Talk:Bibo Bergeron

Criminal Allegations

@CrafterNova: @ToBeFree: @El C:  198.2.93.215: I appreciate your feedback. While i am still looking through what you have written I believe the most essential requirement of wikipedia is that the articles must be factual.

Claims require specific evidence - the articles contain unsubstantiated claims, such as the incident caused the victim to take her life / commit suicide, that she was his student. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Claims_require_specific_evidence

The possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States.

At this time the following links should be removed from the talk page, as they contain the unsubstantiated claim of suicide being attributed to Bergeron’s alleged crime:

https://www.marieclaire.fr/eric-bergeron-realisateur-de-films-d-animation-mis-en-examen-pour-viol,1336820.asp

https://www.premiere.fr/Cinema/News-Cinema/Bibo-Bergeron--Le-realisateur-d-Un-monstre-a-Paris-est-mis-en-examen-pour-viol

https://www.programme-tv.net/news/cinema/247361-eric-bergeron-le-realisateur-dun-monstre-a-paris-et-gang-de-requins-mis-en-examen-pour-viol/

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/violences-faites-aux-femmes/le-realisateur-eric-bergeron-mis-en-examen-pour-viol_3784553.html

https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/eric-bergeron-realisateur-d-un-monstre-a-paris-mis-en-examen-pour-viol-14-01-2020-8235990.php

https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/eric-bergeron-realisateur-d-un-monstre-a-paris-mis-en-examen-pour-viol-14-01-2020-8235990.php

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/artist-rights/report-road-to-el-dorado-and-shark-tale-director-bibo-bergeron-indicted-in-france-184672.html

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of the living person. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.

Thank you for sending details about the french wiki, I am currently in process of challenging the unsubstantiated claims posted on that site also.

There must be a presumption of innocence for all who have been charged. To date there has not been an outcome of the court proceeding, at least not one that I can find. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence. The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

I will take time to do further research on what you have written, and respond with further thoughts after reading all of what you have written over the past few days. Thank you for your patience. I am new to editing and this is an exciting topic to discuss.--Dragonnchild (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

An allegation is not the same thing as a conviction, and a criminal charge is a matter of public record. The charge is a relevant piece of that person's history, regardless of any verdict. If the charge is proven to be invalid, that can be noted in later edits, and backed up at that time with evidence and citations. At this juncture, there is no reason to remove this simple, singular sentence noting the criminal charge, and doing so makes Wikipedia as a whole worse than the public record.

It makes no sense to continually remove the fact of a criminal charge being brought forth against this person. The speculation around the charge should be removed, yes, but the charge itself is a simple fact, backed up by multiple credible citations over a number of edits from disparate parties.

There is precedent for adding criminal charges to a Biography page in Wikipedia. As an example, the page for Josh Duggar had multiple edits containing allegations and cited criminal charges, and these edits stood before his formal conviction in 2021

If it is to be changed, then please demonstrate why, using either cited examples or consistently applied Wikipedia policy. 198.2.93.215 (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I totally support the cause of ensuring that criminal records remain public. Thank you for this. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you create an account so that your contributions are credited to you ;) —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 11:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

198.2.93.215 and CrafterNova, WP:BLPCRIME comes to mind. Re-adding the material shouldn't be done without consensus (WP:ONUS) and not without a clear explanation why the material does not conflict with WP:BLPCRIME. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Initially I assumed good faith and thought the sources were reliable. But I will try to provide reliable sources as required —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 03:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@CrafterNova: @ToBeFree: As per my comment elsewhere, instead of the previous “Cartoon Brew” source, please bring your attention to the following sources, which I propose be used as citations :

"Éric Bergeron, director of animated films, indicted for rape" at website Marie Claire

"Bibo Bergeron: The director of A Monster in Paris is indicted for rape" at website Premiere

"Éric Bergeron: the director of A Monster in Paris and Gang of Sharks indicted for rape" at website Télé-Loisirs

Each of these articles draws as it’s source one Achille Kiriakides, the prosecutor for Aix-en-Provence, who confirms the information present therein. I believe these therefore constitute multiple, credible sources.

I believe that, in light of the new articles discovered drawing upon the prosecutor, Achille Kirakides, as their source, it is worth re-considering adding the fact of the criminal charge to this page. I agree that the speculation regarding the motivation of the victim’s subsequent suicide (and all other speculation surrounding this case) should be removed, which is why I myself removed it in my first edit. However, the basic fact, that this person was charged with a crime, is indisputable.

