Talk:Juan Branco

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

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 [1]. 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 [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)

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 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.[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)

@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 : [6]).

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.[7] Then, you kept refering to WP:notability [8][9][10] even though I showed you that it does not apply for content.[11] Then again, you asked to revert all my contributions in this RFC.[12] And now, as it seems that it's not going your way,[13][14] you are trying to go ad personam on me (based on a lie : "I did some tentatives" --> actually only one)[15] just like @Bbb23 kept doing [16][17] even though I warned him one time already.[18] 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.[19] 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 [20].

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.

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][21]" 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.

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 [22][23][24], after which you stopped responding, not even to @Darkfrog24's questions [25] and proposal for a consensus [26] ? 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: [27][28] 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; [29] that "stood out by his fight against Hadopi" is because of these sources [30][31][32][33] (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 [34] ; 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. [35] 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. [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] as well as other contributors [44][45][46][47][48] [49]. 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 [50][51][52] [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. 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. [61] @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... [62], not blank everything without even listing the problems and throw personnal attacks. [63][64] 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 [65] + one in the previous phrase NYT which shows the duration was 10 days in 2015 [66] + a new one in 2019 about diplomatic negociations with other countries [67] and finaly one showing it was not "presumably": he did the asylum demand at the time. [68] 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. [69] [70] [71] 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 [72] and is opposed by many FR mass media [73] 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.

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.

RE: Legal advice and representations

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.

---

This section is terrible. It needs to be summarized into one or two paragraphs. I feel like I keep having to repeat basic concepts of WP:DUE. Again, every time this person is mentioned in the news doesn't automatically justify inclusion in this article. Nemov (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Imagritte Please refrain from further additions to this section until this is resolved. This needs to cover major events in this person's biography that will be remembered 20 years from now. This article doesn't serve as a laundry list for a resume. Thanks Nemov (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, just giving my argument : he is already mentionned as "lawyer of the yellow vests protestors" in several biographies' titles [75][76][77] Imagritte (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We can restructure and summarize the section, but keeping a little detail about yellow vests cases, some of which where widely covered in France (especially Christophe Dettinger, Valérie Minet, Damien Tarel), others less (but still 2-3 national press articles), seems fair to me, Imagritte (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

In 20 years will anyone care? Will it be a notable part of this person's biography? This section is far too long. Summarize it down. Nemov (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I honestly think so, yellow vests movement is a big moment in French history, constantly referred to in France, still not finished (according to its wiki), people are still revendicating from it etc.. But I will summarize in order to find consensus. Imagritte (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph is fine. The line by line on each person could easily be deleted. The details about each case just aren't important to this biography. Nemov (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find the section completely WP:undue now, how are explanations of a lawyer's actions in cases not important to a laywer's biography ? If so, we would also have to delete details of the Griveaux and Sonko affairs, leaving the article with almost nothing. His anecdotal involvement in the Mila affair (never seen it in any biographies) currently has the same space as his involvement in the yellow vest cases. Imagritte (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on your statements I don't think you know what WP:DUE actually means. If so, we would also have to delete details of the Griveaux and Sonko affairs... please do. Much of what you're adding is irrelevant to the central biography. You've seen how I've reduced the content. That should server a baseline for you to add and summarize. Nemov (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUE = "representing all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." I have been sending sources and biographies of the subject for days to try show you that these infos are in a big proportion of sources. You never sent any, so how are you judging wp:due then ? Imagritte (talk) 19:30, 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.

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)

Rollbacks, but improvment ?

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.

---

@Delfield, putting back 15% of the content I spent hours to translate and double-source-check and saying "that's the only content we're adding back, no more after that" is not discussion, nor seaking WP:consensus. Rolling back on everything added instead of improving it neither. And i'm still waiting to hear what's your process for assessing what's relevant or not on Wikipedia. Imagritte (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I did try to be reasonable and add some stuff of your version to accomodate you even though you were edit-warring and not talking. But you aggressively edit-warred arguing my new version is not the last consensus. You were your biggest enemy because you could not settle for the new version I proposed. Therefore we had to go back to the last consensus (option 1 in the last RfC), per Wikipedia policies. --Delfield (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Delfield The fact that I even have to argue/convince you to add the recent results of affairs (e.g. Griveaux affair) shows that you are not trying to improve the article at all. Also this edit comment : "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 that 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 how you "build on" consensus ? By unilaterally deciding what's relevant and "nothing more" ? I'm done with this article for now. Imagritte (talk) 11:06, 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.

