Jump to content

Talk:François Asselineau/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sources

Warning: many of those are not on the internet, you will need to access a library.

  • One can also find his successor at the directorate of the economical intelligence, Cyril Bouyeure:
    • Arrêté du 8 août 2006 portant nomination du coordonnateur ministériel à l'intelligence économique
    • "Cyril Bouyeure". intelligence online. 25/08/06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • From [2] (select "depuis 1987" and "tri par date croissante")
    • Alain Rollat (22 Sept 1989). "Le gouvernement confronté à une tentative de déstabilisation des accords de Matignon Deux rapports sur l'agence foncière de Nouvelle-Calédonie dénoncent les passe-droits accordés à des proches du RPCR". Le Monde. p. 10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Alain Rollat (22 Sept 1989). "NOUVELLE CALEDONIE Deux rapports officiels consacrés aux activités de l'Agence de développement rural et d'aménagement foncier (ADRAF)". Le Monde. p. 10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Alain Rollat (22 Sept 1989). "Un bilan accablant". Le Monde. p. 10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • "En Nouvelle-Calédonie " Le rapport de vérification sur l'ADRAF révèle le pillage du bien public ", souligne l'Agence kanak de presse". Le Monde. 22 Sept 1989. p. 10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • From [3]
    • Claire Bommelaer (29/02/2008). "XVIIe : dans son fief,l'autre bataille de Panafieu". Le Figaro. p. 4. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • "Ces petites listes qui compliquent la donne". Le Figaro. 12 février 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • "François Asselineau". Le Figaro. 20/10/04. p. 2. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Jean Pigeot (20/10/02). "La tentation de l'UMP croit chez les élus de Pasqua". Le Figaro. p. 7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Sophie Huet (03/04/02). "Pasqua incertain jusqu'au bout". Le Figaro. p. 6. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Eric Pelletier (29/01/98). "galathée : les négociations secrètes". Le Figaro. p. 10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • From Le Progrès de Lyon
    • "Qui gouverne la France ?". Le Progrès. 10/12/06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Frédéric Paillas (21/10/06). "Mais alors, qui gouverne la France ?". Le Progrès. p. 7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • From Le Parisien
    • M.C. (03/10/06). "Démission remarquée à l'UMP". Le Parisien. p. 2. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Philippe Martinet (28/02/01). "Tibéri : "C'est un scandale"". Le Parisien. p. 4. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • From La Voix du Nord

Regards, Comte0 (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for these sources. How would you suggest to use these sources to improve the article? I was thinking that using the Journal officiel would reduce general notoriety of the sources. --Lawren00 (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources from the carnet of Le Monde and Les Échos are primary sources, they don't establish notability by themselves anyway. They republish the announcement with a brief biography, I suggest using the biographical part from Le Monde among with the announcement from the journal officiel. I mean, for example, something like:

François Asselineau (born 14 september 1957 in Paris[1]) was a former chief of staff of the Minister of Tourism.[2]

  1. ^ "Tourisme". Le Monde. 30 May 1995.
  2. ^ Arrêté du 1er juin 1995 portant nomination au cabinet du ministre
regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the sources about nomination from Le Monde and others are closer from secondary sources than the appointment notice from the journal officiel that are perfectly primary sources. I would think it would be better to keep the secondary sources. Also, would it be better to use references in the body article than in the lead since the lead is supposed to summary the body article? --Lawren00 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability

      • This chap and his party and very borderline notable. He (and his party) were both deleted from French wikipedia and this article is, to my mind, clearly being used as puff piece. Were the AfD still open, I would probably vote for delete. This article needs a BIG clean-up. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a québécois ( french canadian ), its funny how for someone who is such a nobody he is one of the very few french politicians I heard of. Reading the arguments about why this page should be deleted I only see political extremists who clearly are on a vendetta against this guy and are so used to have their way when it comes to censorship that they cant stand to be told "no" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mankindfails (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Usage of recent sources from TV and Radio to reshape the UPR part

Since Mr Asselineau was aired many times in the TV and Radio in 2011 to talk about his party, UPR, I was thinking that we have plenty of secondary sources that we can use instead of the link to the party website to explain about the party program. I list the sources here, the videos can be found on the UPR website or in video streaming website:

National TV

  • BFM TV in "Les Experts de l'economie" (economics experts), 16 september 2011 9h-10h

International Radio

  • Africa n° 1 in "Le Grand Debat" (The great debate), 7 september 2011 19h30-20h00
  • Africa n° 1 in "Le Grand Debat", 20 June 2011 19h30-20h00
  • Choq FM in "L'autre monde" (The other world), 14 February 2011

National Radio

  • RCF, 10 June 2011

Local Radio

  • Beur-FM in "Forum Debat", 20 september 2011 18h30-20h00
  • Tropiques FM in "Midi Dix", 19 septembre 2011
  • Beur-FM in "Forum Debat", 6 september 2011 18h15-18h30
  • Tropiques FM in "Midi Dix", 16 June 2011
  • Yvelines Radio in "Tous en politique" (All in politics), 12 April 2011
  • Generations FM in "Ca fait debat" (it creates debate), 13 March 2011 19h=20h
  • Divergence FM in "Provoscopie", 17 January 2011

--Lawren00 (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is how I see the UPR part:

François Asselineau created the UPR the 27 March 2007, exactly 50 years after the French signature of the Rome Treaty. The party is defined as neither left or right but as a rally for national freedom by withdrawing France from European Union, eurozone and NATO.