I would argue that the director of Shark Tale (a DreamWorks film that grossed 374.6 million total was was the ninth highest grossing film of it’s release), as well as The Road to El Dorado and A Monster in Paris, is notable enough for this fact to be available to the public. Were this a person in minor animation roles throughout their whole career, it would make more sense not to include this information. However, this person has willingly and repeatedly taken on multiple high-profile positions of power.

In the case of the animator toiling in relative obscurity, it would not serve the public to include information about criminal charges; the harm would outweigh the good. However, this person has shown a pattern of willingly stepping into powerful and public-facing positions (and had continued to do so until 2016; Bibo Bergeron Set to Direct ‘Charlotte Salomon’ Animated Biopic at Yahoo.com, a position he remained in until October 4th, 2019 https://www.cartoonbrew.com/artist-rights/report-road-to-el-dorado-and-shark-tale-director-bibo-bergeron-indicted-in-france-184672.html). As a result of being more public, information about criminal charges becomes more relevant, and in this case, does serve the public interest.

Though I do not like this point very much, I’m going to make it anyways, in the interest of presenting the strongest case possible, so that this matter can be definitively decided; if the argument being presented is that the previous citations were part of or connected to "tabloid journalism," that means by its very nature that the person targeted must be a public figure, as tabloids do not publish articles on private citizens except in the most extreme cases. And this charge, while sensational, is lent some of its sensation by the public nature of the accused (hence why his major credits are included in every headline). I argue that, by merit of his choice of industry, and more important position in said industry, Monsieur Bergeron has made the decision to act as a public-facing figure long before any criminal charges were filed against him.

The information is relevant to this page because it is relevant to that person’s life. It is information about the person. Any criminal case will have an effect on the person at the centre of it, and that the charge has stood for the past two years. Excluding it is to exclude the current status and reality of the person in question, and to reduce Wikipedias reliability as a source of relevant information. It destroys the primary advantage Wikipedia has over traditional encyclopedias, specifically the ability to remain relevant to the changing world at all times. Moreover, I would argue that it is information that is relevant to the public because the public already knows about it. Denying it to English Wikipedia is to deny known, public information to a group of people simply because they do not speak the target language that information was presented in, which is something that I believe goes against the spirit of free information that makes up the foundation of Wikipedia. Additionally, it makes no sense when considering this directors considerable body of English language works. I would add that the presumption of innocence must be applied to all sources, Wikipedia-based or otherwise, however, it is not just for the editor to decide that. It is also for the reader. A modern reader should, and generally is, intelligent enough to differentiate between a criminal charge and a conviction. We must give the readers the same benefit of the doubt as the accused, and assume they can properly parse the information presented.

In summation I believe that it is in the public's best interest to have centralized access to verified information. It is up to the public to contextualize the available information. An editors only true job is to provide the facts, and only the facts, in an unbiased manner. The presumption of innocence is the responsibility of the public, not an edict against the openness or freedom of information. Otherwise, there would be no reporting of criminal charges at all.

I would also like to point out that all of what I've just argued might be completely moot, as I can support my position this way: Monseiur Bergeron is considered enough of a public figure for the criminal charges to be included in the French version of his Wikipedia page.

The sources used there were the original 3DVF article, as well as these sources, which can also be added to this version of the article:

"Eric Bergeron, director of "A monster in Paris", indicted for rape" at website LeParisien

"Director Eric Bergeron indicted for rape" at website Les Inrockuptibles

Once again considering his large English body of work, I see no reason why one language should be denied information available in another.

Please let me know what steps should now be taken in order to confirm a consensus, so that this edit (specifically, “In early 2020, Bergeron was charged in France with the rape of a colleague, which allegedly took place during the production of A Monster in Paris”) can either be added or removed in a definitive manner. 198.2.93.215 (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2022‎ (UTC)

