworthy political position. As a writer, he never won any case, except the one in which his father was implied. As a writer no other book is notable, except the above pamphlet. The other issue of the article is that it was written as a hagiographie. During the deletion discussion, a user rewrote the article in a convenient Wikipedia style, and this wasthe main reason for "keep" instead of "delete". A further reason of my vote is that Imagitte's edits break a consensus of Wikipians, without any preceding discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lazard (talk • contribs) 15:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

A refuted argument does not mean a wrong argument. If I did not respond, it is because the first RfC was engaged in such a way that it could result only in keeping Imagritte's version. So, answering could be only a waste of time. In particular, I did not read the French version, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, per WP:USERGENERATED. D.Lazard (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

And again the same argument ignoring that Wikipedia:Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles... + There are dozens of counter-arguments in the "option 2" status quo version, many noteworthy cases and books published since 2020. I think I don't need to say more. Imagritte (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 but also procedural close as poor RfC - I picked option 1 by mistake because this RfC and discussion is a mess. It should be closed to spare the community. I advised that there be separate discussions about small changes. I don't know why a RfC was created. Just go to the status quo and discuss each change. The version I rolled back to should be the starting point. It's not complicated. Nemov (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  But precisely, the point of the majority of editors is that the status quo is the initial version, and that from there each change should be discussed. Delfield (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  As silly as arguing there's a majority when only 5 people have commented is... I'm going to remove the controversy section again, that violates WP:CRITS. Nemov (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The status quo is plainly version 1, from around here. After that, Imagritte started aggressively rewriting the article and, despite being reverted repeatedly, revert-warred the new version in over every objection: [22][23] despite no consensus supporting it in previous RFCs. The last stable version is what we go to in a dispute, which was option 1; a version which encountered objections as soon as it was added cannot be stable without a clear consensus behind it, which is not present here. --Aquillion (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion There was consensus, or at least no more opposition, after the discussion I started on the topic : Talk:Juan Branco#Expand French. If contributors stop answering, let you edit slowly for 2 months, don't make any improvements or mark any spot they find problematic (which I suggested they do), isn't that a WP:consensus ? Imagritte (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

+ WP:consensus doesn't prevail on other WP:Pillars : if 2 contributors agree to prevent any improvement to an outdated article they don't even contribute to, it goes against 1st pillar and 3rd pillar, Imagritte (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 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. Agreed that option 2 has clear WP:PROMOTIONAL issues - the very second paragraph sets off alarm bells with 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)

  Hello @Aquillion, thanks for your comment. You may have been brained because @Delfield (and now @D.Lazard) forced their changes (again) a couple hours before your comment. In any case, please note that : the lead had been summarised in the meantime; [24] that "stood out by his fight against Hadopi" is because of these sources [25][26][27][28] (first sources on our subject, translated from French wp article "s'est fait remarqué", but maybe there's a better translation we can find) ; also that the "new" content was not "dropped in", but gradually translated and added over 2 months ; and that other contributors never challenged the sources [29] ; while the contributors requesting these RFCs never tried to find any consensus, improve the added content, or even list the elements that they found "undue" as requested in the conclusion of the previous RFC. [30] Thus, this is the WP:BOLD 75% content suppression + primary source based addition edit we're discussing. Thanks, Imagritte (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  To editor Aquillion: thanks for your remark that the RfC could be reformulated as "should the version of the article preceding the edit war (started with the first Imagritte's edit) be restored?". Formulated this way, the answer "yes" is a direct consequence of WP rules against edit wars, which are described in WP:Edit warring and WP:BRD. D.Lazard (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  @D.Lazard WP:Edit warring says editors should seek consensus. Did you ever seek WP:consensus on this article in the past 2 months ? Or are you just now trying to suppress 75% of sourced content that I spent dozens of hours to gradually WP:translate, while cherry-picking the comments you repond to ? Imagritte (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Did you yourself? D.Lazard (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Lol, yeah, several times. [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] as well as other contributors [39][40][41][42][43] [44]. And you ? Imagritte (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Option 1 !

  The problem of "reliable information" that it would suppress is a moot point.

  It is a alibi to keep a multitude of unsubstantiated and twisted facts intertwined with factual information (but more often than not of relative insignificance)

  By mixing the two, the SPA are turning this into a editing gordian-knot and trying to force misinformation into the article.

  As stated previously, last approximately neutral version dates is the one from D. Lazard, early Feb.

