Talk:François Asselineau

Comment on article

I've tidied this up a bit. It has obviously been translated from French and still read pretty un-evenly in many places. I have deleted a lot of excess CV-like material and removed one or two incomprehensible sentences and claims. I'm still not sure it warrants an article on Wikipedia as there seems to be nothing about the man or his party on the mainstream French sites. (And I just don't buy the censorship stuff above. For a host of reasons). It needs keeping an eye on as both the article and the party seem to be getting pushed a little - and are only borderline notable. But it reads better than it did before and that's the main thing for now. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Did you search using google ? Many of the sources I found when I went to the library were behind a paywall or were not on the internet. Also, the results are biased according to your country: here in France, the search return [1] from Nord éclair, [2] from Le Nouvel Observateur, [3] from Numerama, among others ([4] isn't in the first google news results, for example). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your help on improving the article. However, I see that you are a recent user therefore, I would like to advise you to read Wikipedia:Etiquette. We are several wikipedians contributing on this page and we always find a consensus on the Talk before proceeding changes. We would appreciate that you also do so and especially when those changes consist in deleting sources, sourced information or altering the meaning of the information (such as the change Asselineau wants to bring to Banque de France). Thank you for your understanding. --Lawren00 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's back to crap again in terms of readability. I've spent a little while trying to make it readable in English, but it's a fairly hopeless enterprise... I've also added the section "conspiracy theory" to better characterize his crazy claims about Marianne being a National Front plot. SashiRolls (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

New secondary source "Liberation"

His party is described as a "ultra-sovereignist and conspiracist party" by Libération [[5]]. "Union populaire républicaine, parti ultrasouverainiste et complotiste dirigé par l’énarque François Asselineau" [6] Graviora manent (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

True enough, but this is only half a sentence within a long article dedicated to Soral and Dieudonné. So I wouln't call it a "secondary source". --Azurfrog (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Funny that... how can one be "ultra-sovereignist" as it's binary in nature : you are either a sovereignist or not a sovereignist ("eunuch" is also acceptable for the latter), and once you are a sovereignist, there is not point in furthering your level of sovereignism. This is typically an absurd and ludicrous claim of french mass media, who must absolutely call this guy "ultra" this, or "extreme" that, or just a "conspiracist". In fact this is the only way in which these godforsaken idiots who call themselves "journalists", who confuse "prêt-à-penser", or preconceived popular / mainstream opinion, and rigorous and thoroughly researched analysis, well these journalists who work for french mass media are ALLOWED to talk about this man and his party. Only minor, local media can do their jobs without resorting to hysterical bullshite. So be afraid, be very afraid, for Asselineau wants France to be a free, democratic and peaceful country : he is a "ultrasovereignist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeigneurDucon (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

it's a perfect "secondary source" for UPR.--77.203.36.189 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also described UPR : "confidentielle" confidential http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/2014/12/05/apres-la-quenelle-le-temps-des-querelles_1157617 (la confidentielle Union populaire républicaine, parti ultrasouverainiste et complotiste dirigé par l’énarque François Asselineau.)--86.68.87.219 (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources

I removed the primary sources in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia WP:CITE WP:VERIFY. I removed the not reliable sources (agoravox ) WP:NEWSPAPER--Francis Le français (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Le français: Could you, please, explain this edit of yours? What does it mean to call him "confidential" in the first sentence? Do you even know the meaning of that word? Also in your two editing sessions [7][8] you removed many sources. You say they are "primary" and "not reliable". Please, explain that. You removed this - the official election results. How is that primary and unreliable source? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Vanjagenije

1. french "Confidentel" = "confidential" used by many (the majority of the) serious sources 1 about François Asselineau and pru/upr.
2. agoravox and http://www.enquete-debat.fr are blog source type with unprofessionnal journalists WP:NEWSPAPER, upr.fr is the françois asselineau's party official site (conflict of interest WP:QS + WP:PRIMARY).
3. francepolitique.fr A)It's not the official results of election (a non official website) and B) source is used to original, personnal research (forbidenn on wikipedia WP:OR)