Agreed. I have viewed the sources, and these seem credible to me. One difficulty is that these sources are in French, and have to be easily translatable by readers. This article can also be expanded from the article on French Wikipedia. I hope consensus will be reached —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 07:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@CrafterNova: I think expanding the article from the French version is a good idea! It would be nice to make sure that all languages had access to the same information, across the board. And while I don't think it disqualifies the information or the articles validity to be used as a source (and according to Wikipedia policy, its fine), it's true that accessible translation would be ideal. Do we have any examples of how this has worked on other English-language articles with other-language sources? I can't think of any of the top of my head, but statistically, they must exist, and they would definitely help guide us. If I think of any, or otherwise stumble upon a good example, I'll add it here. Though again, a lack of translation is not a barrier for it's use as a cited, verified source. Hopefully we can all reach some kind of consensus on the larger, overall issue. 198.2.93.215 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@198.2.93.215: The commentary of this "animator toiling in obscurity" is an assumption on the life of a living person. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

..decision to "act as a public-facing figure" - to work in a public setting. film directors work on projects that are presented to the public. that is the entire point of creating works in the entertainment industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonnchild (talk • contribs) 23:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@198.2.93.215: @CrafterNova: @ToBeFree: I stand in disagreement. The sources are not credible. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonnchild (talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@198.2.93.215: I found the French version of Chyler Leigh's article, let's see if this is valid example here —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 05:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy clearly states: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Of the three french language sources quoted - two of them directly quote the previous cartoon article that uses "unidentified source" - neither article use original content or verifiable news sources. As for the reference to source Achille Kiriakides - this is questionable as the article is in french, plus it is also an industry magazine, not an accredited news source. An English reader is not going to "easily translate" a french article.

none of those articles are written by accredited journalists. These new added articles are biased sources, clearly tabloid and industry papers: Marie Clair is a fashion magazine, whereas Premiere and Programme.tv are paid industry magazines. the reliability of the news as a whole is reduced when it relies upon tabloids and sensationalized new services. Tabloid journalism is a popular style of largely sensationalist journalism (usually dramatized and sometimes unverifiable or even blatantly false), which takes its name from the format: a small-sized newspaper (half broadsheet). Publications engaging in tabloid journalism are known as rag newspapers.

Regarding the articles written in the French Language, any translation provided by the contributors are not guaranteed to be a true translation. given the vigor that has gone into this discussion, it is very possible that the ideas presented are potentially biased and intentionally cast a negative light on this living person. Certified translations are those completed by a certified translator and accompanied by the translator's declaration, signature, and seal.

Regarding your posting, where you state: "..the charge itself is a simple fact, backed up by multiple credible citations over a number of edits from disparate parties." "disparate parties" could easily be one or two people with multiple accounts = individuals with an agenda.

the volume of insider information provided does seem to cast a strongly negative view of this living person -- even an avowed rival of that individual. it is possible that the contributors have so much information because they have a personal connection to this person. it is not in the best interest to edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonnchild (talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dragonnchild: Please follow the consensus policy, Assume Good Faith and please don't end discussions abruptly with opinions such as "I stand in disagreement" because discussions have to be smooth. About the sources, you mentioned the Neutral point of view policy, so if you have neutral opinions, then please try to view the sources again to check if they are credible (I think you haven't checked all of them, there at least 8 sources). I have checked all of them, so can you please explain the criteria under which they seem unreliable? I think one may be that these sources are not listed at Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, but thousands of articles have citations to sources that are also not listed. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 13:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dragonnchild: @CrafterNova: @ToBeFree: @El C: There is no 'volume of insider information' present, and I resent the implication. Everything I have included to support my case comes from publicly accessible information, which I have included. Indeed, that is where I received the information myself, in the process of conducting research to support my thesis, research that became necessary in order to properly respond to your earlier arguments.

I admit to having an agenda, but my agenda is not secret. It is plainly stated over my last few posts. I have an interest in allowing information that is already public to be centralized. I believe in the freedom of information, the need for information to be public, and the ability of the public to properly process and contextualize that information. I can prove this through my edit history, which dates back to 2021, has examples of me editing completely separate pages, attempting to engage with Wikipedia talk pages, and even includes the request for protecting this page itself just in case I am in the wrong. That was part of my cited reason. I have included the person who read that post and graciously protected this page in this response, to verify this statement, if they so wish. Truthfully, they don't have to; It is public, and anyone may go read it, if they desire. If I had a hidden agenda, I would not have taken these actions, as they only would have hurt my cause. My only other agenda, as I have stated previously, is putting forth the best possible argument in support of my position that I can, so that whenever a decision is made, whatever it may be, it has come through the best efforts of all involved.