  Trying to untangle anything after that will be massively time consuming and it's excatly what the SPA are counting on to get their way. Ebtpmus (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  An SPA calling others SPA... This is just silly. Imagritte (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  And who would I be a sock-puppet account of ? Ebtpmus (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Examples of reliable content that option 1 would suppress : 150 reliable sources including a dozen of journalistic biographies of the subject containing, in order, masters at Paris University, PhD information, early career as researcher at Yale, Max Planck and La Sapienza, information about Assange case, Jean-Luc Mélenchon case, MINUSCA mission, 5 yellow vests protesterst cases including 2 won and 2 still on-going, 2 International Criminal Court submissions, some more information on Marvel Fitness and Mila affair cases, France convoy protest référé-liberté, UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations (FC Barcelona, La Liga, Nasser Al-Khelaifi), 2016 Nice terrorist attack case, Senegalese opposition leader Ousmane Sonko case, fight against Hadopi law, Indignados movement and Partido X campaign, more information on political activity with The Greens (France), Socialist Party, La France Insoumise, and Yellow Vest Movement, information on 6 books, each of which has been reviewed multiple times in French national press (Réponses à Hadopi, Assange l'anti-souverain, the Republic does not belong to you, Abattre l'ennemi, Coup d'état, and Hanouna which was "a best-seller in online bookstores", more information on Crépuscule (book), journalistic activity in 5 French national medias (Libération, L'Humanité, Le Monde Diplomatique..); 2 war investigations, information on conflict with L'Express, more information on self-promotion on Wikipedia, Griveaux affair results (he was cleared of charges), 2 revelations during Covid-19 pandemic (Pfizer contract and French AP-HP hospital) etc.

All the above content (~75% of the article) is reliably sourced, no one challenged it, why would you want to suppress it ? Let's keep option 2 as the status quo to work on. Imagritte (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a detailed CV, or a cover letter for a job application, with links to the proof of each former training or job. Imo, but other more experienced wikipedians might tell me otherwise, most of these information are not relevant for an encyclopedia. At the very least, each of them should be discussed since there is a major neutrality issue with your version as a whole, and therefore there should be some scrutiny on each change. --Delfield (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Delfield It is not up to contributors to judge what is WP:encyclopedic, but up to WP:Independent sources, respecting Wikipedia:DUE, and all these infos come from journalistic biographies of the subject = they are due [45][46][47] [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. Thanks, Imagritte (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this RfC should be closed from this point. Please make smaller changes and submit them for discussion of there's objection. You've made too many changes at one time that include too much trivial information. @Delfield and @D.Lazard, instead of blanking everything Imagritte has added work with the editor to pair down the additions. There is good stuff that has been added. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov, I understand, but that was already our conclusion with @D.Lazard and @Bbb23 2 months ago in Talk:Juan Branco#Recent expansion of the article and that's what I have been doing since then: slowly adding the content so that they can challenge/improve the parts they want. The process ended on 25 june with this edit. [56] @Bbb23 really improved the content with cleanup but @D.Lazard did nothing. And now, he just wakes up, blanks everything along with a single purpose very occasional contributor @Delfield, and I have to do it all over again? This is silly. It's the only page where I feel like adding translated double-cheked content is a bad thing ! Usually, people say "thank you" and try to improve it, as @Darkfrog24 pointed out... [57], not blank everything without even listing the problems and throw personnal attacks. [58][59] Now the article is back to a start-class outdated disaster. Imagritte (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not intend to participate in this discussion, but I never agreed with the expansion of this article based on the fr.wiki article, but I mostly gave up on trying to rein in Imagritte. I took this page off my watchlist, and am only here because Imagritte keeps pinging me. Please don't ping me anymore. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The past two RfCs here have been long confusing messes of discussion that led to unclear outcomes. I have laid out a path forward. Either follow it or leave this article alone. Nemov (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov It was not RFC, it was even before. I feel like I worked dozens of hours for nothing, and neither @D.Lazard nor @Delfield listed the parts they find problematic. Will they again stop responding and revert everything in 2 months ? Just silly. Imagritte (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't complicated. Make small changes. If there's an objection, then discuss it. I don't want to argue about the past. Your widespread changes have failed to find consensus. Nemov (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov How to reach a consensus with someone saying "You're not editing in good faith" ? Imagritte (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

When multiple editors are asking you to do something and you do not listen, maybe it's time to look at your actions. That's my last word. Nemov (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov Do what ? You said the lead needed to be summarized: I did it. They asked me to add content slower: did it. Double-check sources: did it. I always listened, did they ? Or is @D.Lazard just preventing any improvement to an article he doesn't even contribute to (0.2%) while letting single-purpose @Delfield add controversies freely ? Imagritte (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Imagritte please don't tag me again. Nemov (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

On my end, I am removing that comment, sorry for this and thanks for pointing out! --Delfield (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Delfield, Imagritte (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 !