--Francis Le français (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Le français: The source you cited says that Patrick Dhondt is a (former) member of the "confidentielle Union populaire républicaine". My French is bad, but this should mean something like "secret". Anyway, Asselineau is not described as "confidential" which would make no sense anyway. Regarding france-politique.fr, I don't see why is it important whether the site is "official" or not. It is perfectly reliable. The election results are correct. You say that the source was used for "original research", but you did not remove the statement, you just removed the source. So it means that you left the "original research" in the article, and just removed it's source. I don't see how that helps. Also, I agree that upr.fr is primary source, but Wikipedia does not forbid primary sources. See: WP:PRIMARY ("Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia"). We often use primary sources when describing person's own opinion or attitude. For example, upr.fr was used a source that Asselineau "accused media of censorship". That is perfectly correct way to use primary source: his own source was used to verify that he indeed accused media. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije:

Hello. I am a native in French. La "confidentielle Union populaire républicaine" doesn't mean it is a "secret" organisation but it means that it is not known at all, so unknown that it is nearly a secret (figurative), it is "confidentielle". (Just to precise this. I didn't follow the discussion.) Pluto2012 (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Little-known or equivalent, in the Opening sentence

• @Francis Le français: Why did you revert my edit [9]? Pluto2012 explained above that French "confidentielle" does not mean confidential in English. And, also the source call his party "confidentielle" no himself. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  Pluto2012 explain "confidentielle" doesn't mean "secret". Maybe the english word is not good, but do you understand the idea ? [10]--Francis Le français (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Francis Le français: I don't understand the idea of replacing french "confidentielle" with English "confidential" when it is obvious they have different meaning in this particular context. I also do not understand the idea of applying the word to Asselineau while citing a source that apply it to the Party. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

user Elnon does a reasonable change (little-known).--Francis Le français (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a fact Asselineau is shunned by the French mainstream media, so I suggested using "little-known" as a substitute for "confidential," a typical "faux-ami" as French people call English words that look French but have a different meaning. --Elnon (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I am aware that the French WP and its user did not (and still don't) find FA notable enough and the lead section mentions it, for what it's worth. Still, this point is not to be mentioned in the first sentence (see policies on the English WP and Manual of Style). FA has been judged noteworthy enough for a page here. His 'failure' to pass the French WP Notoriety Test is not a reason for this kind of terms in the definition of the man on the English page. He may be little-known according to X or Y but he has been found known enough to have his page here. I therefore remove the word once again. Please refrain from trying to find synonyms or equivalent words you would care to put in the first sentence. You can dwell on his lack of media coverage as much as you like in the body of the article or on the French WP if you prefer. All the best,--Aya (d) 00:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

if you (Aya) are not agree with the majority of sources that present him as poorly/weakly/little known; then you doesn't understand the principle encyclopedic. So i revert your "opinion" (WP:POV). All the best.--Francis Le français (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

Likewise Hi. You do not want to, or are not able to understand the content of my message. The FIRST sentence in the lead section states WHO is the person and, if needed, what he/she is NOTABLE for. I therefore remove the word Little-known (which implies an unnecessary qualification, that can be added later, in the next sentence for instance) once more. You can develop Asselineau's lack of fame everywhere else but not in the first sentence. So, to take into account what you 'kindly' suggest and the word chosen by another user, I actually put it in a sentence that follows the first one (i.e. the second sentence of the page, although I really think it duplicates the last paragraph of the lead section and really think somebody else will mind as much as I do and remove the sentence, and the word for that matter). I do not disagree with sources and have no opinion about Asselineau. Consider this my final reply to you, thank you. Should you disagree, ask for comments of other contributors on the English WP, about using the word Little-known in the FIRST sentence of a page.--Aya (d)-(talk • contribs) 00:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In the opening setence because it's a general and important fact in several sources...A second setence (like you do- thank you) is fine/ ok with me.--Francis Le français (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Length

While an article on this person should remain on Wikipedia, his importance clearly does not warrant such a lengthy treatment. This is a person who has never been *elected* to public office and could not gather more than 17 signatures for his Presidential run. By contrast, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who got 11% of the popular vote one year after the creation of the Left Party, has a wikipedia page that is twice as concise.

My suggestion to those who wish to give this marginal politician more visibility would be to do so via conventional means, i.e. get people to actually vote for him. SashiRolls (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of the page on French wikipedia

The page has been deleted, many of the above commentors were active in that debate to delete the page. It seems to me important that the flagship Wikipedia conserve neutrality where its French counterpart (as often) choses not to do so. There can be no doubt that this somewhat wacky individual is indeed well known in France, that's what originally led me to Wikipedia trying to figure out who the hell he was. I know enough now to understand why the French wikipedia crew have decided to censor his fans. But make no mistake, it *is* censorship, which sadly is relatively common in France. SashiRolls (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Er... Do I sense some arrogance here? --Azurfrog (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if you like. But rereading, I remember my frustration after untangling the article and trying to imagine how to make it a little more readable. Regarding my claims about neutrality, I'll put my "cards" on the table: there was a period during which I followed the "exploits" of the notorious vandal Loys Bonod, whose vexed contact with the administration of mediawiki france made me wonder if French wikipedia didn't have a somewhat different culture than English wikipedia. My arrogance is that of an anonymous nowhere man who likes fair play. In fairness, if I had to choose between listening to Asselineau and reading someone like Meyssan, I would indeed chose the latter. (Meyssan is at both en.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia)SashiRolls (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Blog-type article only HOSTED by Nouvel Observateur

Hi, I checked the the note number 7-e (one out of 6 references to the same page) and I am bit surprised: this is not Le Nouvel Observateur but a blog-type non-professional's article hosted by its website collaborative news media, LePlus; and the transcript the blogger /wannabe journalist makes of Asselineau is far from accurate (the fact that it is truncated in the Wikipedia page, set aside) (for one example, if you listen to the audio in the page, Asselineau says that Marianne promotes the National Front -not that it's the weekly of the Front National, that is slightly different). I amended the quotes as best as I could but I would be in favor of removing all references to this page, that I, for one, find to be not worthy of trust. A true transcript of the audio (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=100&v=PnSwZHS66mA) would be better if needed; and a full quote, in that case. I'll let other contributors do it, if they agree, as I do not care to spend more time on the page. Cheers, --Aya (d) 12:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well seen. I believe to erase this non-source WP:NEWSBLOG.--Francis Le français (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A professional journalist ( [11] ) edited this article so i change my mind.--Francis Le français (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

General comment on the recent editing difficulties on this page

Hi,
I did'nt wish to spend more time on the page and still do not but I can now only comment on how the time I spent to make various tweaks and improvements had to no result. For instance, sources were requested, and the ones I had put (regional tv -supposedly written by professional journalists!-, SelfGutenberg -plain facts in English, the only source in English on the page, for what it's worth-) were erased by the very contributor who had requested them; the same contributor removing in the meanwhile, my edits about a collaborative news page that is not accurate -see above-...and so on. If other users endorse the recent editing on the page, then so be it. Keep up the good work. As for me, I am done here, --Aya (d) 09:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The only difficulties here, is the non-respect of quality sources. A site can have a so called regional named and be other thing...please read WP:NEWSBLOG.--Francis Le français (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the only difficulty is you impose your POV, quoting rules that you do not understand and do not apply to yourself. D0kkaebi (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The difficulties are on users who doesn't respect rules.--Francis Le français (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Details of conspiracy theory

@Drmies: Hello, I reverted your removal of Asselineau's accusations against Le Pen/National Front, the Bush family and Marianne because I noticed that its first removal on 2 October 2014 for "no connection with political platform" was in my list of biased edits on COI/N (last closed box). What happened is User:Aya Laglare first rephrased it and added the French excerpt and a Nota Bene about the included audio, then you saw in that footnote "editorial commentary" and asked "who cares about what his opinion of the FN is?" In my view, no need for the French text or the commentary, which seems to disagree ("In fact") though the story it tells is the same (the far-fetched conspiracy theory in the text before the footnote), the only slight difference which could be added to the article text is the final aim of having the socialist Strauss-Kahn elected, and the "National Front supporting (frontiste) Marianne" (in fact a rather left-wing weekly magazine) meaning frequent mentions (in fact attacks).