To answer your point, when I referred to “the charge itself is a simple fact, backed up by multiple citations over a number of edits from disparate parties,” my meaning is that there is public interest in seeing this information added to the article, as we can glean from the edit history. I believe the unfounded conspiracy theory of “one individual with an agenda” or whatever, is beneath response. There is no evidence to support this baseless accusation. I am both editing and debating in an earnest attempt at good faith.

I would also like to draw your attention to, and gently remind you of, the following Wikipedia policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

As far as the language issues is concerned, once again, I posit that information publicly available in one language should not be denied to the population who are not fluent in that language. To discredit a citation that draws upon a public prosecutor by merit of it being written in a non-English language makes no sense, as the reliability of the information itself does not change, despite being contained in another tongue. Moreover, the director himself is French, and the case is taking place in France. It only stands to reason that the majority of coverage would take place in French media.

Additionally, Wikipedia does allow for non-English sources to be used as citation in English Wikipedia “Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.” taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

Once again, I point out that industry news sites are the most likely to report on this story, and re-state that this does not automatically make them ‘tabloid news’. There is precedent for entertainment news sources (or otherwise ‘alternative’ news sites) being used as Wiki sources. See the following: https://mashable.com/article/harmon-game-grumps-esports#Rb6sX3xj0Pqw (used here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Avidan#cite_note-50)

https://www.nme.com/news/jack-white-connected-by-love-track-review-2218037 (used here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_White#cite_ref-99)

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/arianelange/john-kricfalusi-ren-stimpy-underage-sexual-abuse (used here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kricfalusi#cite_ref-5)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140301015833/http://www.animationmagazine.net/tv/butch-hartman-talks-danny-phantom/?replytocom=1267 (used here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butch_Hartman#cite_ref-9)

At least two of those draw from other well-known, public figures in animation.

Additionally, the sources in my previous post address your initial complaint of the articles’ source being anonymous by having their source front-and-centre, specifically the prosecutor, Achille Kiriakides. There are multiple sources, and again, two of them have already been accepted on Wikipedia. Interestingly, the 3DVF article has also been accepted on Wikipedia, when accompanied by those other sources. Unless we are proposing that a public prosecutor is unworthy verification of a criminal charge, I believe that the fact “In early 2020, Bergeron was charged in France with the rape of a colleague, which allegedly took place during the production of A Monster in Paris” has now been verified across several independent sources.

To your point “film directors work on projects that are presented to the public. that is the entire point of creating works in the entertainment industry,” I happen to agree. And I’m glad to see that we have consensus on the fact that Monsieur Bergeron is therefore a public individual. I would also include my previous point that the media attention around him, as shown through all of my previous links, establishes him as a person in the public eye. At this time, I would like to draw your attention to two interviews I discovered in my research

https://www.rotoscopers.com/2016/01/26/animation-addicts-episode-114/

https://www.female.com.au/bibo-bergeron-a-monster-in-paris-interview.htm

One of those is with an industry site, but the other is with a site that, under your criterion (which I disagree with) would be characterized as ‘tabloid news’. This shows that Monsieur Bergeron is willing to engage with the public, both in an industry and ‘tabloid’ capacity, which again, makes him a figure that is of interest to the public. I hasten to point out that publicly available interviews do not count as ‘industry insider information’ either.

Additionally, I should point out that Monsieur Bergeron has directed the animated performances of the following celebrities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthieu_Chedid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_Paradis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Smith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_De_Niro

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Zellweger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Black

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelina_Jolie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Scorsese

and if this link in my previous post (Bibo Bergeron Set to Direct ‘Charlotte Salomon’ Animated Biopic)

is to be believed, he was (for a time) also directing the animated performances of these additional celebrities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keira_Knightley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Cotillard

In this day and age of streaming services, where works and credits live on in perpetuity, I submit that these actions raise his profile by association.

To quote my previous post “[...] this person has shown a pattern of willingly stepping into powerful and public-facing positions [...] As a result of being more public, information about criminal charges becomes more relevant, and in this case, does serve the public interest. [...] The information is relevant to this page because it is relevant to that person’s life. It is information about the person. Any criminal case will have an effect on the person at the centre of it, and that the charge has stood for the past two years. Excluding it is to exclude the current status and reality of the person in question, and to reduce Wikipedias reliability as a source of relevant information. It destroys the primary advantage Wikipedia has over traditional encyclopedias, specifically the ability to remain relevant to the changing world at all times. Moreover, I would argue that it is information that is relevant to the public because the public already knows about it. Denying it to English Wikipedia is to deny known, public information to a group of people simply because they do not speak the target language that information was presented in, which is something that I believe goes against the spirit of free information that makes up the foundation of Wikipedia. Additionally, it makes no sense when considering this directors considerable body of English language works. I would add that the presumption of innocence must be applied to all sources, Wikipedia-based or otherwise, however, it is not just for the editor to decide that. It is also for the reader. A modern reader should, and generally is, intelligent enough to differentiate between a criminal charge and a conviction. We must give the readers the same benefit of the doubt as the accused, and assume they can properly parse the information presented.