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.

New RFC July 2023 - Opportunity for a cleansing of dubious facts and low importance details

It seems there will be no cooling down on this article. So I'll try to have a go at it already.

Recent changes from Drmies are quite positive, going in the direction of simplification / removal of insignificant facts. As to my previous comment on inacuracies, a few suggestions (not exhaustive). In article order, not importance order.

Give me your comments / blessing and I'll be happy to enact the changes.

___

"being acquainted to stars like Catherine Deneuve.[2]" : I fail to see how his father's business relations is of significance. The article used as reference also has a rather different spelling of facts. It reads :

"Au-delà de son côté "geek", le jeune Branco joue parfois, selon les témoignages, de sa position. "C'était le fils du grand producteur qui allait tous les ans au Festival de Cannes et qui nous racontait les dîners avec Catherine Deneuve", raconte un autre ancien du clan Attal. "

Google translate : "Beyond his 'geek' side, the young Branco sometimes plays, according to testimony, on his position. "He was the son of the great producer who went to the Cannes Film Festival every year and who told us about the dinners with Catherine Deneuve", says another elder of the Attal clan. "

In other words, it is a "he said", him boasting about his father dinning in Cannes film festival with Deneuve. Hardly, "being accaintained". Besides, I fail to see the value of this information.

___

"PhD student at the École normale supérieure, where he was admitted without passing the entrance exam.[3]"

This seems not to be correct. There is a difference between graduating from the institution and doing a master / PhD there. There was no exemption of exam, because he did not enter the standard curriculum at ENS which is extremely selective and of much higher standing.

On the current page of the ENS : "Il existe plusieurs façons d'entrer à l'ENS Ulm, à différents niveaux du parcours universitaire de l'étudiant :

1 - Comme normalien-élève, avec le statut de fonctionnaire stagiaire (avec plusieurs obligations dont l'obligation décennale) après un bac+2 (généralement une classe préparatoire ou avec le deuxième concours qui concerne les étudiants en médecine et en pharmacie) ;

2 - Comme normalien-étudiant français ou étranger (après un bac+2 ou bac +3), via les admissions parallèles (sans rémunération ni engagement décennal, mais préparant également le diplôme de licence et/ou de master, ainsi qu’en parallèle le Diplôme de l’ENS (DENS), au même titre que les autres statuts d’élèves ; les attentes de l'école sont donc identiques entre élèves normaliens, étudiants normaliens et étudiants normaliens internationaux, et tous seront d’anciens ENS ;

3 - Par la sélection internationale : « La sélection internationale est un concours qui s’adresse aux étudiants inscrits dans une université étrangère dans le cadre de leur premier cycle. Les lauréats sont normaliens étudiants. Leur scolarité est de trois ans pendant lesquels ils perçoivent une bourse. »

4 - L’ENS offre également des formations de master pour les étudiants ayant déjà validé une licence à l’université ; ces étudiants, appelés mastériens, suivent des cours à l’ENS et obtiennent un diplôme de master de l'ENS-PSL."

Google translate : "There are several ways to enter ENS Ulm, at different levels of the student's university course:

1 - As normalien-student, with the status of trainee civil servant (with several obligations including the ten-year obligation) after a bac+2 (generally a preparatory class or with the second competition which concerns students in medicine and pharmacy);

2 - As a normalien-French or foreign student (after a bac+2 or bac+3), via parallel admissions (without remuneration or ten-year commitment, but also preparing for the bachelor's and/or master's degree, as well as in parallel the Diploma of the ENS (DENS), in the same way as the other student statuses; the school's expectations are therefore identical between normalien students, normalien students and international normalien students, and all will be former ENS;

3 - By the international selection: “The international selection is a competition for students enrolled in a foreign university as part of their first cycle. The laureates are normalien students. Their education is three years during which they receive a scholarship. »

4 - The ENS also offers master's courses for students who have already validated a license at the university; these students, called master students, take courses at ENS and obtain a master's degree from ENS-PSL."

He falls under category 4. The alumni record of ENS confirms that : https://www.archicubes.ens.fr/normaliens/branco#annuaire_chercher?identite=branco

L,l,S or s marks the standard curriculum which is accessed through a competition. To which there are no "free passes". Not his case. I would suggest to write this " master and PhD student at the École normale supérieure" which would be correct without any mention to entrance exam.

