Talk:Juan Branco/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 [1][2][3] 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.

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.

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 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)

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 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 [4]. 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 [5]

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [6] 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)

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 [7]

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 [8] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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."[9] 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)