Your "who cares?" may stem from the first sentence about National Front, but what I found useful to the reader is Asselineau seeing the far-right National Front as its main competitor (which one would leave the EU if elected?), and more importantly, the intricate details of the conspiracy alleged in the previous paragraph. So feel free to reformulate or trim (the English style will be better than if I try to do it), or even remove it again and explain here why. Oliv0 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oliv0, thank you for your note. "Who cares?" is usually my shorthand for "opinion of person X is unverified by secondary sources, or verified only meagerly". In this case, there is of course one, but it's a regional paper and one may well think that this ought to have a more widely circulated source. A matter of judgment, and 93,000 subscribers to Nord Eclair is not to be scoffed at. A matter of judgment on which I am perfectly willing to let you be a more knowledgeable judge. But I cannot really give you the "sic" or the NB: they are original research. If--and this is what underlies both--the magazine Marianne is in fact so left-wing that the statement is prima facie ridiculous, that is still not a statement we can make. So I ask you to reconsider and a. remove those two notes or b. find another way to provide the information. If source Y says "this is of course a ridiculous proposition" then you're in business immediately, and that is the best solution.

  I hope you understand what underlies my edits: on the one hand, we have a subject/editor massaging the sources to extract every bit of juice out of it; on the other we have what may well be political opponents who act similarly with the opposite intent--and in my judgment, those notes do precisely that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: As a first step I removed Aya Laglare's footnote, and also the "[sic]" I had added after someone (explaining that Marianne is far from being National Front's) removed "National Front's", this was probably a bad idea I had to warn future editors not to remove it, since an editor should never remove illogical words in a quote if they are present in the source (in this case of a French source he may have thought the translation was wrong, which was not the case). On the other hand, the way I translated just above, "National Front supporting (frontiste)", may be better, since like other political "X-ist" words it means a position/support/affiliation, not who is the owner.

As for the following step, the whole paragraph is about a conspiracy theory so that everything quoted there from Asselineau is in fact ridiculous, and if something ridiculous cannot be seen as such by the average English-speaking reader (like the real political position of Marianne), I think the best solution is a matter-of-fact footnote, possibly with a source (like in fr:Marianne (magazine) the survey on voting intentions of Marianne journalists). Nord Éclair (a good quality local newspaper) quotes Asselineau with no comments about this conspiracy theory (only about economics a bit lower), Le Plus de L'Obs (blog-like but here edited by Louise Pothier, a journalist) is critical all along but implicitly ("would be", "I quote") without any specifics saying such or such thing is wrong or ridiculous. But anyway, isn't even a WP:primary source perfectly good to justify he "says"/"argues"/"claims" something, as a fact without any interpretation? Oliv0 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• For a French audience the "sic" (I mean its rhetorical aim) may well be obvious. I looked first at spelling or so, thinking maybe that's what was meant. But we spent a lot of time on en-wiki bickering about whether some person or publication can be called "liberal" (or whatever other flavor), even if it seems pretty obvious that it's true. One could quarrel over when an additional (verified) statement ("the magazine is in fact totally left-wing") becomes synthesis, which is just another version of OR. So right now I don't have a good solution that stays within Wikipedia's guidelines; the lack of a source commenting on his, eh, statement is a good indication that he's not all that important, but again, that's also not something we can say, haha.

  As for the "primary" thing, there is no doubt that primary sources can verify. What they cannot do is argue that something needs to be included in one of our articles. That is, some statement or position is not notable because some notable person holds it. Look in the articles on American politicians and whatnot--in poor articles every position they hold is listed, every opinion they uttered is copied. Editors differ in their judgment, and I'm probably one of the stricter ones. That is, if a person's notability is enough of a reason for inclusion, then everything everyone with an article says is good enough for inclusion. That's poor encyclopedic writing. Secondary sources don't have to verify someone said something, but they can establish that we should consider including it. And even then we should consider the source. For example (not applicable here, I think), gossip magazines report on names and birthdates of notable people's children--that doesn't mean we should list them. Does that help? Again, thanks for your work and your comments. It gives me faith in your judgment: do not let me stop you from exercising it. A la prochaine, Drmies (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thank you for your answer, my question about primary sources was too vague and I come to the same conclusion when I think of some cases of controversial public figures on the French WP: first pertinence through secondary sources, then accuracy through primary sources. Here the origin of the paragraph is User:Azurfrog's full rewrite from secondary sources, as it had been done in the French WP article (before it was deleted because topic-centered, independent, long enough sources were all deemed too recent for a lasting notability, and the fans' activism triggered the strictest application of rules), so what these secondary sources noticed is enough, and more details from primary sources (which are many because of the Internet activism) would be WP:original research. By the way, your opinion would be appreciated in the COI/N case I mentioned at the beginning. Oliv0 (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Added: Is is better like this? I tried to attribute everything WP:INTEXT and for Marianne I added a comment, also please check the ref format and the style, I know my English can be awkward though it takes me 10 times more time than in French (not a phrase, I measured it on other occasions, that is why I edit little here). I also removed the part about the National Front agenda of leaving the EU, because I checked on their website and as I understand it (it is not very clear, probably on purpose in order to please everyone) they now favour a weak EU limited to good neighbourly relations and not getting out of it, so here Asselineau may be right. Oliv0 (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I now see that Marine Le Pen pushes for "Frexit", I stand corrected, Asselineau is wrong here. Oliv0 (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracywatch

Seriously, despite the somewhat pompously official sounding name of his little blog, Rudy Reichstadt shouldn't be treated as a reliable source. He is just blatantly trolling French politics calling everybody a Nazi. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This view does not appear at all in fr:Conspiracy Watch, but anyway this primary source is used twice for a quote and a comment of one or two sentences in the reasonably good and independent regional newspaper Sud-Ouest, which is the reliable secondary source here. Oliv0 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. From what I know, "Sud-Ouest" is indeed a reasonable source. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorting information between the person and his political party

Wouldn't the article be shorter and better if some informations (like election results for example) be on the party's page? It seems some informations are needlessly redundant between both. What's the usual policy on this? 82.227.169.24 (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There is much redundancy between the party Popular Republican Union (2007) and its leader François Asselineau in real life too. If you have some idea of how to distribute things between them and you do not lose information in the process, why not? Oliv0 (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I might try and do that sometime in near future... That is, if the revert frenzy issue is solved.82.227.169.24 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Savage reverts

I certainly don't pretend my work to be perfect, and welcome every criticism and changes, as it only makes sense on a wiki (and especially Wikipedia)... But savage revert, seriously??? I justified my edits, they were neither vandalism, nor destructive, nor polemic. I adhere to writing articles that read professional-like and adhere to NPOV. Boom, revert, without a single word to justify it. Is this an accident? Or a strange sort of vandalism? I thought it was the first, of course. But then I saw the track record of Francis_le_Francais and that made me wonder... Aren't Wikipedia articles supposed to evolve? ... Not going to happen if every edit is reverted. Please, re-revert the revert and let the article live its life. Or at least debate the mods... Thanks 82.227.169.24 (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Among your contributions the recent ones have not been reverted, the only revert I see and you may refer to is this one on 1 August, which is justified in the edit summary ("source"), and does not seem non "conforming to NPOV" (your edit summary) if "bordering on the far-right" (right now still in the introduction, and useful to the reader) is indeed in the source given (and I think I saw similar phrasing in other sources of the article), though it requires payment to see more than the very beginning, which you might want to do if you want to check (you can read it easily since your IP is French). As for the edit wars, there is at least one editor with a COI: see the COI/N case (and you may give your opinion there, even without a registered account). Oliv0 (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to politely but strongly disagree on that one. All my contributions on this subject have been reverted. And the last revert is both big and silent. See here : https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=François_Asselineau&diff=prev&oldid=685808576 ... I don't think any of the contribs reverted in that one were POV related... Otherwise I wouldn't complain. I am almost certain any observer would have mostly agreed with these editions. I clearly indicated I was open to discussion. Nobody objected. You, yourself, apparently seemed okay with it. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

