Talk:Juan Branco

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Expand French

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 [1]. Imagritte (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent expansion of the article

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 [2][3][4] 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)

RFC about the content recently added

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.[5] 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)

6th arrondissement and minimum income

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][6]" Imagritte (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)