Source 3 is not accessible.

___

Wikileaks

Source 5 : paywall and irrelevant as it the continuation of a feud with l'Express who maintains previous affirmations / accusations of embellishing his CV

French sources used for the French article then more or less translated there actually depict a very different picture than what is claimed. There has been a lot of back and forth on the sources there and some might have been recently deleted.

My previous comment was based on these sources that I found in some article version :

Wikileaks : https://wikileaks.org/nsa-france/

French press : http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2015/07/03/hollande-ne-veut-pas-accueillir-assange_1342691

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. I would suggest the following phrasing : "In 2015 he was a legal advisor for WikiLeaks in France"

___

"Aurélie Filippetti, who refused him a position of chief of staff after the election[citation needed]"

Here is a relevant source : https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/transports/gilets-jaunes/des-grandes-ecoles-aux-gilets-jaunes-en-passant-par-wikileaks-qui-est-juan-branco-l-auteur-de-crepuscule-en-guerre-contre-macron_3421861.html

Also happens to qualify him as "megalomaniac, mythomaniac and very, very manipulative". Ebtpmus (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of Deneuve: Reading the source, it appears that it reports a declaration of Branco itself. So, his relationship with Deneuve is not reliably sourced.

The status of Branco at ENS was formerly called "auditeur libre" and corresponds exactly to the status of an audit student. So, I have replaced uninteresting (for non-French people) details by "audit strudent".

For wikileaks, could you propose a text, and, maybe, implement it yourself boldy D.Lazard (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

For your consideratin @Nemov, @Delfield@D.Lazard

@Bbb23 : for your consideration too. As I see you are editing this page. Ebtpmus (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Delfield : I am not sure your recent updates are formulated in an unbiased language.

Maybe commenting / aligning here as a first step would be more helpful.

Some examples of things that I find problematic :

- Sonko affair is literally one month old, and still evolving : does this belong to the summary ?

- Wikileaks : what you write in asylum is not supported by the source

- rape accusations : you add a whole bunch of "he said" that is not independently confirmed to a fairly neutral formulation, also removing the essence of the accusation (rape).

- self-promotion on wikipedia replaced by watered-down "activity" and latest developments removed. Ebtpmus (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The Sonko affair seems important enough to me, I don't know, you can delete if you think otherwise and we will see. I guess I took the summary of his work about Wikileaks from French Wikipedia: could you verify the sources there and tell me what is wrong? I don't take what he says from something he wrote directly but from a secondary source. His defense in a serious accusation like rape absolutely needs to be there for neutrality. If there are additional elements by the prosecutor, you can put them too. The latest threats are not reported on newspaper, I don't think Wikipedia policies allow us to put it in the article, and it's not only promotion. People can read, that's the aim on an encyclopedia, whether we like or not what he does, "activity" is neutral imo. Delfield (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Delfield

- Wikileaks : I am yet to see any source supporting this claim of involvement in asylum process with French authorities. The quoted source does not.

I had also seen these :

https://wikileaks.org/nsa-france/

http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2015/07/03/hollande-ne-veut-pas-accueillir-assange_1342691

Which doesn't support it either and point to a fairly casual role of legal advisor and much looser connection to Assange 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.

It must also be noted that Branco wasn't even a lawyer at the time, so his legal ability to represent Assange at the time is dubious.

As to the rape accusation : simply put, after you've removed the title and rephrased the paragraph, it is very confusing and harldy clear anymore until the last line what he is accused of.

It's full of "he said" (his lawyer said) which his not corroborated by anybody impartial in that matter from the sources I had seen so far. Previous formulation was short concise and factual. Ebtpmus (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I find it very clear. It does not said that the woman herself accused him of rape, she made a declaration and the judge opened an inquiry for rape. People can read and when there is no condemnation, for such a crime, you have to state what is his defense. Delfield (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I did a fair amount of cleansing throughout the article : removal of insignificant details, undoing some of the recent whitewashing, removing some unsubstantiated claims, etc.

Comments welcome. Ebtpmus (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Intervention of the person involved

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.

---

Dear all,

I am Juan Branco. I'd like to let know Ebtpmus and Lazard that criminal complaints have been filled against them in France for deffamation and cyberharassment. These two individuals have obsesively, and with quite some success, intervened to try to hinder my reputation and career in the last years using this page, relating mainly on the reputation of D.LAZARD in the field of mathematics to drown his obsession on me.

Unlike what has been purported by them, I haven't intervened in this WP page, or any for that matter, in years. On the other hand, these two users have made hundreds of contributions since february 2019 on this page, to make sure it would appear as derogatory as possible, eliminating any positive or neutral information. Before hand, the page was consensual, and I participated to it openly, under my own name and another account explicitely linked to it, never through any other account. It has never become since, and has become filled with derogatory and false informations, which of course have consequences. I quit wikipedia because of the action of these two individuals, which started in february 2019, just after the "Griveaux Case", for which I was falsely accused for years, and which resulted in an extremely violent campaign of deffamation. https://www.dna.fr/faits-divers-justice/2023/06/09/la-cour-d-appel-de-paris-annule-un-blame-inflige-a-l-avocat-juan-branco

I find it embarassing that a 80 years old university professor plays those tricks against a former student of his alma mater, accompanied by another French anonymous person. I wonder what pleasure they take in trying to destroy a young person. Or whom pushes them for it.

I wonder also why the community tolerates such behaviors.

I will not intervene further and not try to correct the many false assumptions made in this page. I feel ashamed for those who participate to this games and whom have, successfuly, managed to destroy part of my life.

Yours — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.167.211.53 (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

On the talk page link, the befitting answer. Thanks @NinjaRobotPirate

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making legal threats or taking legal action. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. (...) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Ebtpmus (talk) 20:31, 25 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2023

Here are a few suggestions, with sources, some important, some less:

Please change CHANGE

"He studied as undergraduate at Sciences Po and as graduate and PhD student at the École normale supérieure, where he was audit student."

TO "He studied as undergraduate at Sciences Po and as graduate and PhD laureate from the École normale supérieure, where he had been a graduate student."

JUSTIFICATION: Juan Branco was "étudiant normalien" at l'ENS Ulm" and received his diploma from l'ENS in 2013. He was not "audit" student: https://www.archicubes.ens.fr/lannuaire#annuaire_chercher?identite=branco

Please ADD "He defended his PhD at l'École normale supérieure in 2014, on the Germain Katanga ICC's case , and was recruited as a Senior research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for International Law. His doctoral studies received a prize from the International Criminal Court and the French Constitutional Council. He was then invited at Sapienza University.."

JUSTIFICATION/FURTHER SOURCES: https://www.ens.psl.eu/sites/default/files/LettreInfo_ENS_Janvier2016_WEB.pdf https://www.mpi.lu/news-and-events/latest-news/detail/detail/juan-branco-awarded-for-his-phd-dissertation/

Please DELETE "Branco has also 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 "in reality he was an intern...and then worked at the OTP Public Information Unit".[48]

JUSTIFICATION: The GQ article which is used a a source was retracted and deleted, after proof was provided the information was false. No other source seems to exist on this matter. Branco released this letter from the ICC Prosecutor clearing him from the accusation: https://aurores.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Juan-Branco-letter.jpg

Please ADD Category: Intellectual work

Relying on his academic research and field work, he authored two essays on mass violence, published in 2016 and 2017 by Alain Badiou and Michel Surya..

In 2017, he authored a book, "Contre Macron", in which he severely attacked the President, accusing him of following an authoritarian path.

In 2019 he published the book "Crépuscule", a pamphlet in which he criticized the French president, which sold more than 130,000 copies and was a best seller in France.

In 2020, he published a philosophical essay on Julian Assange.

As a journalist, Branco authored an investigation on the Uramin case in 2015. He also covered the Kivu conflict, Yemen and the Central African Republic Civil War for Le Monde diplomatique and Les Inrockuptibles.

Please CHANGE "In 2018 he outed his former classmate and government spokesman Gabriel Attal on Twitter as gay.[12]" TO "In 2018 he affirmed that the nomination of his former class-mate Gabriel Attal to the government resulted from his relationship with President's adviser Stephane Séjourné, hinting at a nepotism case. He was accused of outing the two individuals."

JUSTIFICATION: The sole source used is an interview with BRANCO in which he states that never spoke of the sexual preferences of Gabriel ATTAL.

Please CHANGE

"Branco's book Crépuscule, in which he criticized the Emmanuel Macron, was published in 2019. It was commercially successful but received mostly negative reviews in the French press.[14][15][16][17][18][19]" TO Branco's book Crépuscule, in which he criticized Emmanuel Macron and the role of oligarchs and their media in his ascent, was published in 2019. It was commercially successful but received mostly negative reviews in the French press.[14][15][16][17][18][19]. Among others, Litterature Nobel Prize Annie Ernaux praised it stating it was the most daunting and staggering piece of writing on the backstage of Emmanuel Macron's election".

SOURCE: https://actualitte.com/livres/1522241/crepuscule-juan-branco-9791030705577

Please ADD into "Political and legal activity" chapter

In 2012, he became adviser to the French minister for foreign affairs

SOURCE: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/transports/gilets-jaunes/des-grandes-ecoles-aux-gilets-jaunes-en-passant-par-wikileaks-qui-est-juan-branco-l-auteur-de-crepuscule-en-guerre-contre-macron_3421861.html

In 2012, he became a lector and visiting researcher at Yale, both at the French Department and Yale Law School.

SOURCE: https://www.philomag.com/articles/juan-branco-un-frondeur-qui-secoue-le-droit-international https://revuecharles.fr/100-politique/juan-branco-une-grosse-production/ https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/transports/gilets-jaunes/des-grandes-ecoles-aux-gilets-jaunes-en-passant-par-wikileaks-qui-est-juan-branco-l-auteur-de-crepuscule-en-guerre-contre-macron_3421861.html PRIMARY SOURCE: https://campuspress.yale.edu/juanbranco/cv/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160516184101/http://www.mpi.lu:80/the-institute/senior-research-fellows/juan-branco/

In 2022, he became the lawyer of LaLiga in France.

SOURCE: https://www.lefigaro.fr/sports/football/espagne/foot-juan-branco-avocat-de-la-liga-veut-demander-l-abrogation-du-contrat-de-mbappe-20220617

Please CHANGE

"In 2015 he was part of the legal team in France of WikiLeaks and participated in the negociations to seek asylum in France for Julian Assange[verification needed], with whom he had met in 2009.[8]"

to "He was the part of the legal team in France of WikiLeaks and participated in the negociations to seek asylum in France for Julian Assange[verification needed], whom spoke of him as his "lawyer" and "friend".[8]"

I don't think he met Assange in 2009. In a video of 2016, Assange presents him as a "friend" and his "lawyer". In 2015, he's on the WL website. I think this is what should be there. French WP has a lot of other sources.

/SOURCE (ENGLISH): https://twitter.com/anatolium/status/1645306616038965248 https://wikileaks.org/nsa-france/

Please CHANGE As a student, Branco supported former right-wing Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, a friend of his mother's.[4] TO Delete?

JUSTIFICATION: The source does not substantiate this claim. It sounds rather that it was a personnal proximity than a political involvement. Rather delete or change 2A01:CB04:B16:B300:65A2:8776:78A4:B37F (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Several points here are not factually correct. I will explain in details shortly, but please refrain from enacting those changes for a little while. Ebtpmus (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this looks to be another attempt by the subject of this article to influence its content without disclosing their COI. @Ebtpmus, feel free to overrule me on this, but for now I will remove this from the edit request queue. Thanks, Xan747 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

New uncoordinated changes - August 2023

To the attention of @Southdevonianand @Neo Trixma

CC : @Nemov @Delfied @D.Lazard

I noticed you came to this page, seemingly new as I haven't seen you editing here before, and started to make a lot of changes without previously discussing it.

As you will see from this discussion page, this is a highly debated article and it would be great to align here, especially if the changes you are making are reverting on the semi-stable previously agreed consensus.

Also considering that some of the changes you are making do not seem terribly useful.

e.g. reinstating repeatedly that he asked Mrs. Fillipetti for an "office manager" position, when the source clearly states that the role he demanded was that of "chief of staff" which is a well defined official public position.

e.g. adding a profusion of details on the actuality in Senegal or general judgmental comments on the Rebeuss prison in general : off-topic

So maybe let's make an effort to align here on changes. Ebtpmus (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There's too many single purpose editors on this article, that includes you @Ebtpmus. I welcome @Southdevonian's contributions to help with this article. Nemov (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. However alignment is the way to avoid another edit war. Ebtpmus (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an issue at this time. Please do not ping me in the future. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• @delfield, if you have issues please discuss them in TALK. You coming here every so often and deleting everything you don't like isn't helpful and frankly it's disruptive. Nemov (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is obvious gaslighting again Nemov.

