Talk:Juan Branco

POV pushing by Nemov and Southdevonian

@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)

If you believe you have a valid issue with my edits take your complaints to WP:ANI, otherwise quit accusing me of not working in good faith. I will not tolerate any more WP:ASPERSIONS from you. Nemov (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that you do not participate in ANY discussion on substance – except when it comes to siding with sockpuppets – but you revert edits and act as if you were an admin even though you are not, and I do not know why Bbb23 considers I am the one edit warring even though I have been extensively participating in talk page and I am the one implementing what the majority of users want, even though some might not been always following each new attempt to change things in a artificial way. --Delfield (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, quit accusing editors of bad faith and discuss the topic. When multiple editors are asking you to be nice, maybe you should listen. Nemov (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying we should "discuss the topic", but could you provide a diff of the last time you actually did, instead of trying to act like an admin and ONLY discussing behaviors and administrative stuff? Delfield

@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 world. 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)

• As far as the content in dispute. Unless there's multiple third party coverage of contentious information about this person it shouldn't be included here. After watching this article for a few weeks it appears there's a battle of two extremes. One side attempting to remove all contentious material and another adding as much as possible. The answer is obviously in the middle so far so we need to decide what is due. The current version of the article is pretty good. If people would like to make additions please outline them. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is a source [1]. Making a claim in an employment tribunal means that you are officially filing the documents to take your employer to court. I am willing to answer questions on language, but I would appreciate it if you would try not to be offensive when asking them. On the subject of language, the term "chief of staff" is purely a military one in British English (I think!). It may have a slightly wider use in American English. Southdevonian (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

To : @Southdevonian

https://translate.google.com/?sl=fr&tl=en&text=chef%20de%20cabinet&op=translate

https://www.culture.gouv.fr/en/Know-us/Organisation-du-ministere/The-Minister-s-Office Ebtpmus (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

So you are confirming Southdevonian that you are trying to impose very specific britishisms in the article. British English is not "the" English, this is neocolonialism and this is wrong. --Delfield (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Still to @Southdevonian:

" and the business oligarchs and media proprietors who supported his presidential campaign" : you have reinstated that change on several occasion. But this is not fact, it is Branco's plot theory. The way you formulate makes it look like an established fact, but frankly I don't believe that belongs to the introduction and IMHO not in the article.

On the Attal affair, you added : "he responded (...) circles rather than to Attal's sexual orientation, which he assumed was already in the public domain". This is a from the source (which is not a high quality source BTW : a totally unknown webpaper) which is an interview from Branco : it is literally "give us your version of the affair". Furthermore, "which he assumed was already in the public domain" is even contradicted by the source itself and Branco himself who complains that it is NOT known to the public while in essence constitutes conflict of interest. Ebtpmus (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that. And Southdevonian is not as an experienced user as Nemov says, like Nemov himself. He removed content added and approved by D.Lazard who has more than 30.000 edits whereas Southdevonian has 3000 and Nemov 4000. We are three users in favor of the older version, against Nemov who never talks about content but only as an admin (which he is not) making moderation (and doing so on false information and siding with extremely promotional suckpuppets edits) and Southdevonian who has very specific views about "the" true English and adds very one-sided arguments like saying that Branco "attacked the oligarchy" based on Branco’s sole words instead of just saying that he criticized people who, "according to him", did this or that. --Delfield (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, stop WP:ASPERSIONS. It is not to you to juge the experience of other editors nor to comment their behavior and their supposed motivations. Also, you must assume good faith to other editors (the title of this section breaks this Wikipedia policy).

Also, you suppose wrongly that I disapprove Southdevonian's version, because I approved a minor change of the older version. On the contrary, my opinion is that Southdevonian's version is much better than the older ones. This does not mean that it cannot be improved and, apparently, Southdevonian himself still works to improve it.

Apparently, there are four users who approve Southdevonian's version, (myself, Nemov, Southdevonian and Bbb23 who has reverted to this version) against two (Delfield and possibly Ebtpmus). So the consensus is clear, this thread must be closed, and further discussion must focus on specific points and appear in specific sections. D.Lazard (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

For a discussion of British v American English please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Contributing which also contains a link to a more detailed discussion in the Manual of Style. Because Juan Branco does not have strong ties to either Britain or America, I have used British English as France and Britain are closer to each other than France and US. There are not vast differences - a few spellings (behaviour and behavior) and a few words that are different (pavement and sidewalk). Nothing sinister about it. Are there actually any editors from US here? Nemov? And could I please ask you again Delfield to be civil. Southdevonian (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that this "chief of staff" question has anything to do with British vs. US English. If that's what we are discussing here. It is also commonly used in a non-military context in UK : https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-pm-johnson-appoints-steve-barclay-chief-staff-2022-02-05/ Ebtpmus (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, that was the exception I was going to mention. The prime minister (as well as the Military) has a chief of staff but it is a position for a member of parliament (MP) in the cabinet (the group of MPs at the head of government). Steve Barclay is an MP. The position coveted by Branco was not one reserved for a Deputy. So the prime minister has a chief of staff (a position for a highly ranked MP) while MPs have office managers. Southdevonian (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Well that's exactly the context in France, except the expression is not only in use for the PM but also any other ministries, which is what we are talking about and an identical role. The English version of web site of the French ministry of culture (I posted earlier a link) even uses this denomination for the appointed person. And I find it a lot more appropriate that "office manager" which gives the idea of some lesser admin role or facility manager of some kind. Ebtpmus (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Still no. Branco demanded the role once Filipetti became Culture Ministry. We are indeed talking of a chief of staff as a ministerial position. Not in the context of an MP.

