Talk:Juan Branco - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.130.15.88 (talk) at 17:28, 29 March 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:28, 29 March 2020 by 77.130.15.88 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 February 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

Articles for creation Stub‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 1 June 2018 by reviewer CNMall41 (talk · contribs).

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Pierre Sautreuil (2020-02-21). "Sur Wikipédia, les vies rêvées de Juan Branco". Le Figaro. Retrieved 2020-02-21.

Revision

An interesting article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

"Dur de devenir un intellectuel médiatique à l'époque de Misplaced Pages : le cas Juan Branco". Rue89 (in French). Retrieved 2018-10-14.
Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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

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

Juan Branco Portrait.jpg

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

Revision

An intense war has waged on this page after Griveaux polemic. Now that a few weeks have passed, there are reasons to believe that reequilibrating it was necessary. I based myself on pre-polemic version and integrated post-polemic version, without reusing the most libelous elements, whilst deleting most self-promoting ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elahadji (talk • contribs) 11:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Multiple editors found consensus on the latest version. Turning this article into a hagiography unilaterally only raises suspicions regarding your motives. Assume good faith and make constructive suggestions. XInolanIX (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I'll take the time to answer in detail as this case is important for me.

I do not agree on the objectivity of the current page, nor on the justification regarding consensual agreement over a page that widely differs, negatively, from the main one (French), and presents an orientated narrative that is clearly negative. Correcting it by neutralizing is in no ways a temptative to render the page hagiographic.

Whatever happened in the history of this page does not justify the obfuscation of verified, sourced elements, the use of speculative wording, including suggestions of criminal behaviour that have never been investigated or been qualified as such in the public space, and so forth. Those have been severed by my corrections, without any temptative to supress factual elements that were adopted.

Many examples can be taken, but the apperantly most insignificant are revealing, for example the use of "populist" in order to qualify "La France Insoumise", the systematically negative presentation of his political engagement, as with the quote of a "colister" of Branco's 2017 candidacy: legislative candidates in France have no "colisters". Those elements are sparsed in a widespread manner. It is difficult to presume good faith when seeing them accumulated, although I do presume that most editors, which do not master French and have not seen French version or have direct access to the French sources, do not perceive it.

The individual concerned by this article has been at the heart of a huge polemic, and important attacks both from some media (heavily quoted) and individuals, which have tried to hinder his reputation, have come along. This has clearly affected this page, whatever, once again, the considerations that could be made regarding the previous versions.

Having proceeded to the deletion of all informations coming from previous sources - albeit not contradicted since - does not seem to me to be compatible with wikipedia standards.

I'll go more into details. The current version is lacunary on essential points. My modifications tend to preserve all the critical aspects that have been added recently, even the most anecdotical ones, whilst adding sourced factual elements (mainly regarding the career) that are missing and are yet of critical importance for context. Those elements are beeing added in the most objective and sober way.

I'm also suggesting a neutralization of the wording when it is clearly excessive, inaccurate or incomplete. For example, Branco's carrer elements that were previously mentionned, were sourced and have visibly a critical importance, had disappeared for no reasons (Foreign affairs ministry, international criminal court). His ICC submission, yet considered as a main element by many outlets, was also deleted without reasons. It is impossible to elaborate a biography that cuts away objective elements of such importance, and there is no reason to consider than adding them back is hagiographical.

I am not, at this point, entering in any modification that could be considered as unconsensual. I do not consider that the hierarchy of information currently used is legitimate, as it puts in the spotlights anecdotical elements (all negative) whilst hindering structural elements that are either neutral, either positive.

I'll be limiting my modifications to elements present in the French version, which has reached a consensual point of equilibrium after two months of heavy redrafting by many contributors which have a more direct access to the original sources than we do.

I'm reestablishing MINUSCA as a suggestion, but I'm thinking of transferring it to the MINUSCA page and only keep a shorter version in order not to uneven the page. I'd be glad if any modification happens.

Finally, according to Google Trends, Juan Branco was widely known before the Griveaux Case in France, especially regarding his involvement with the yellow jackets (which surprisingly also disapeared). I'm therefore taking away this line, but will not intervene back if it is severed.

I have amended my modifications and will be glad to discuss each of them, but I do not consider that general revert would be justified at this stage.

I consider that in the current situation, the best way to handle things would be to require a new translation work from the French Version, or to at least refer more extensively to it. In the current situation, the "Abdeslam" information, which is anecdotical, takes more space than most of the substantial elements that were previously held.

I suggest to you too to assume good faith regarding this current work, and to respect the temptative to improve the current page. Elahadji (talk)

XlnolanX

XInolanIX is a single purpose account which has focused on Juan Branco since the polemic regarding Griveaux happened. He has crucially distanced this article from an objective status and consensus that had been reached by previous users, with changes like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Juan_Branco&diff=944863119&oldid=944847909

Categories: