Talk:Gérard Royal

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

"accused terrorist bomber"[edit]

  • Really ? Is there a prosecution under way somewhere ? an indictment ? do you have any reference ? Hektor 13:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the article explains, his brother has claimed he admitted to planting the bombs in the Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. This claim is made in a reliable source which we mention. This is widely considered a terrorist attack in New Zealand, and was apparently even labelled as such by France. As such, accused terrorist bomber is probably a fair label Nil Einne 19:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.Hektor 19:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why a source was provided when this was written. I wrote this fairly hurridely when i saw an empty link to his name - please feel free to do a better job. As I understand it a warrant for Royal's arrest was issued shortly after the bombing; after a lot of negotiations France admitted the crime, apologised and paid compensation, and New Zealand agreed to not to seek extradition for te others involved, (but accidentally forgot to witdraw all requests to arrest - one of the crew of the Ouvea was consequently arrested when he left France some years ago). I wrote 'accused' because, while the French government admitted the crime, (and two of the agents involved in transport plead guilty to manslaughter in New Zealand Courts), as far as i am aware, Royal hasn't publicly admitted his involvement. Winstonwolfe 02:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no prosecution under way, I rewrite the article accordingly and remove the word terrorist. Hektor 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "accused terrorist", there is no need for prosecution to establish that he is 'accused terrorist'. There needs to be an accusation. I assume no one doubts he has been accused of a terrorist attack, and I'll venture to guess most people outside France, at any event, assume he committed one so the word 'accused' is being a bit gentle, there can hardly be any doubt he'd loose a defamation case against those who have called him a terrorist, (indeed, rather than contest the matter, he has conspicously hidden from it). I realise many French people would rather the blot of the Rainbow Warrior bombing was quietly forgotten when historiy is written, (as the attempts to remove reference to it from the DGSE article show), but if this is an attempt to rewrite history hiding behind living person rules, I will fight it. What is really needed is not pedantics about this stub, but someone to show some moral courage and fill in the French Language stub for him, and do an objective update of [[1]]

(FYI, this is the present mention under the French language Ségolène Royal) Gérard Royal est un ancien lieutenant de la DGSE. Il a été impliqué dans l'affaire du Rainbow Warrior (l'homme au bonnet rouge) : il a transporté les deux plongeurs de la 2e équipe (la première équipe étant Dominique Prieur et Alain Mafart) à l'origine du sabotage du bateau de Greenpeace en 1985. En signe de protestation, Ségolène Royal - qui, semble-t-il, ignorait les activités de son frère - aurait projeté de rallier l'atoll de Mururoa, en compagnie de militants d'associations antinucléaires[65]. Mais la crédibilité de cette explication ne paraît pas certaine, vu l'obligation de réserve qui s'imposait à Ségolène Royal en tant que chargée de mission de l'Elysée, et le secret d'Etat qu'elle est également censée respecter[66]. Winstonwolfe 00:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When I visited the article, the info on him allegedly being involved in the Rainbow Warrior bombing was sourced with a link to the Herald article so I'm a bit confused as to what Hektor was complaining about. The fact that the Rainbow Warrior bombing is considered a terrorist attack by many is noted in the respective article, as I mentioned and even the French government said it was a terrorist attack, so I personally don't really think there is any doubt that someone who is accused of being involved in it, is an accused terrorist. However I feel the current wording is more informative so don't see a need to change it back. Personally, I'm opposed to the excess labelling of people as terrorists however this IMHO is clear cut case Nil Einne 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there are defamatory elements in this article (the category "terrorists" for instance) and that wikipedia could be successfully sued for libel based on this. Maybe you don't care, but I do. Please refer to the policy regarding the biographies of living persons. Hektor 12:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hektor, you mention the catergory terrorist, but imply other parts of the article may open Wikipedia to legal liability - except possibility the description of him as one of a the team of saboteurs, I can not see what else would lead to a successful action in my jurisdiction (and, incidentally, I have a law degree). Could you please advise what other parts of the article you consider defamatory, and why you consider those parts of the article would not stand up in court? Regarding the Catergory "Terrorists", I didn't add that catergory, which I think might seem a bit emotive. On the other hand I do not see how you could criticise it for accuracy, nor could Royale mount a successful legal action against it - for, given that truth is an absolute defence to defamation, a defence would only need to prove - on the low test of balance of probabilities - a reasonable belief that Royale had been involved in the terrorist attack on the Raonbow Warrior. Royale's involvement in the plot to blow up the Rainbow Warrior is accepted by the French Government and he has been named by his own brother as having being in the team - he has spoken to the media since and has certainly not denied his participation. Winstonwolfe 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note also if there are any who still doubt that this is widely considered a terrorist attack, see Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior which states that even the French government called it a terrorist attack before they admitted their involvement. (actually I see I already noted this above) Note also when I made the above comment he was in the accused terrorists cat not the terrorists cat (which was changed here [2]). The cat has now been removed and I'm not going to bother re-adding it. [3] Also, I'm one of the strongest defenders of BLP but in this instances, it's seems blindly obvious to me that the accused terrorist cat is acceptable Nil Einne 11:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

I suggest also to merge with the article of his sister since he is not notable except in the light of his sister's candidacy. Hektor 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merger, a google search quickly shows his importance (10,900 hits for "Gérard Royale", plus other references under alternative anglicised spelling). Yes, his recent return to the limelight is based, of course, on his relationship with his sister;- so what? On the reasoning someone is important only because they are associated with someone else, Mark Thatcher would be merged with Margaret Thatcher, Marie Antoinette with Louis XVI and Hector with Achilles? I notice Hektor has taken the liberty of replacing this stub with a cut and paste from the Ségolène Royal page. I have rv ed the original stub, less the controversial "accused terrorist bomber", Winstonwolfe 00:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Biographies should be on separate pages. If he's not worth an article, his acts should be described on a page about the Rainbow Warrior incident. There should be a sentence on the Sego page saying that he is her brother, or maybe "One of Sego's brothers is Ger, who killed the rainbow warrior" (fixes needed). Gronky 10:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ever had a look at the biography of the daughter and special communication advisor of the sitting president, Claude Chirac. Hektor 19:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As the alleged perpetrator of a high-profile terror attack, this guy is notable enough for his own article. Skarioffszky 18:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Biographies should be on separate pages and his Rainbow Warrior link merits an own article for him. -- fdewaele 5 December 2006, 19:05
  • Oppose per Winstonwolfe above he appears to be notable outside the Rainbow Warrior. However his Rainbow Warrior links means he merits an article whatever the case IMHO. Nil Einne 11:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simple math: Gérard is not Ségolène!--F3rn4nd0 BLA BLA BLA 09:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gérard Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gérard_Royal&oldid=1204590937"