I mean no disrespect : but how fluent are you in French ? Because this is really made abundantly clear in the source that we are discussing... Ebtpmus (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Southdevonian I have observed the recent changes and they are helpful. Thanks.

The one big remaining issue is the sentence on Hollande / Filipetti : it is just not consistent with the source.

I could suggest something like this :

In 2012 Branco worked for the presidential campaign of François Hollande (Socialist Party), part of a workgroup on culture and medias, while formally attached to the office of deputy Aurélie Filippetti. But he fell out with Filipetti when she did not give him the position of Ministry Chief of Staff once she became Culture Minister. Ebtpmus (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I read French fluently. I have read all the references in the original. I do not use Google translate. Obviously it is easier to translate into your own language than out of it. Problems arise over technical terms that may have no equivalent in another language. For example I am still trying to work out if a main courante has an equivalent in British (or American) law. By the way Emmanuel Macron has an "Oxford spelling" tag and François Hollande has a "British English" tag so it seems to be customary. Southdevonian (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Correction - Steve Barclay was apparently unusual - the office is more usually held by an unelected official Downing Street Chief of Staff. I am still looking to see what Ministers have. Southdevonian (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have found a recent official document which explains it all [2]

"All ministers – from cabinet members to parliamentary secretaries – are provided with the support of a team of civil servants who form their ‘private office’. Led by a principal private secretary (PPS) or, in junior ministers’ offices, a head of office typically managed by the PPS, this small team of private secretaries remains in place regardless of government of the day or any reshuffles"

So the top position for a senior minister is principal private secretary. But it would appear that - perhaps unlike in France - ministers do not get to choose their PPS. I think using the term PPS in this article would probably just confuse people. Chief of staff will be understood by American readers but might jar with readers from other countries due to military connotations. Can't we just scrap the title and say he didn't get the plum job? Southdevonian (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

In order to keep things civil, and while I am also sometimes puzzled by some of the interventions of Nemov (and others), there is also a couple point I'd like to stress.
First it's the issue of language. Some of us mat not be entirely fluent in French and the fact remains that 99% of the sources happen to be in that language. And some of the recent conflictual changes may have their root in a misunderstanding of the original source.
Second is that Nemov mentioned finding a middle ground. And I am willing to believe that some of his edits may arise from the desire to find that middle ground. The issue is there is no rationale to a middle ground between a falsehood and the truth. And I believe that we should really focus on debating and reaching a common understanding here. And I have tried hard in recent time to do this rather than engaging in edit war, but felt some lack of engagement in that process other contributors. I understand it may seem time consuming but I am convinced it will be more productive in the long term.
Third, some of us may be underestimating the amount of lies that this talented mythomaniac has managed to get printed even in legit newspapers, and let alone the less professional / diligent media. That's why I previously advocated to take utmost care even when something is printed in a seemingly reputable media. Ebtpmus (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The following quote suggests you may be unable to edit this article from a neutral perspective:

some of us may be underestimating the amount of lies that this talented mythomaniac and pathological liar has managed to get printed

The article should be balanced and contentious material should only be included if it's received significant coverage by multiple reliable sources and are central to the biography of Juan Branco. My 10,000 feet view of this subject that Southdevonian's edits have been sensible. It's not our job to determine the truth, we just summarize the content based on reliable sources. Nemov (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Consider everything reported on this talk page : embellishment of CV, self-promotion on WP, claims by Branco of academic achievements that have been proven wrong, claims of holding positions (International Court of Justice) that the organisation itself denied he ever occupied, claims of holding an academic role at ENS which the organisation confirmed he hadn't, also usage of Sockepuppet accounts, threats to editors and tell me in good faith that pointing out he is a mythomaniac / liar is not relevant. Nor that it calls for utmost caution in trying to separate the weed from the chaff in all the information and sources we have about Branco.

As to your recommendations above, I believe this exactly what I have advocated for in recent times, and tried really hard to do rather than engaging in an edit war.