The problem of "reliable information" that it would suppress is a moot point.

It is a alibi to keep a multitude of unsubstantiated and twisted facts intertwined with factual information (but more often than not of relative insignificance)

By mixing the two, the SPA are turning this into a editing gordian-knot and trying to force misinformation into the article.

As stated previously, last approximately neutral version dates is the one from D. Lazard, early Feb.

Trying to untangle anything after that will be massively time consuming and it's excatly what the SPA are counting on to get their way. Ebtpmus (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

An SPA calling others "SPA", just silly. Imagritte (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Aquillion, this 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.

@Unsigned, there is another source for the same sentence [60] + one in the previous phrase NYT which shows the duration was 10 days in 2015 [61] + a new one in 2019 about diplomatic negociations with other countries [62] and finaly one showing it was not "presumably": he did the asylum demand at the time. [63] We can change this and any sentence found too promotoinal, but please make an effort on sources.Imagritte (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

And also several interviews of him requesting Asylum for Assange in France in 2019 (Assange was about to be arrested) as he was still "legal advisor of Assange and Wikileaks" during the whole period. [64] [65] [66] Imagritte (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

@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)

@D.Lazard Which parts of the sourced translated content I added over the past two months do you find undue or promotional ? Imagritte (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

To me, everything except what I just added. Delfield (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The section about Branco's edits to Wikipedia is overkill. It seems trivial to me and could be deleated completely. At best it deserves a sentence in the entire article. Nemov (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree: see § Threats above. Also, since the beginning of 2023 only, users Username1789, RoxxorOscar, Paulk12, Salmasalma2, have been indefinitely blocked for being sockpuppets or suspected sockpuppets. The only activity of these WP:SPA was to edit the article Juan Branco for promoting its subject. D.Lazard (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@D.Lazard Threats and sockpuppets are a disgrace. But currently the only WP:SPAs here are Ebtpmus and Delfield (which I just now noticed has the same first and last letter as your account name..), why don't you mention them ? How is it that you have been discussing this article for years but have never actually contributed to its content ? The fact that a subject did or tried to do self-promotion and has a history with you is no reason to go the excessive opposite and only add controversies... Also, we know that our subject has been a spied target of CIA [67] and is opposed by many FR mass media [68] and several gouvernments.. hence the need to check independent sources. But sources seem worthless here compared to the WP:POV of our 3 contributors... Imagritte (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Delfield On what base or wikipedia policy did you judge the dueness of the content ? Did you check the sources ? Imagritte (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply below in new section. Delfield (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• I think there's a consensus on option 1. I would recommend closing this RfC as editors are now editing from that point. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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

NPOV and WP:UNDUE + draft proposition

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)

This draft is not going to gain consensus. It's overly long, contains too much trivial information, and it's dead on arrival. You should know this because you've been told my multiple editors over and over. Why do you keep trying to submit it? Until you understand that sources don't automatically justify inclusion you are wasting a considerable amount of time. For example, the sections on Yellow Vests movement is just full of trivial stuff that doesn't belong in the article. A mention of a preface of an autobiography? This is a key part of a person's biography article that you believes deserves to be mentioned? There's probably a sentence worth of actual content in that section that deserves to be mentioned. Since your idea of what should be included is so far removed the rest of the editors here it's going to be difficult for you to get anything done since you're unwilling to discuss each section. It's a shame because there's probably content that could be included if you were able to be more concise. Nemov (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I have taken the comments into account: it has been summarised, removed terms found to be too promotional, better structure, no more controversy/other activities section, etc. As for your wp:due comment, I have read almost all the sources and saw the proportion: I confirm it is due. Did you ? Imagritte (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep, there's 5+ paragraphs about protesters in a biography about a lawyer. It seems clear you don't get it. Another editor also mentioned giving up after attempting to guide you and I think I've reached that point as well. Nemov (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

What you don't understand is that his biographies already call him "the lawyer of the yellow vest protesters". [75][76][77] Imagritte (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not true for source 77, and this is merely a nickname for others. Besides that is of very low significance.