...Now, I came to skim through the link you gave and to related issues and came to the conclusion this page is a burning volcano. It is an embarrassing mess and will certainly stay like this, with or without my help. Count me out. I will certainly not take sides on this stupid war... On second thought, I'd probably side with the party member as I find it beyond ridiculous to refuse his voice on the positioning of his party based on lack of NPOV. Isn't this exactly what he'd be best at informing the encyclopedia about? Imagine for a moment the opposite: what on earth would the leader of a party gain from false positioning of his party? He would lose potential followers in doing so. So, accusing the party of lying on his own positioning is accusing it of stupidity. To know wether a party is righ-wing, left-wing, be it extreme or anything else, one should look at what they say about it, their program and the past actions of said party. On the first two (what they say and their program), secondary sources are in risk of much more errors or even lies than primary sources. On the third aspect only (record of past actions) secondary sources are likely to be more reliable than primary... But in the case of a young party like this one, said actions are virtually inexistant... So primary sources are as reliable as you can get. Raising COI in that case has more to do with pety wars than research of quality... Anyway, even though I probably just did take side (by virtue of this lengthy rambling), you can count me out. Wiki wars are an embarrassment.82.227.169.24 (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No stupid war here, only countering editors with a WP:COI in the interest of WP:NPOV. I did not notice in the article history that last diff reverting you because the change size was small and at first sight it was mainly moving a section around, but indeed some simplification you made was lost, "for whom Asselineau had worked as a civil servant" etc., Francis Le français (talk · contribs) might have seen some interest for the reader in the context of the Cahuzac affair which I do not remember well, ask him instead.

As for the political positioning, of course no extreme party can be trusted and what would be "ridiculous" would be to believe for instance the National Front (France) when they say they are not far-right at all but defenders of the nation, etc. What the party says should appear but without WP:UNDUE weight as compared to the mainstream opinion seen in the independent media.

About their program, primary sources are fine but as Drmies (talk · contribs) says two sections above, choosing the most pertinent points without WP:original research needs secondary sources. Oliv0 (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

How does cluttering the introduction paragraph with too many informations that are secondary and don't make consensus make any sense? My proposal of placing controversies in a "Controversy" paragraph was going in the direction of appeasing tension between you guys... Don't you want that? - The Cahuzac Affair is either related (I think it is not) or should deserve a special paragraph. Mentioning it as it is here only makes it more difficult to read. This is NOT quality work.

After long thought, I suppose you talk about their program because I added "to restore democracy" at the end of their motto. Is that it? I did it as it seems to always be written like that. I only meant to quote the full sentence. Frankly, I didn't push as far as reading their program. You can remove this if you like. But as always I think we need to explain why we do reverts, so as to keep wikilove flowing. I am sad to say, it seems like a deadhorse here... You call it "no war"... Sorry this clearly is not true. Sad... 82.227.169.24 (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I was only answering your thoughts about "On the first two (what they say and their program), secondary sources", not about "to restore democracy" which is good in the intro if it is present as part of their program in the independent sources given here or later on (as I think it is, in the context of seeing EU as a dictatorship).

Back to the initial subject of "savage reverts" by Francis Le français, this kind of quick action without pondering may be bad habits due to the edit wars and to the predominant role and patronising behaviour on talk pages of the editor with a COI D0kkaebi/Lawren00, so determining the COI on COI/N may help in this regard too, but anyway when you see possible improvement, just always be WP:bold.

Now about moving things around from the introduction, in my opinion a (shorter) mention of conspiracy theories and Internet activism should be kept in the introduction, just like withdrawal from EU and NATO, because my first impression is that in order to define him quickly to the reader, all of these are more important than Inspector General, represented in media as little known, party membership/association before he attained WP:notability with his party PRU, etc. Oliv0 (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Savage

why call my action "savage" ? --Francis Le français (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A harsh word but only pay attention to what the IP user meant: no edit summary and no explanation on the talk page; I answered that it may be what you got used to do when dealing with some POV users, but anyway it is better to always explain reverts. Oliv0 (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Le français (talk · contribs) Deleting no less than 10 contributions in one shot and without a single word of explanation, do you call that civil? Every one of my edits was explained. Please do some reading and thinking before acting like this. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