I have on multiple occasions tried to discuss content here. Not everybody (including you) has engaged in discussing the content here on the talk page in the same fashion. Ebtpmus (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As to your last statement : ". It's not our job to determine the truth, we just summarize the content based on reliable sources." It is something that I take issue of. Unless I misunderstood the whole point of Wikipedia, we should care of what is true and what is not. Even if the later find it's way into (usually) reliable sources. Ebtpmus (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This may help you understand:

Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project written primarily by amateurs, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia. Nemov (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user: After I reviewed the report at WP:ANI, and the above statement, in my beliefs, the edit warring over the 2019 book controversy, the complaint by a woman, and the Senegalese participation, should stop. In my concerns to @Delfield, who added statements through French sources, they are not assuming good faith and sort of complaining around here. In comparisons to the diffs above, @Nemov seems to break a citation, while in Delfield's revision, they added a statement in action, not passive tense. A similar report is added in Admin Noticeboard/Edit warring. I hope this goes resolved. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 15:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Since D.Lazard, who actually talks in talk page (I am still waiting for the last time Nemov discussed substance), sided with the last modification, I have no problem to say that this is the majority view and to stop editing in the other way. I was just trying to discuss and I actually started discussions on made a list of differences to have opinions about them. I was not the one edit-warring and it is ok to discuss policy (not only that though, Nemov, it is not a question of assuming bad faith but to point out that you should discuss content in talk page, which you never do, instead on solely policing other editor’s behavior and reverting other user’s edits).

I will just add on content that I am very astonished that people actually insist that saying that someone makes "a claim", without detail on what claim, is adapted to an encyclopedia, with the sole reasoning of very specific vocabulary of England. I still think it was pretty improper to call what is done in Britain "in English".

Besides that comment I have no special interest in the subject and don’t intend to look at it carefully.

--Delfield (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Lawyer of Jean-Luc Mélenchon and ICC submission

Hi D.Lazard, I don't think you can call being Jean-Luc Mélenchon's lawyer and filing an ICC submission "details" Neo Trixma (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they are promotional details: he has been one of Melanchon's lawyer during a short time, without, apparently, any factual result. An ICC submission, would not be a detail if it were accepted, which, for the moment, it is not the case. Mentioning these details leads to give to Branco more importance that he has in reality. This breaks Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). D.Lazard (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Melenchon*. Looking at this talk page, I see many strange things, is it true that you are a professor at the school Branco attended (Ecole Normale Supérieure)? Neo Trixma (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not discuss other editors and particularly do not ask personal questions. Focus on article content. I am an uninvolved administrator who saw this page mentioned on a noticeboard and am watching this page to assist with advice regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I just found that strange, but sorry. About the content: he was Melenchon's lawyer for at least 6 months and several sources still call him "former Melenchon lawyer". As for ICC, I add it back with AP news source which shows it is no "detail" (although I see another case in the article sourced with "leral.net" which seems like a detail and I suggest to take it out). Neo Trixma (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Intro changes

The sentence about the book had become a bit clunky so I abridged it. In French the book is described as a pamphlet and polemic is about the best translation I could think of since the word pamphlet in English has a different meaning. And I added more about his political background since the first sentence refers to him as a political activist. Southdevonian (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we should keep the sentence about the thesis of the book (which according to the Slate source is partly true). Also, he is more often described as a lawyer than political activist imo Neo Trixma (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a paragraph about the book in the Writing section. I am trying to find a compromise with the introduction so that it can remain reasonably stable. Southdevonian (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV we must not support Branco point of view in any way. As the present formulation is perfectly neutral and describes well the objective of the book, it must be kept as it is.

Maybe some sources describe him as a lawyer rather than a political activism, most sources (and Branco himself) describe him as a political activist who use his status of lawyer for his political activities. D.Lazard (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't care about what Branco says or his "objective". The Slate source says : "The author provides an interesting cartography of the networks of power in France, but seems to be making do with the truth." The underlined (neutral) should be in intro imo.

As for lawyer/activist, I disagree : most sources describe him as a lawyer. Neo Trixma (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Legal career section

I think there a danger that this section begins to look like a CV if it just lists everything Branco has been involved in or every complaint he has made. There may have been an outcome to the ICC complaint - I will look for reliable sources. If the matter was investigated it deserves to go in. If not, then it doesn't. Southdevonian (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I have found what happened to the complaint:

"In 2020, the ICC Chief Prosecutor confirmed to the EU Parliament that the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) was bringing a case. Shortly after that, the Prosecutor confirmed that the case had been declared admissible. To this day (2022), we are still waiting for the investigation to progress." Page 50 fn 40 here [3]

It might be a long wait. In the meantime - in or out? I have another concern about putting it in - it is not clear how much Branco contributed to the complaint. It is signed by Omer Shatz and Branco. Shatz seems to specialise in this area of law, while Branco does not - so it is not important from the point of view of Branco's evolution as a lawyer. Also - it was a student project at SciencesPo and eight students are named on the front page of the complaint so I guess they did much of the legwork.

If it goes in there is a better 2019 source here [4] Southdevonian (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"The two main authors of the submission are Juan Branco, who formerly worked at the ICC as well as at France’s foreign affairs ministry, and Omer Shatz" (from your source The Guardian). This + the 2nd ICC filing against Macky Sall in 2023 are the reasons why it is important. Waiting for the outcome of the investigation would mean taking out the rape accusation and the ex-employee case. Neo Trixma (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Added the ICC case with The Guardian, since you left other minor cases under investigation in the article (with "leral.net") Neo Trixma (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

CV disputes

The version that I proposed was: "He has been accused of embellishing his CV on multiple occasions. For example, he claimed to have worked as a special assistant to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court when, according to the Court, he was an intern. He claimed to have been chief of staff of the French Minister of Culture and Communications Aurélie Filippetti, but Filippetti denied it. She later stated that he "demanded to be hired as her chief of staff at age 22", that he "completely lost it when he was refused the position", and told her that he recorded their conversations. She describes him as "dangerous, intelligent and skillful", as "megalomaniacal, a compulsive liar and very, very manipulative". He claimed to have been a lecturer at the École normale supérieure, but the school clarified that it referred to an exercise for students that every student does." You can still find on his CV online that he was "chief of staff" of the MP and that he was teaching at the ENS and this was in the press. Is it not important enough to be noted? Is not such a strong comment of a minister worth noting? --Delfield (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

One sentence on embellishing his CV is enough. A lot of people embellish their CVs and he has never been accused of obtaining a position with fraudulent qualifications. The article should not be about promoting Branco, but neither should it be a collection of negative things people have said about him - even if they have been reported in the media. And it doesn't need to go into the minutiae of his quarrels with an ex-employer. Southdevonian (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100% with @Southdevonian. Nemov (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the GQ source seems to have been retracted because of false information. Do we have another source? I'm taking it out until there's another reliable source. Neo Trixma (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Where does it say that the GQ article was retracted because of false information.? Southdevonian (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

This GQ article no longer exists, while others about Branco that were published earlier still exist, so it " seems " like it, as I said. Anyway, it would take more than one source to put such an accusation in an article; my additions on ICC submission and legal cases were reverted as "details" although sourced multiple times. Also, why did you just add a source that isn't even a media outlet? Neo Trixma (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It just comes up with a 404 message, so wondered if there was some insider knowledge when you said it was retracted for false information. Sources on Wikipedia are not restricted to media outlooks - there are books, reports, academic articles, etc. I have seen Branco described as "médiatique" and "influenceur" but I am having a bit of difficulty - certainly as far as his legal career is concerned - in finding any substance behind the media presence. And therefore I am left wondering how much should go into the article. Southdevonian (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

404 and unfoundable on the internet, which means it has been suppressed. Oh okay, but the ICC pdf you added is not a book, report or academic article. Did other sources relay this information? If not, it certainly qualifies as a "detail". I don't understand the connection with "media presence" Neo Trixma (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Not writing at length on CV embellishment is a useful simplification.

However the current text is very misleading as it lets the reader assume that he only exaggerated his experience at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while he has done the same (and still does judging from his own published CV at Yale and Max Plack) on multiple other points :

- his role as academic at ENS, which he was not,

- his position at the ICC while he as just an intern,

- his position as chief of staff of Aurélie Filipetti

And others.

On the later point "In 2018, Branco was accused of outing his former classmate and government spokesman Gabriel Attal on Twitter as gay (...) which he assumed was already in the public domain." This is not consistent with what is in the source and the declarations of Branco himself contradict it.

He says he outed his relationship (to expose nepotism) assuming that whether heterosexual or homosexual should be irrelevant to anybody. Ebtpmus (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Roll back

@Neo Trixma, I started combing through your changes and there was a few things to object to starting with listing the birth city in the lead sentence. That's not necessary. There were other things as well an since the addition was so extensive I just rolled it back. It would be better to proceed slower so it's less chaotic. The article is in a good, stable position at the moment and doesn't need mass changes. Nemov (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, I will separate it by section. However, I have to disagree: I found many elements that were either far from the wording in the source, or not sourced Neo Trixma (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If it's not sourced I'm confused at how you're adding material? Unsourced material should be removed. Some of your changes added unnecessary details not central to this biography. Nemov (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I only arrived at this article a few days ago, I'm not responsible for all the content in it! Precisely, my edit was to remove/source/reformulate the unsourced material Neo Trixma (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Neo Trixma re my recent revert. When you set up a new account and came to this article a just days ago, the article was fine with everything bar a very minor point about the number of children in the family sourced. If you think there is any unsourced text then say so, please do not use it as an excuse to make extensive and partisan changes to the article. There is no unsourced text in the article now. And it is unfair on other editors to expect them to correct the English in your edits when the edits did not improve the article anyway. You agreed yesterday to edit one section at a time, but then made changes throughout the article. Southdevonian (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Partisan changes"? "Everything was sourced"... except children, "research fellow", "among others", "joined La France Insoumise" etc. which my edits took out or tried to source. Still unsourced atm: "continued as part of Pavlensky's defence", "invasion of privacy", "posted a link", Senegal ICC submission... Neo Trixma (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

So please stop making accusations and claims like "the article was fine" and "there is no unsourced content" Neo Trixma (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

All sourced:

Ref no 14. "Jeudi 5 mars, il annonçait reprendre la défense de l'activiste russe Piotr Pavlenski" and

"sa saisie est « cantonnée aux faits d'atteinte à l'intimité de la vie privée »"

17. "qu’ils estiment qu’« il a vraisemblablement joué un rôle actif dans la diffusion des vidéos litigieuses »"

There is no information in the article that is unsourced. Southdevonian (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

So:

Source not in the right place and

slight interpretation of the sentence (no mention of "arrested on [these] charges")

It doesn't say "posted a link".

And what about the Senegal ICC submission you ignored? Neo Trixma (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Neo Trixma, I agree with Southdevonian assessment above. You continue to make sweeping changes while calling them sourced and neutral. These changes aren't an improvement and your claims are debatable. Please do not make any more large changes without consensus. Nemov (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Fight against Hadopi

Hi Southdevonian, you reverted this info and said "source introduces HADOPI law in the context of his disagreement with Filippetti" but it's precisely because it's in the same sentence that it should be in the article as well as Filippetti's refusal imo. Actually, rereading the article again, Filippetti's refusal should be in "" Neo Trixma (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Date of birth and other infos

Hi, I found that date of birth and many infos are already on "Wikidata" but I don't know how to link/connect them to the article and infobox as in other articles, does anyone know? Neo Trixma (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

@Neo Trixma, I wonder if you would please stop using the word "neutralising" in your edit summaries. It is not appropriate and does not describe your edits. If you think there are any areas in the article that are straying from a neutral point of view, please feel free to flag them up here in Talk. And please do not keep inserting literally-translated words that do not sound right in English or that are simply superfluous. Perhaps you would be happier waiting until you have 30/500 and editing the French edition of the article? Southdevonian (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Nemov (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Southdevonian, just look at my big edit a few days ago, with this summary: "Neutralising: bringing wording closer to sources - title and subtitle if possible - adding a couple of sources where missing, taking out a sentence more about Pavlensky than Branco, detailing accusations/responses..." these are the areas/problems imo, it's not just about neutralising. I hear the English point Neo Trixma (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Paris Match unreliable on controversial claims

Southdevonian, please read this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gala (magazine) and Paris Match and in particular this: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Match#Les_ann%C3%A9es_2020 Paris Match is not a "high-quality reliable source" and therefore cannot be used for controversial claims (for which it is the only source) Neo Trixma (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Neo Trixma was trying to mislead someone on the Reliable sources noticeboard by claiming that Paris Match was a "gossip and 'celebrities on the beach' photo magazine" similar to Gala. In fact Paris Match is exactly what it says on its article: "a weekly news magazine [that] covers major national and international news along with celebrity lifestyle features." And all you have to do is look at the website [5] to confirm this. News (national and international), celebrities (including Royals) and not a beach in sight. I do not think there is an exact equivalent in Britain, the nearest I can think of is the weekend editions of newspapers such as The Guardian etc. Nobody except for Neo Trixma has said that Paris Match is not a high-quality reliable source. And of course it is not the only source for Branco's activity on Wikipedia. Southdevonian (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop the accusations. Looking at a website to confirm its reliability is... surprising. Perhaps you should look at the links I sent you instead, which are from independent sources. And stop making false allegations: others have also questioned Paris Match's reliability: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265#¡Hola! and Paris Match magazine which is indeed the only source for this 2014 e-mail Neo Trixma (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

On the above comment there is not an inch of validity in describing Match as a French equivalent of the Guardian. This is total nonsense. Match is a lot closer to Gala and British tabloids (though not as bad) as it is to the Guardian.

A completely different league altogether. Ebtpmus (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I said weekend edition. At the weekend broadsheets (that is, not tabloids) produce enlarged editions including magazines with articles about celebrities, cookery, etc. I made the comparison because, after browsing the supermarket magazine aisle, I couldn't find a British equivalent to Paris Match. Southdevonian (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable for controversial claims as per : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#ICC,_Paris_Match,_Seneweb Neo Trixma (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Double standard for sources

D.lazard, you are keeping content from a primary source while suppressing content from Radio France Internationale. Tell me who is "biaising"? Neo Trixma (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Is the whitewashing soon complete ?

Sorry guys, but I can help being utterly puzzled at what happening here. I keep seeing accusation being raised of uncoordinated and biased changes, double standards for sources etc and calls to alignment on the discussion page. Yet with literally dozens of daily changes and comments on the talk page, when I point out serious misrepresentations of the sources as to the Attal affair or CV embellishments, nothing of this gets answered or addressed and it stays there like it doesn't matter. And when something finally happens, it's that the "question of integrity" paragraph gets discarded altogether while we are graced with the super important information of the composition of Lamaline basically implying "it's only paracetamol after all".

In the meantime, to date :
- lying on role at ICC : gone
- lying on role as chief of staff of Filipetti ministry : gone
- Abdeslam : one lengthy paragraph to explain that approaching him could have been borderline legal (though highly unethical as per the source : the bar itself recommended sanctions) under some circumstances that the source itself clearly explains were not met and as such the case falls out of this exception. But the (proven wrong by the source) argument from Branco is transcribed here verbatim. And complete silence on the harsh criticism from the bar that is 95% of the source article.
- Attal outing : gone

Etc, etc. Ebtpmus (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to restore anything that you think should go in.