Such is a multitude of other facts (many of them "supported" by articles behind paywalls, which means you can make them say anything).

e.g. "In 2013, he assisted to a horse race in the desert at the invite of the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi."

or "being acquainted to stars like Catherine Deneuve"

How is this of any significance anyway ? Are we to list all of daddy's business connections here for posterity ? Ebtpmus (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

We should also be wary of what was written in section "Recent edits by the article's subject himself"

"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)."

This means that we should be extra careful before accepting any source, especially if only one presented alone, of dubious reliability when it comes to fact checking, or if the assertion is disputed elsewhere. Ebtpmus (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's take an example :

"He was in 2015 the legal advisor by WikiLeaks and met with Julian Assange, trying to help obtain asylum for Assange in France."

First source merely lists him A legal / PR contact for wikileaks in France. Nothing states that he his THE legal advisor for Assange.

Second source merely states that he met Assange, once, back in 2009, on an unrelated (?) topic (Hadopi) and nothing else.

IMHO, that doesn't even support the above statement. Ebtpmus (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well it seems that imagritte has been blocked for sockpuppetry now.

Paulk12 seems to have been a earlier sockpuppet. Active until end of Feb when he disappears (blocked).

Then appeared username1789, active in March only.

And when blocked too then appears imagritte in April. Which had since scored 85+ edits of Branco's article, in the span of 3 months.

None of those 3 users actually overlapped in time in editing this article.

Probably not long before an entirely new user starts updating this page, and posting the very same content. Ebtpmus (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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

POV Pushing

@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)

As a note, in these edits, Nemov, you remove all information that the subject would want to be removed even though it is obviously relevant and noteworthy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=1165794399&oldid=1165793283 Delfield (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I've never said I was an admin and I have never heard of the person in question. I came to this article after a very confusing RfC was created. Then I was pinged again after some edit warring and I'm attempting to help. For whatever reason this article is littered with bad edits. The edits in question seemed like WP:NPOV trivial information. If you wish to discuss them by all means open up a discussion and quit making accusations towards editors attempting to help. Nemov (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how condoning the deletion of all the "controversies" (self promotion on Wikipedia and instrumentalisation of Wikipedia, etc.) in favour of inclusion of insignificant legal representations, and far far away of the option 1 that emerged from the previous RFC is helping progress on the issue. Ebtpmus (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. I have argued against Imagritte's inclusion of trivial information and agreed with Delfield's 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)

Option 1 emerged from the previous RFC. You noted it yourself.

Yet you back imagritte (and even contribute yourself) to edit back to something near of option 2.

Not quite consistent.

Please do compare option 1 and what the article is in its current version. Ebtpmus (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be confused or uninformed. That's not what's happening here. Nemov (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Put them side by side option 1 and the latest edit before delfield revert to option & and you'll see.

Otherwise "If y'all continue to edit war this could escalate towards sanctions." : so admin or not admin ? Ebtpmus (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

See what? Anyway, edit warring is a violation of Wiki policies. You don't have to be an admin to point that out. Nemov (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 vs. latest version before Delfield's revert :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=1165850722&oldid=1165849557

What do they have in common ? 10% maybe ? Ebtpmus (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I just undid the last edit by imagritte to calls on a consensus to 'build on option 1" yet republishes a version that is 90% different without any kind of previous discussion ... Ebtpmus (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Ebtpmus, Delfield, and Imagritte: Since y'all are still edit warring I would recommend that no more additions are made to the article until it's hashed out here first. Imagritte, you're still adding far too much content. I tried to summarize it and Delfield just removed it all probably out of frustration. If you wish to add or update a section post a draft here first. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Imagritte posted then deleted the following :

  "Firstly content is moving aronud + the discussion was just above but you never responded, just as your last "contribution" on this article was 6 months ago. Your rollbacks are not improving anything here. Imagritte (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)"

  My last "contribution was 6 month ago because unlike others (you immagritte) I comment on the talk page rather than shoving controversial edits into the article.

  For our common reference, here are the number of edits in 2023 :

  Imagritte / Paulk12 = 95

  Delfield = 19

  Nemov = 18

  AnomieBOT = 14

  D.Lazard = 14

  Bbb23 = 12

  ...