  Anyone can verify that you are stating the opposite of the truth. YOU delete content, I ADD back what you want to be deleted. Your version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&oldid=1169182548 My version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&oldid=1169185104 Delfield (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

POV pushing by Nemov

@Nemov has a history of POV pushing in favor of Branco, like when he was in favor of obvious extreme promotional content in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Branco#RFC_:_Which_status_quo_to_build_on? You are not an admin either.

Now, he claims that I want to DELETE content while HE just does that:

His version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&oldid=1169182548

My version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&oldid=1169185104

Could neutral users, like Ebtpmus, Xan747, @D.Lazard, give their input?

Nemov is insisting again in deleting relevant content that are not putting the subject in a good light, and @Bbb23 I do not think "siding" with him is a good choice. I mostly put back in the article content that were there for years and that were removed by users who put in the article that Branco "came to prominence" instead of "gained notoriety" for example, obviously approved by Nemov.

--Delfield (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have specific issues with the changes @Southdevonian made please discuss those here instead of just making mass deletions. Your accusations and insisting editors are "taking sides" suggests that you are not assuming good faith. I don't know who Juan Branco and frankly don't care. Our job as editors is to present this present the WP:RS with due weight in a NPOV. What's relevant to you may not be to others, please find consensus. Nemov (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can see that you are not telling the truth by talking AGAIN of "mass deletion" by me, even though I just explained above that it is the opposite. YOU and this user are doing mass deletion. I hope an admin can see that. Here is the change I would like to do (the last self-revert was so that I would be accused of edit-warring): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=1169185104&oldid=1169181750 --Delfield (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the mix up, I meant mass addition of content that had been edited by another editor (in this case an experienced editor named Southdevonian). Instead of discussing your disagreements with that editor you just made major changes disregarding the good faith edits. Please concentrate on the content dispute and stop with the WP:ASPERSIONS. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's maybe stop the name calling. and try to get practical / specific on some points.

"prominence" : the state of being important, well known or easy to notice, a young actor who has recently risen to prominence. (cambridge)

He is somewhat known but he is by no mean a prominent figure. The vast majority of people in France probably wouldn't know who he is.

As such "gained some recognition" is IMHO more suitable. (PS I wasn't aware of the bad connotation of notoriety in English, "notoriété" in French has no such pejorative meaning)

Hollande / Filipetti : what is in the article now is misleading. Filipetti was at the time a simple MP and not in charge of anything about culture and media. She only became Culture Minstry at a later time.

It is Branco who was part of a campaign team addressing "culture and media". He was adminstratively attached to Filipetti.

I have already explain "office manager". French ministries have deputies / second in command which are called "directeur de cabinet" (which translates as "chief of staff", see google translate). "directeur de cabinet" is explicitly mentioned by the source as the role he demanded. It is a well defined official position. "office manager" means nothing.

Sonko affair : correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe this is meant to be a newsfeed updated hourly with the latestt development on this current affair. So I don't believe constant updates with the latest status are warranted.

2021 affair : I find the previous formulation was clearer and more balanced.

2023 affair : the simplification is nice

Wikipedia : I hear that "Twitter is not reliable" but the deleted statements came from Branco's account himself

As it is, it is enough anyway for such small story.

Crepuscule : "as a president whose election depended on the support of oligarchs and media barons" this is some "Branco said". Formulation treats this as a establish fact.

The editorial story of the book (Denis Robert etc) is of meager interest. Ebtpmus (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov is once again doing POV pushing. I tried to implement Ebtpmus comments on top of some proposal of changes, but he reverted everything, in spite of what is written here. An admin should intervene.

What are the opinions on: – the other accusations of dishonesty: claim to have been chief of staff and to have been a lecturer - the skyblog thing – Filippeti’s comment – the two versions about the labor law issue ?

--Delfield (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Southdevonian: could you provide a source about the official formulation "in English", knowing that English is the language of many countries with many laws? We are not at the times of the colonies anymore, Britain is not ruling the word. In your version, she made "a claim", but you need to provide information about what claim we are talking about. --Delfield (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)