About us agree that the item is better now ?--Francis Le français (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Le français (talk · contribs) Sorry, this sentence doesn't mean a thing. If you can't communicate or don't want to (it amounts to the same here), I suggest you leave this page to others. And if nobody argues otherwise I shall revert you revert (or maybe Oliv0 (talk · contribs) could do it for the sake of neutrality). This page could then continue it's improvement in a cooperative spirit. As was clear for me from the start, reaching Encyclopedia quality and respecting NPOV does here require opposing views to be showcased (hence my idea of a "Controversy" chapter, the word was there already anyway) and consensus be reached by talking when necessary. Otherwise, being WP:Bold and respecting WP:Neutrality seem just like empty words. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

82.227.169.24, be bold and also take into account above (09:42, 20 October 2015) what I feel would be useful to keep in the introduction, and is uncontroversial in all independent sources. Oliv0 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Oliv0 (talk · contribs) I might do that, I think I can see how we could make it work. But as long as reverters have free reigns here, why bother editing? Playing edit wars is not my favorite game. I have better things to do of my time. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This article (François Asselineau) is better now.--Francis Le français (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Le français (talk · contribs) Unless proven so, no it's not. What is this, pre-school? You proclaiming it is nothing close to enough. I explained in details why. No wonder it is marked C-Grade. It is badly documented, badly written, shows traces of controversy between editors (instead of sources) and still fuel for more controversy. In short, you promote trolling. How is that supposed to be better? 82.227.169.24 (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Vos changements ne respectaient pas les règles et l'esprit encyclopédique.--Francis Le français (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Le français (talk · contribs) You are here on the English Wikipedia. Please respect your readers. Here is a translation of Francis Le français's message: "Your edits did not respect the rules and spirit of the encyclopedia.". Everybody can see this is both the opposite of the truth, a cheap attack (no explanation), and a good description of his own behavior. Aren't Wikipedia's rules precisely designed to ban this type of behavior? 82.227.169.24 (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edits did not respect the rules and spirit of the encyclopedia. --Francis Le français (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

UTC)

@Francis Le français (talk · contribs) LOL. No need for the lies, I gave up long ago. Have fun. Cheers! 78.200.159.24 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

One unreliable source; LS

Resolved

Hi,

After consulting the noticeboard for requests about reliable sources, it appears that the online source Le plus, referred to 5 times in the page, should not be considered reliable and should therefore be removed of the page, with the attached content if no nother source is found. I see on this TP that the source has been contested a few times already. I will leave its removal to the discretion of frequent contributors to the page hoping that the article can be rewritten with that in mind.

See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#François Asselineau, ad.

Also, the LS could, in my opinion, be revised, by moving the sentence ´The French media have repeatedly presented him as a little-known public figure.' in the last paragraph, that dwells upon the media coverage issue. And be it only because its presence in the opening paragraph is awkward, to say the least.

Yours,--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

See my answer there. Oliv0 (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This content has been removed; let me summarise here what I said on WP:RS/N: as the Le Plus article says, it is a "collaborative website" but the content is "edited by their news director", the professional journalist Louise Pothier. Both authors are shown in the citation ("Pothier, Louise; Merlin, Caroline (23 September 2014)..."), and the article starts with "LE PLUS" as if the website or their news director was taking some responsibility for authorship. The Le Plus article is mainly used as a secondary source in order to select for the WP article the most relevant information about his conspiracy theories within the primary sources given inline by Le Plus: an interview of François Asselineau at the popular TV program On n'est pas couché on Dailymotion, and one of the many videos explaining his views made by François Asselineau for Youtube. Oliv0 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no point repeating things here. More folks will weigh in at RSN and we will get a community consensus on the question. In the meantime please mind WP:BLP and leave that content and source out of the article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jytdog: we could just use the primary sources, the videos where François Asselineau himself describes his views, and maybe add in the citation that these are shown inline in the Le Post article edited by their news director. But would that be more objective as for the choice of the most relevant points than the former situation where a (weak) secondary source did that job for us? Oliv0 (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