As for lamaline, I listed the ingredients "paracetamol, opium and caffeine" because the drug is not, I think, familiar to readers from some countries. In England at least it would look bad in a rape case if you had given someone a drug that in any way affects consciousness. Southdevonian (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ebtpmus, could you please quit throwing accusations around every time you don't like a change to this article? Given your edit history is only about this article, it stands to reason that you may not be the best arbitrator of neutrality about what's WP:DUE when it comes to this particular subject. Nemov (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov: you are the one casting aspersions about editors and their motivations all the time. How about you answer my arguments on their merit ? For once. And not about my edit history or supposed motivations.

Edits that have been exclusively on this talk page for quite some time now BTW. And as to the edits I made to the page itself, I don't believe that they were orientated in any way. But feel free to comment specifically on points or suggestions that I have made, instead of remaining comfortably vague. Ebtpmus (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. But D.Lazard took the side of this whitewashing that is totally similar to the previous one he was against: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juan_Branco&diff=prev&oldid=1169342802 Perhaps he was afraid of the legal threats.

The structure of the page as it is now comes from me actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=1167727513&oldid=1167249173 I was just noticing that some things were disappearing and putting them back and trying to discuss them in talk page, and then Nemov, who acts an admin (reverting a lot but never ever discussing content), reverted me, and bizarrely D.Lazard took the same position, against his own reverts (he would put back the content on the CV etc. in the past.

If D. Lazard agrees with that, there is nothing one can do. Delfield (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"Droit de réponse" to L'express

Southdevonian, if you have reading access to l'Express (which you seem to have since you added the accusation on WP), you should also add the "droit de réponse" of Branco if he answers to this accusation : https://www.lexpress.fr/politique/droit-de-reponse-de-juan-branco_2074683.html Neo Trixma (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This is literally a "right of response" from Branco himself. 100% "he said" and as such should warrant carefulness. What is the precise point that should be "sourced" from there ? Ebtpmus (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If he denied having sent the 2014 e-mail Neo Trixma (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Added the denials Neo Trixma (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Picking sentences from the middle of articles

Southdevonian, how can it be neutral to pick out a controversial sentence from the middle of a source analysing a book by Branco (Le Point) without even using that source to actually analyse the book? Neo Trixma (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks more like a paragraph to me. And it doesn't matter if it comes from the beginning, middle or end of the article, or if other material in the article has been used or not. Perhaps I will add this one: "His CV is one that would be difficult to render credible in fiction."[6] Even if it is one sentence from the middle of an article about something else. Southdevonian (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Addtional citation required As per WP:BLPPUBLIC sent by @Nemov: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Else it has to be deleted quickly as per WP:BLPBALANCE sent by Nemov Neo Trixma (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Intro

The intro should be a summary of rest of article. No need for refs in intro as text is referenced in the rest of article. I have removed this sentence "First and foremost, Emmanuel Macron and his party; he exposed the private lives of several of its members in order to reveal "nepotism"." because it introduces something new (and the usual problems with English). Also, can anyone explain this: "As a legal advisor of Wikileaks and Julian Assange between 2015 and 2019, he stood unsuccessfully in the 2017 French legislative election as a candidate for the left wing populist party La France Insoumise." Was there a specific connection between his candidature and Assange? Otherwise sentence should be separated.Southdevonian (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes here for example: https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/legislatives-un-avocat-de-wikileaks-insoumis-laboure-le-9-3--24-05-2017-2129908_23.php Neo Trixma (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You have not understood my question. No-one is disputing the fact that Branco stood for Parliament while he was on Assange's legal team. But the sentence at the moment suggests that he was standing on an Assange platform, which according to the Lepoint article, he was not. I will change the sentence. Southdevonian (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay, then it should be rather "He was a legal advisor... and stood..." Neo Trixma (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Best as two sentences. It is fine how it is now. Southdevonian (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Interview from "Socialist Lawyer" is primary source

Southdevonian, picking out a phrase said by someone in an interview is primary in my understanding. If none of the secondary sources that published the information about the ICC submission mentioned the "students", then it is a detail. Neo Trixma (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

And if Shatz was saying something controversial in the interview then it would need to be treated with caution. But he is not - he is simply being decent and giving credit where credit is due, just as he has given credit to Branco. And we know it is true because we have seen the document. So no problem in including it.

In general all the edits of Neo Trixma are in the direction of trying to turn this into a promo job for Branco but this one baffles me slightly. After all, there is nothing inherently wrong with collaborating with students - it could even be seen as positive, showing that someone has teamwork skills. But this determination to remove the students rather than, like Shatz, acknowledging their contribution, makes it look as if Branco is hogging the credit and does not reflect well on him. Southdevonian (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but since you ask "in or out?" about additions with multiple secondary sources, as in Talk:Juan Branco#Legal career section, which another contributor even reverted because "details"; you cannot argue that primary content from an interview that is not in any other source is relevant. I'm trying to make this article neutral; your opinion about Branco is yours and doesn't belong in this article. Neo Trixma (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

D.Lazard, you reverted and called "detail" being Mélenchon's lawyer and an ICC submission which had several secondary sources, but now you force to have a detail from a primary interview included in the article? I already pointed out your double standard for sources previously here:Talk:Juan Branco#Double standard for sources Neo Trixma (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The interview in question is a primary source for most of its content, but not on the ICC submission. Here, this is a question of fairness and of WP:NPOV: If some work is mentioned in Wikipedia, the omission of some of its authors is totally inacceptable. It is the credibility of Wikipedia itself that is in question.