In summation I believe that it is in the public's best interest to have centralized access to verified information. It is up to the public to contextualize the available information. An editors only true job is to provide the facts, and only the facts, in an unbiased manner. The presumption of innocence is the responsibility of the public, not an edict against the openness or freedom of information. Otherwise, there would be no reporting of criminal charges at all.”

Finally, I once again draw your attention to the fact that this information remains on Monsieur Bergerons French Wikipedia page, which means that he is already a notable enough individual for that information to be considered relevant to Wikipedia. In fact, two of these sources came directly from that page, and a third can be found there. Therefore, the issue is not whether this information should be disclosed, but rather, should information that is already available to the public be accessible in a centralized manner across all languages. I believe that it should, and that it would create a needless discrepancy in Wikipedia itself if it were not included. Therefore, I propose that the edit “In early 2020, Bergeron was charged in France with the rape of a colleague, which allegedly took place during the production of A Monster in Paris” be reinstated, and allowed to remain

198.2.93.215 (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

In the interests of Good Faith, and as per my discussion with an Admin (specifically@Miniapolis:) I've learned that one of my arguments goes against Wikipedia policy, specifically this policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x?

As such, I believe we should ignore those arguments, and not carry them forward in this discussion. I was unaware of that policy when I made them, but it does make sense. Besides, even if they didn't make sense to me, it's Wikipedia policy, so that debate would have to be had elsewhere anyways, and the policy would still apply in the interim.

I think there is still a discussion around the sources, as to the best of my current understanding, there are still multiple reliable third-party sources for this information. Let's make sure that we have the discussion with the fullest understanding of all relevant Wikipedia policies possible, so that we can come to the best possible consensus decision. For my part, I'll be careful to research Wikipedia policy before posting an argument.

Honestly, this page has gone back and forth for two years. I stumbled upon it after re-watching "Road to El Dorado" and was very shocked at what I saw, then confused when I came back later and found it all removed. There's obviously a discussion to be had here, and nobody was having it, probably due to the sensitivity of the subject matter. It's all been indirect edit wars until now, and that's silly. Let's just have it out and be done with it so that, one way of the other, the decision can stand and be final.

198.2.93.215 (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, this is 198.2.93.215. I went ahead and made an account, since I seem to be part of the Wikipedia process and all. Might as well make it official, right? Please do not @ that IP address anymore, as I won't be checking it. Instead, include this account. If I figure out how to attribute those old edits to this account, I'll do it. For now, this will have to do. Thanks! Seven Thousand Spiders In A Trenchcoat (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

ongoing changes to page that link to unverified sensationalized tabloid news article

Moved from User talk:ToBeFree

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I am writing to make a complaint and request support for an ongoing post that has been added to Eric Bergeron’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibo_Bergeron

The source articles that have been used are based on a tabloid - not on a high quality news sources. Not multiple sources, only feeding back to one article that was written. (both articles point to the same tabloid source article). The article uses an unverified source. There is not multiple sources, only one tabloid article. it is blatantly false. the article uses phrases like "The facts date back to 2007 and his victim committed suicide in 2017.” it is clearly highly dramatized and unverifiable.

On Wikipedia it is clearly stated that articles on living persons must adhere to high quality sources. That "Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism”

These sources are industry magazines.