  Mine = 3 Ebtpmus (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes 3 rollbacks. That's what I'm saying. Fell free to indicate which sources you are basing your POV on, and if you're ever planning on actually improving this article. Imagritte (talk) 22:00, 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)

I guess something that adds to the confusion is that you closed the RfCs above while being involved in the discussion and voting, I am not sure you could do that, but anyway. Delfield (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Delfield anyone can close RfC when there's a clear reason to do so. In this case there was a clear answer to the question. Nemov (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Delfield The fact that I even have to argue/convince you to add the results of affairs (e.g Griveaux affair) shows that you are not looking to improve the article at all. This as well : "K, let’s go back to the option 1, I added a lot of stuff to go closer to your version, but it seems you prefer stick to option 1.". Is it supposed to be a punishment ? And your previous edit comment "I put in what in the longer version by Imagritte seems relevant, nothing more.", that's the way you "build on" upon a version ? Chosing unilaterally what's relevant and "nothing more" ? I'm done with this article for now. Imagritte (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Delfield I'm not going to stop giving feedback on policy and behavior because you don't like it. Thanks Nemov (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Given how much sock disruption has occurred with this article I'm adding this to my watchlist to monitor it in the future. This article could be improved, but I don't speak French and don't know enough about this person to work on it myself. Now that the disruptive editor is blacked is there any other items to discuss? Thanks for everyone's patience sorting this out. Nemov (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your mitigation. There are a few inaccuracies and other points that could be improved.

  I'll come back with comments / proposals in the coming days. Ebtpmus (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Expand French

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)

Maybe so, but the article is quite large, and although the French article is longer, I don't think expansion templates are of much use when you have articles of this size. You'd do better to expand it yourself rather than slapping on a template.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand, goal of the template is to allow other people (and myself) to easily add translated content from the French article, why do you call that "slapping" ? This article is "start-class" while the French is "B-class", meaning many important informations seems to be lacking. Imagritte (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 So, could you please let me add the template if you want me and others to be able to translate easily ? Imagritte (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You still have not explained how the template helps you to add information from the French article. As I already stated, why don't you just do that? In fact, why don't you do it with other articles as well rather than single-mindedly doing nothing but placing templates on various articles?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Ad hominem ? It helps because it provides instant access to French article's translation (and guidelines), to anyone who has time to add content, which I eventually found much more useful than just acting on my own and is recommended here [69]. Imagritte (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Recent expansion of the article

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)

Hello @D.Lazard, I am sorry I don't really understand your point regarding WP:notability since it seems this criteria is only for article creation, not for content as written here : WP:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists.

Also, if you (still) think some content is unrelevant according to another specific english-Wikipedia policy, you can just modify/erase this particular content and explain why and which policy. Therefore, I will add again the content following this policy : [1]. Imagritte (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Notability is used as a shorthand in these circumstances for "noteworthy", which the guideine you cite mentions. Whether content added to an article is noteworthy is always a question that should be asked. In this instance, the amount of material you're adding to the article is excessive, which means it is WP:UNDUE. Also, D. Lazard is correct that some of the material is self-serving, and in general we do not add such material to WP:BLPs. Also, too much of the material is hard to follow by an English reader; even though it is written in English, it is akwardly phrased in English, e.g., the part about him collecting some version of welfare. Finally, it is unreasonable for you to add so much material that does not comply with en.wiki guidelines because you are unfamiliar with them and expect other editors, like me, to go in and fix all the errors.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, but I am surprised about your answer @Bbb23 since you said in the section above "You'd do better to expand it yourself rather than slapping on a template" so I tried to expand it myself, following the guidelines : checking accuracy of translation and sources every time, which takes time.

Although it is not perfect, I think it is still a big improvment to add all these missing informations to a "start-class" article, and maybe there is some undue or self-serving that we can erase.

As far from what I read, most of the informations you quoted (one year position, salary, reaction to it, decline of Asssange's asylum) comes from French jounalistic biographies of the subject [70][71][72] and seems to be relevant to assess his pathway according to the journalists (and French Wikipedia).

I will reformulate the part on welfare (and any other part you indicate), I will also try to add further material slower so that we have time to double-check everytime. Feel free to indicate any spot that you find undue/self-serving/poorly formulated directly on the article. Imagritte (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

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

6th arrondissement and minimum income

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

New mass edits from sock puppet account in May - June 2023

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)

Sorry forgot that, thanks Ebtpmus (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, done! Delfield (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Accusatory inversion ? Imagritte (talk) 23:09, 12 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

• If you believe there's a sockpuppet you can report it at WP:SPI. Other behavioral issues can be submitted at WP:ANI. Nemov (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Summarize lead

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)

Yes I was thinking about it, will do it soon, Imagritte (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Although I have to say for the rest of the article that with 200 sources (including a dozen of detailed journalistic biographies), 47 millions Google results and 8.200 news articles on the subject , 100ko doesn't seem all that much for this article. Imagritte (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced doesn't automatically justify inclusion. If it hasn't received significant coverage from multiple sources it probably doesn't belong in the article. It's always wise to remember the twenty year test. I don't know much about this person and right now it's seems like a lot of clutter to get to the point. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course, and some sections and the lead could definitely use summarizing. I was just pointing out that the subject has been widely documented; for camparision, French article is about 85ko although lacking more recent infos. Imagritte (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned with WP:OTHERSTUFF and this isn't a discussion about deletion so how much coverage this person has received isn't really relevant. The entire article needs to be summarized. There's a some trivial information that can be removed. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, will work on it, thanks :) Imagritte (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Done for the lead, Imagritte (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You asserted many times that the content that you added is a translation of French article. How the transalation of 85k can produce 100k? How can I assuming your good faith? D.Lazard (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@D.Lazard Please read what I wrote : "mostly". I started by translating the French article, and then I added some more recent content/cases/books (that were not yet on the French article). Imagritte (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

A "simple google search" shows actually, 27 millions, not 47.

And 6500 news article.

Another good example of flexible relation to facts... Ebtpmus (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ebtpmus That's enough of WP:AGF violations. And for you sake, I now have 52 millions and 11k news articles on my screen when I search "Juan Branco" on Google. Imagritte (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

+ 5 millions hits and + 3000 articles in a span of a few days. Sure.

Actually searching with quotes "Juan Branco" (to avoid false hits), I find respectively 3.7M and 5.7k.

And looking at the level of details : the French version ("translated here", "which justifies the length of the english article") even graces us with the info of which kindergarten he attended or which student film club he was part of at Science Po.

Is this really noteworthy information for wikipedia ? Ebtpmus (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is the title of a whole paragraph of a journalistic biography [74]. Imagritte (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Relevance of facts

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)

@Delfield These cases have each been analysed in multiple secondary sources = they are WP:due. You just have to get used to the fact that this lawyer is very notable (and that the sources decide what is notable or nothwothy, not us contributors). As for Pfizer, The Guardian source titles :"Leaked supply document reveals clauses to protect US pharma company from legal action in the event of serious side-effects" On what WP:POV did you change the formulation ? Same for the phrase "the patient is taken care of" you just added about AP-HP leak, while the source is actually saying in the lead "The AP-HP confirmed the authenticity of the document and acknowledged "pressure on intensive care beds", while reiterating the measures taken to alleviate these difficulties." Imagritte (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

See comment above the length of the French version, which is used to justify the *even longer* English version, includes information such as which kindergarten he attended or his membership of the movie club at Science Po.

This is symptomatic of the avalanche of insignificant details plaguing all languages versions, and which is used to slip in favorable unsubstantiated facts. Brandolini's law applied to wikipedia ... Ebtpmus (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ebtpmus And see my response : It is the title of a whole paragraph of a journalistic biography. [74] Imagritte (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Delfield. It's not important enough to justify inclusion. Nemov (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Where do we take it from here ? Another series of mass edits from Imagritte / Branco : uncoordinated as far as I can tell. Section on scandals, self promotion on Wikipedia and instrumentalisation of Wikipedia disappeared altogether, replaced by description of every individual court case again. Ebtpmus (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

(see difference from version Delfield earlier today and current) Ebtpmus (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is a clear POV pushing of Nemov and Imagritte, and a trivial discussion between them regarding secondary issues. Delfield (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I follow french news pretty closely, and honestly half of the names of those "important yellow vest cases" are totally unknown to me. Ebtpmus (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ebtpmus Feel free to share any source, or contribute to the article's content. We're trying to improve through discussion, you two just come, blank/rollback everything and throw personal attacks. Imagritte (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black : you just made a 90% change (the one that I rolled back) from the option 1 that was agreed upon as a result of the RFC without ANY previous discussion nor alignment on the discussion page. Ebtpmus (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 was agreed as "status quo to build on", and that's what I tried to do. Did you ? Imagritte (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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