If you add that source back before the community finds it reliable for a BLP article, I will seek to have you blocked for completely ignoring WP:BLP and CONSENSUS. Do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Why speak of blocking, I was speaking of not using that source and using instead the primary sources it shows inline. Do you see in WP:BLP anything against using interviews and videos made by the subject of the article? Oliv0 (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there is a french-english problem - I understood you to say you wanted to add the source back. If you didn't, i apologize. I am not going to get involved in the details of this article. In general, please try to raise source qaulity, always. Articles in Wikipedia should reflect what high quality sources say, and give WEIGHT where they give WEIGHT. That is how we stay objective. If you find yourself scraping very low for sourcing, you are probably on the wrong track. If there are no high quality sources, sometimes it is best to say nothing. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If we prefer Asselineau himself over a (weak) secondary source, then it will be relatively easy to find on upr.fr, francoisasselineau.fr or Youtube some articles/videos he made that support all of the article content just removed (Iran praised against euro-atlantism, far-right party National Front supported by former President Mitterrand, his counsellor Attali and the CIA and promoted by the left-wing magazine Marianne, all just in order to counter Asselineau). The problem is, this article had been greatly neutralised a few years ago by keeping only secondary sources, so for long-term neutrality it makes no sense to turn back to primary sources now. Oliv0 (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Added: I checked, @Azurfrog: advocated secondary sources on frwiki, wrote the first French version of that passage and then translated it here in 2014. Oliv0 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

policies and norms are not standard across wikis. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Second/primary sources; other

@Jytdog: In fact, rather than use these videos as primary sources for some WP:SYN/WP:OR that could put next time WP:neutrality in danger, it seems possible to use like on frwiki the secondary source name="Arrêt" (Arrêt sur images website, by journalist Laure Daussy) for the conspiracy theory passage removed, after some rewording and clear WP:INTEXT attribution. Still, the problem is that for this WP article there are very few independent secondary sources, usually describing François Asselineau as little known or making fun of him, and many non independent primary sources (articles on his websites, interviews, local news reports mainly quoting communication by his local representative, etc.), which of course all say how great his ideas are; in such a case, can we start reducing the number of independent secondary sources, what do WP policies say about this? @Azurfrog: your opinion? Oliv0 (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I now see in the talk page above that what we are speaking about is exactly what User:Drmies explained (also found on frwiki in several essays but I do not know how it can be cited as an enwiki norm): "there is no doubt that primary sources can verify. What they cannot do is argue that something needs to be included in one of our articles. (...) Secondary sources don't have to verify someone said something, but they can establish that we should consider including it." Oliv0 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Drmies was talking about NPOV (which is different from VERIFY), with respect to WP:WEIGHT, and about basic WP:NOTABILITY, which I am not sure this subject meets. Not sure. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Oliv0, I am sorry to say that, following my failure to get any response from the sysops to cope with an obvious and aggressive conflict of interest (from a high ranking member of Asselineau's UPR) on the pages dealing with Asselineau, I decided I had spent way too much time on the matter. Any reader wanting access to unbiased information will have to look up the French page.
More to the point: the notability of Asselineau is 90% based upon self promotion through Internet activism and harassment, and practically all secondary sources about him are weak anyway, and/or not independent of the subject; hence all the initial heated discussions about whether or not Asselineau is notable at all in the first place. All well considered, I think he is notable, but secondary sources are and will probably remain weak, because no one really cares (most secondary sources are just responses to harassment from Asselineau and his team).
End of story. --Azurfrog (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If the notoriaty of this man is weak and if the secondary sources that assess his notoriaty are weak, it is normal to accept weak secondary sources in the article. And I agree with Oliv0 that secondary sources -even weak- are always better than primary sources. They should just be rejected if controversed or if they are in infraction with WP:BLP.

In the current case, I don't think that a source stating that someone is not well-known is against WP:BLP. It is not insulting or it doesn't attack anyone. It just states someone is not known relatively to other ones. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Activism warning

A comment on the French page corresponding to this talk page gives a transcript of one of François Asselineau's YouTube videos (from 4:10, and since it says later "during this year 2016" he probably made it at the beginning of 2016); this probably means primarily the French WP, but it still shows we have to be careful with this article, because the part emphasised in bold in this transcript says in translation: "I ask all those who are listening to me to register as Wikipedia editors, since it is a collaborative encyclopedia. By the hundreds, by the thousands, people must go to Wikipedia and edit the article François Asselineau." Oliv0 (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)