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/artist-rights/report-road-to-el-dorado-and-shark-tale-director-bibo-bergeron-indicted-in-france-184672.html “According to an unidentified source who spoke with 3DVF,”

https://www.3dvf.com/eric-bibo-bergeron-mis-en-examen/ “We hold this information from a source close to the file whose identity we prefer to protect. “

Tabloid journalism is a popular style of largely sensationalist journalism (usually dramatized and sometimes unverifiable or even blatantly false),

Notice about sources This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonnchild (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

an unverified source is not an authority. nor is a sensationalized article written by an industry insider.

the articles were not written by multiple sources. they all feed back to one article that is based on an unverified "protected" source. not authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonnchild (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

In truth, the article should never have been used as a source. the users that continue to replace it are continuing to spread heresy, perpetuating the spread of false details. unless real news sourced it goes against wikipedia policy for living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonnchild (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dragonnchild: Initially I assumed good faith and thought the sources were reliable. I will find reliable sources because I think there are, since news about this incident in 2011 was quite going places —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 03:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dragonnchild: While I would strongly argue that the two industry-based newspapers are distinct from tabloids, I must concede the point that they all draw upon the same source, and that source is unreliable.

Therefore, I propose that these sources be used as citation instead:

"Éric Bergeron, director of animated films, indicted for rape" at website Marie Claire

"Bibo Bergeron: The director of A Monster in Paris is indicted for rape" at website Premiere

"Éric Bergeron: the director of A Monster in Paris and Gang of Sharks indicted for rape" at website Télé-Loisirs

I should note that industry newspapers are the most likely to report on this story (as this is a person in the industry), but their status as specialty news sources does not automatically make them tabloids, nor does it make the basic, consistent facts of this case (as presented across multiple relevant, reliable sources) any more or less real. 198.2.93.215 (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2022‎ (UTC)

Practical application of non-English citations

Content to be added from other section. Please hold 198.2.93.215 (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This section is for discussing and determining the ideal use of non-English sources in English Wikipedia. It it NOT for debating whether or not such sources can/should be used. That has been covered in the above discussion, and is permitted under the following Wikipedia policy: “Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.” taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

The initial content here is copy-pasted from the other discussion, to maintain the integrity of that discussion, while allowing this one to branch off on its own. This should help keep everything from dissolving into more of a mess. 198.2.93.215 (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I have viewed the sources, and these seem credible to me. One difficulty is that these sources are in French, and have to be easily translatable by readers. This article can also be expanded from the article on French Wikipedia. I hope consensus will be reached —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 07:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@CrafterNova: I think expanding the article from the French version is a good idea! It would be nice to make sure that all languages had access to the same information, across the board. And while I don't think it disqualifies the information or the articles validity to be used as a source (and according to Wikipedia policy, its fine), it's true that accessible translation would be ideal. Do we have any examples of how this has worked on other English-language articles with other-language sources? I can't think of any of the top of my head, but statistically, they must exist, and they would definitely help guide us. If I think of any, or otherwise stumble upon a good example, I'll add it here. Though again, a lack of translation is not a barrier for it's use as a cited, verified source. Hopefully we can all reach some kind of consensus on the larger, overall issue. 198.2.93.215 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@198.2.93.215: I found the French version of Chyler Leigh's article, let's see if this is valid example here —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 05:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@CrafterNova: That's an interesting find! Good looking out! I think one important thing we should keep in mind as well is that the French policy for some things might be different than the English policy. For example, they seem to have a different grading system per page, that users can check to evaluate both the importance and progress of each page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:%C3%89valuation To my knowledge, we don't have anything like that on our side. So I think it would be wise to A) see if we can find some criteria in English Wiki policy to base our judgments off of in general, and B) make sure the French sources fit English citation criteria. I was in part assuming they did, because I was also assuming all the different languages of Wikipedia had essentially the same policies, but I guess they don't.

So, I guess the best way to proceed is to look at the French sources on the English page for Chyler Leigh, along with a few sample citations from the French version, and identify how they line up with policy? Or we can check the French citation policy against the English one, see if we can find any significant differences? Or we can just check the French sources we found for Monsieur Bergeron against the English guidelines? Checking the French policy against the English might make the most sense, as we would then have a fuller understanding of their crossover, and could share that with Wikipedia overall, but I'm open to discussion. You seem to have a pretty full understanding of Wikipedia citation policy. At the very least, you've helped steer me in the right direction with that before! So yeah, what do you think is best? 198.2.93.215 (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, as posted elsewhere, this is 198.2.93.215. I went ahead and made an account, since I seem to be part of the Wikipedia process and all. Might as well make it official, right? Please do not @ that IP address anymore, as I won't be checking it. Instead, include this account. If I figure out how to attribute those old edits to this account, I'll do it. For now, this will have to do. Thanks! Seven Thousand Spiders In A Trenchcoat (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)