Another question is whether unsuccessful legal actions deserve to be listed, especially when is was evident from the beginning that they will necesseraly be unsuccessful, leading to suspect that their real objective is advertising for Branco. D.Lazard (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, please go ahead and tell The Guardian, Associated Press, Le Figaro, Le Monde, Spiegel, El Pais etc. your POV on what's fair and Branco's iCC submission. In the meantime, sorry, but I will trust secondary reliable sources to assess what's due on Wikipedia Neo Trixma (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the last Trixma's edit because

• "Reception" is meaningless as a section edit.
• It reverts my precedent revert without discussing the issue (removal of some authors of ICC submission. (Struck by D.Lazard (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC) )
• It systematizes the style "According to [this media] ...". This suggests wrongly that the media is a primary source; in one case (Grivaux affair), there are several other medias which said the same thing. In another case (harassement affair), this hides the fact that the "investigation" is based on a legal case (and even two, one at the legal court, and one at the labour court). In all the case, this suggests that this is "Branco against some media", which is Branco's point of view, a neutral point of view.

D.Lazard (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It didn't remove authors of ICC submission. After the third double standard, you are now purely lying. That's enough.

And see below section for authors of investigation. Neo Trixma (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Please, avoid WP:Personal attacks. Also, if you have any personal involvement with Branco, such as being a collaborator, you must mention it on your talk page and avoid to edit yourself the article (see WP:COI). D.Lazard (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I take back the "you are now purely lying"; you made a factually wrong statement about my edit. I have no personal involvement with Branco. If you do, for example having studied or worked in the same school, you should mention it on your talk page and avoid to edit yourself the article Neo Trixma (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Branco studied at the École Normale, 50 years after the end of my studies. Is this a conflict of interest? D.Lazard (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Undue Libération investigation based on ex-employee testimony?

It seems that this investigation, based on the testimony of an ex-employee (primary), has not been relayed by any other reliable secondary source. If that's the case, it's undue imo, or we would have to add interviews of Branco about his books as well Neo Trixma (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Suppressed as per WP:BLPPUBLIC sent by @Nemov: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Neo Trixma (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Are we talking about this ?

https://www.liberation.fr/societe/police-justice/au-cabinet-de-juan-branco-il-se-presente-en-defenseur-de-la-veuve-et-de-lorphelin-mais-derriere-il-exploite-ses-employes-20230712_QMON3PN7PFGGFO7P5CCETPEHKU/

It is also there, commented by Branco himself :

https://infodujour.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Intervention-VOLONTAIRE-12-JUIN-PRMX2110865A1.pdf

Or there :

https://www.senenews.com/actualites/societe/justice-societe/france-apres-le-gouvernement-une-dame-porte-plainte-contre-juan-branco_451171.html

And there :

https://www.leral.net/Enquete-Au-cabinet-de-Juan-Branco-il-se-presente-en-defenseur-de-la-veuve-et-de-l-orphelin-mais-il-m-a-exploitee_a351684.html

Also mentioned here that she actually won the case :

https://senegal7.com/france-juan-branco-vise-par-une-nouvelle-plainte/ Ebtpmus (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

"après avoir gagné son procès contre son ex patron Juan Branco qui l’a poursuivait pour un motif de chantage." Might that not refer to her "winning" the blackmail complaint because it was "classée sans suite"? My understanding is that the employment case is yet to come, unless of course they settle out of court. Southdevonian (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Authors of investigations

D.Lazard, you just argued above that "If some work is mentioned in Wikipedia, the omission of some of its authors is totally inacceptable". Yet you have just reverted - without any justification - the addition of authors of investigations: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=prev&oldid=1172019390. Could you explain? Neo Trixma (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Se above for the motivations of my revert. If you want to fix the format of reference, you can do it in a specific edit. No need to mix this in the middle of controversial edits. D.Lazard (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You mean the message that misrepresents my edit? As for authors, if you have other sources, just add them. And I don't understand your point about "hiding the legal case" from ex-employee since it's also in the article Neo Trixma (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Due Mediapart investigation reported by Le Point

D.Lazard how can you suppress the Mediapart CIA revelation reported by Le Point (2 sources) and, at the same time, argue that a legal case reported only by Libération (1 source) is due? Neo Trixma (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

How is this relevant ? This was part of the surveillance of Assange and target at him, not Branco.

