Talk:François Asselineau: Difference between revisions

{{Old AfD multi

| date = 12 March 2011

| result5 = '''Keep'''

| page5 = François Asselineau (4th nomination)

}}

{{Connected contributor

|U1-declared=no

|U1-otherlinks=See [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 95#Evidence for COI|WP:COI/N]]. As of October 2015, this warning is not about D0kkaebi/[[User:Lawren00|Lawren00]]'s role on this talk page but on its [[Talk:François Asselineau/Archive 1|Archive 1]] and AfDs [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau|1]], [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 12|Delrev]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (2nd nomination)|2]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (3rd nomination)|3]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (4th nomination)|4]].}}

{{archives}}

{{translated page|fr|François Asselineau| version=108068879|section=Political views}}

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]]--[[User:Francis Le français|Francis Le français]] ([[User talk:Francis Le français|talk]]) 16:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

 

::Dear [[User:Vanjagenije]]

#french "Confidentel" = "confidential" used by many (the majority of the) serious sources [http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/2014/12/05/apres-la-quenelle-le-temps-des-querelles_1157617 1] about François Asselineau and pru/upr.

::--[[User:Francis Le français|Francis Le français]] ([[User talk:Francis Le français|talk]]) 18:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

 

:::{{ping|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.) [[User:Pluto2012|Pluto2012]] ([[User talk:Pluto2012|talk]]) 21:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

=== Little-known or equivalent, in the Opening sentence===

 

*:[[User:Pluto2012|Pluto2012]] explain "confidentielle" doesn't mean "secret". Maybe the english word is not good, but do you understand the idea ? [https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/confidentiel]--[[User:Francis Le français|Francis Le français]] ([[User talk:Francis Le français|talk]]) 11:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

:::user Elnon does a reasonable change (little-known).--[[User:Francis Le français|Francis Le français]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Elnon|Elnon]] ([[User talk:Elnon|talk]]) 04:34, 31 July 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.<p>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, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

{{re|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 [[Special:Diff/629453659|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 [[Popular Republican Union (2007)#Relationship with the media and Internet activism|the Internet activism]]) would be [[WP:original research]]. By the way, your opinion would be appreciated in the [[WP:COI/N#‎D0kkaebi|COI/N case]] I mentioned at the beginning. [[User:Oliv0|Oliv0]] ([[User talk:Oliv0|talk]]) 05:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Added: Is is better [[Special:Diff/685241674/685392192|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. [[User:Oliv0|Oliv0]] ([[User talk:Oliv0|talk]]) 12:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

 

=== Conspiracywatch ===

:::::::: @{{user|Francis Le français}} 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? [[Special:Contributions/82.227.169.24|82.227.169.24]] ([[User talk:82.227.169.24|talk]]) 09:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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

 

== One unreliable source; LS ==

Hi,

 

::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. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Oliv0|Oliv0]] ([[User talk:Oliv0|talk]]) 12:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)