Talk:Juan Branco

Revision

An interesting article.

I added a bit of information on MINUSCA. I would also suggest the following clean-up/changes:

1. I don't think the article should be written in the present tense.

2. The header should focus more on the things Branco is most known for imo. This would be the Assange/Wikileaks and the Melenchon/political side and not so much the work at the court(s).

3. I would suggest adding a reference to this [1] in the trivia. Something like this maybe: "He accused the entourage of an unknown "high functionary" in the French government of threatening him after his Wikipedia entry was deleted in 2016 for being an autobiographical hagiography. "

4. Some references/citations are not really sufficient imo. I'm mostly having issues with the IMdB link, which is community based and not a valid citation. I think this: "According to David Cronenberg and Don DeLillo, he triggered the adaptation of Cosmopolis to film." should be deleted accordingly.

I would appreciate some feedback before I make the changes. 83.217.132.38 (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I obviously disagree with the latest addition by Banguicourage which violates multiple guidelines. As I can sense this has already taken a political turn (the username is a bit on the nose, no?), I won't contribute to this article anymore. Good luck! 83.217.132.38 (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

if anything, i think both edits (yours and the one of banguicourage) are orientated (in opposite directions) and should be reverted, the first version being neutral and sufficient (details of the operation should be added in a specific page). if an admin or someone with an account passes through here, please do so. imo, for clear reasons, only registered accounts with previous edits should be authorized to intervene in living people pages. regarding Cosmopolis, i found the references that sourced the IMDB article on the french page, and added them here.

3 is not an encyclopedic information. on the merits, it seems futile and rather autocentered, especially since the hagiographic tone is contested (see WP restore which basically recreated the same page once sources were sufficient). The blog post that you mention was anonymous, and according to Branco, written by the same person who initiated and pushed for the deletion proceeding. see here http://branco.blog.lemonde.fr/tag/juan-branco-wikipedia/. i found also this source, which is not open, but could be useful (see page 2): https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/240718/les-speculations-sur-une-remise-d-assange-aux-autorites-britanniques-s-intensifient

2 and 1 agreed, but have no patience for that right now.

last: you should create your account if you want to intervene on living people's pages, especially you only contribute on one page and intend to make controversial changes that could affect their reputation. Do you have any link with this person, positive or negative ? If so, it might be wiser to refrain yourself. WP is not a playground or space for revenge, and the consequences of our actions in it can be very real.

ljm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.214.162.115 (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I completed your additions instead of deleting it because they were partial and tried to hide that the population of PK5 was massacred. Juan Branco is a whistleblower for PK5 people and Vladimir monteiro is paid to defend his institution at whatever cost, so i think they should not be put at the same level but i understand this is a encyclopedia, so instead of deleting,i just neutralized it by adding more sources and trying to contextualize the situation. i don't think its fair thoguh Banguicourage (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)banguicourage

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Juan Branco Portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lake 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.