Are we to mentioned "surveyed by CIA" about anybody Assange ever talked to ? Ebtpmus (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

D.Lazard struck his false statement... and added a question mark

I mean, I will continue to assume good faith and say that this question mark that D.Lazard added to his false statement retrospectively is just an unfortunate coincidence, but it's getting harder and harder: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juan_Branco&diff=prev&oldid=1172036605 Neo Trixma (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If you a behavioral issue with an editor take it to WP:ANI or the editor's TALK. This is the place for your accusations against others and frankly, you've already been sufficiently warned against this kind of thing. Nemov (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know where to go, sorry if it wasn't the right place, since it happened on this talk page I thought it might be relevant for other contributors to know and stay aware Neo Trixma (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Neo Trixma (now blocked as sockpuppet of Branco) changes

OK, so now it seems that Neo Trixma is blocked on the ground of being a sock puppet of Branco. Which should come as no surprise since the account was apparently created on July 30th, shortly after Imagritte was blocked, and with an activity about 50% on Branco. And given too the nature of the contributions, which produced a considerable amount of whitewashing, as previously pointed out.
So what is the next step ? Revert to a consensual version pre-sock puppet, or try to untangle the Gordian knot of recent changes made in large part by the sockpuppet ? Ebtpmus (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of that editor's changes have been discussed. No need to do anything major at this time. If there's something you object to change it. Nemov (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I beg to differ.

A lot of the changes by the sock-puppet are not good faith edits (that's the whole point of sock-puppet).

Some (not all) were discussed, mainly with @Southdevonian, who tried I good faith to meet the sock-puppet halfway. Issue is: meeting half-way somebody pushing lies into the article is not conducive of quality.

Those edits build-up to the whitewashing I previously pointed out. At what stage you ignored the obvious and raised some accusations against me instead.

The white-washing is nonetheless obvious: the edits gradually removed most content that could cast a negative light (entire sections disappeared) while on the few remaining contentious topics, most/all information on the substance of the cases held against Branco disappeared and was replaced by lengthy descriptions of the arguments/ claims made by Branco in his defense. Even some that are stated to be untrue by the mere source used as "proof" (eg. Abdeslam case: the newspaper states that Branco's arguments are factually untrue and disproves them, yet it is a thorough presentation of his arguments that made their way into the WP article without any mention of the newspaper's conclusion that it is an obvious misrepresentation of facts). Ebtpmus (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

PS : I am happy to edit the page, though I'd value some input/feedback/opinion from users involved in the content (rather than the moderation) beforehand. Ebtpmus (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have a specific issue make the change, but mass changes are not welcome. Nemov (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

In fairness, my first query about possible block evasion came back as suspicious rather than positive [7]. So I assumed we were dealing with Team Branco or a dedicated Branco fan, rather than another sockpuppet. As for Neo Trixma and BlackSun - both names are taken from film/TV... Southdevonian (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

On the topic of BlackSun16, he doesn't seem to have been ever on WP-EN, however his pattern on the French version leaves little room for doubt. I raised to the attention of editors on the French talk page and NinjaRobotPirate's page :

- a previous sock-puppet Paulk12 gets blocked Feb 20th,

- very same day BlackSun16 is created,

- on that day BlackSun16 makes 5 edits in 5 minutes, for a total ... 18 characters (Is there some kind of 5 edit threshold ?)

- Absolutely no activity for 6 months (Is there a 6 months threshold ?)

- Imagritte gets blocked in end of July

- BlackSun16 arrives on Branco's page August 19th and makes a whopping 68'500 characters one-time addition to Branco's French article,

- barring another very singular similar contribution to Emmanuel Todd's page, the activity of BlackSun16 is 99% (in volume = characters) on Branco's page,

- arrival on Aug. 19th is a mere hours before Neo Trixma also arrives on Branco's French page and starts a duet with BlackSun16 supporting each other in a very intense edit war.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/BlackSun16 Ebtpmus (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts on the article would be to keep it reasonably concise at the moment as Branco is only borderline notable and probably would not be notable at all if it wasn't for Crépuscule. I cannot see that he has done anything particularly noteworthy in law or politics. There are millions of lawyers out there going about their business and they do not get Wikipedia articles. Likewise there must be millions of people who hang around on the fringes of politics without ever holding elected office. And he is not an academic so all those masters are not of much interest, except perhaps as background to a writer's career. Of course it might change in the future. Southdevonian (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree. I would add that in France he is also notable for Griveaux affair. Even if he denied a direct implication, most French people believe that he is at the origin of the publication of the videos that pushed out politics a probable futur major of Paris. Also, it seems that his only success as a lawyer, is the case with his father (I do not count his successes for increasing his visibility in the medias). D.Lazard (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree, thanks so much for your diligent efforts keeping this article in line. Someone should add an archive to this talk, I always screw it up. Nemov (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This page was already automatically archived, but only after 150 days. I have changed this parameter to 20 days, since the closed threads are 24 days old. So, most of the page should be archived soon. D.Lazard (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Since you're also accusing me in this talk @Ebtpmus: I'm not a sockpuppet and I didn't support neo trixma in an edit war.

I hadn't noticed the recent edits on this page (I remembered a particularly negative and biased version I read a few weeks ago). The current consensus seems much more appropriate. BlackSun16 (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Twitter outing

I rolled back this edit[8]. It's been added and removed before. I don't object to its inclusion if it has received a lot of coverage, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Nemov (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it appeared in the Daily Mail today [9]. The Daily Mail is not of course a reliable source so I am not arguing about its removal. Southdevonian (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)