  • European Union, a creation from USA

Based on American government declassified documents revealed by The Daily Telegraph[1], Francois Asselineau believes the European Union was created by the intelligence services of the United States. Therefore, European Union was not created to serve the interest of Europeans but those of the United States. He thinks that their goal is to make France and other European nations as vassal state. He explains that it was done by taking over the main functions and powers of President of France and National Assembly of France deputies to the profit of European Central Bank and European commission which serves the interest of the transatlantic lobbies[2].

  • Proposal of UPR

To gain back its national freedom, Francois Asselineau proposes France unilateral withdrawal from the European Union by the usage of TEU Article 50. Then, he wants to re-empower the banque de France to creates money and lend without or with very low interest rate to national administrations by denunciation of the article 25 from the law n°73-7 of 3 january 1973 about the banque de France statutes. He proposes France to gain back its national defence freedom by the withdraw from the NATO. François Asselineau endeavour France to take over again its right of defending its national interest at WTO that he believes is now defended by the European commission. He proposes also the restoration of capital, goods and person flow regulation control. Francois Asselineau proposes to revert the reduction of public services and to create a national housing program[2].

  • UPR and Francois Asselineau as candidates for 2012 French presidential election

Francois Asselineau mentioned several times in interviews that he will run for the 2012 French presidential election. However, he said that he will announce it officially later during the autumn 2011.

  1. ^ Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (19 september 2000). "Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs". The Daily Telegraph. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ a b BFM TV, "Les Experts de l'economie" (The Economics Experts), 16 september 2011 9h-10h

I used mainly the interview of BFM TV. Maybe we should complete this description with what was said at Africa n° 1. But I think we should not make it too long as the deeper explanation can be extended within a main UPR article. --Lawren00 (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the reference. As for the UPR, the only notable reference I could find about it was [4] which says: "un petit parti à peu près inconnu, l'Union populaire républicaine" (a small party almost unknown). That makes it unworthy of a main article IMHO, but I wouldn't mind being proven wrong... Regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for these corrections. For Sources for UPR article, you are right that strangely, there is no written reliable sources. However, in all the interviews listed above, Mr Asselineau introduced himself as president of the UPR. Thus, I was thinking that they may be used as source for the article. --Lawren00 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. The interviews are verbatim transcriptions of Mr Asselineau's speech, they fail the "independent of the subject" clause of WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I checked carefully GNG and it says " "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4] " . Which exclude the usage of UPR website, the blog la Lettre volee, the conference of Mr Asselineau but not his radio/TV debates and interviews right? --Lawren00 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia France censorship and Mr Asselineau

BTW, searching for François asselineau and wikipedia yield a few interesting results, for example [5] and [6]. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved it to a new part. --Lawren00 (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And I think it should stay below Notability above. I mean, I've already caught an IP red handed trying to stack votes. The next time an "innocent ip" try to have this article deleted (and Mr Asselineau look like a martyr), I think I'll start assuming bad faith at AN/I. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes the point you are mentioning is interesting. I also found this one :

I wonder if we can make a part in the article about it. --Lawren00 (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we can.
  • David Monniaux is quite well-know as a wikimedia speaker in France, his speach at a french major computing institute is reliable.
  • enquête & débat claims to be a serious information website (see the legal mentions at the bottom of the page)
  • Using the French AfD in the article might be a conflict of interest. Maybe it would be a good idea to seek help at Talk:French Wikipedia?
  • I think lalettrevolée is a blog, and should not be used, although google show that a few people think he was unfairly censored on the internet.
Voilà. Comte0 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, the lepost article refers to the last of the sources above from Divergence FM. I think both are reliable. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree on Enquete-debat which is usually the "voice" of some nationalist (the founder is fr:Jean Robin is more a nationalist polemist and not a real journalist (self called journalist while he never has been), also known for some "strange ideas" ;) really close to the same political line than François Asselineau, and was part of the UPR)... Enquete-debat is far from what we usually call "a reliable source" : not independant at all : support those thesis. And no LePost is not a reliable source in that case : it's behaving for this post as a blog : you can write your own article without any editorial check. Loreleil (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
So we all agree that David Monniaux's speech at INRIA (link 5 above) is reliable, then? And that, from wikipedia POV, we should talk about admissibility? Comte0 (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Rofl self source is quite a joke : wikipedia talk about wikipedia ^^ Loreleil (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The website "Enquête&Débat" is not a reliable source and the Numerama article already deals with his problems with the French wikipedia. Jelt (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
who decided it is not a reliable source? It is a news website independant from Asselineau and his UPR. D0kkaebi (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The rules of wikipedia decide so. Only serious information websites or newspaper are reliable, not private or conspirational websites that are not worth anything more than a blog. Look here: w:Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources Jelt (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see this part but enquêtes&débat is not at all a reliable source. They state themselves that they are not professional (see here) and the French wikipedia article on the founder fr:Jean Robin (éditeur) has enough quotes from famous newspapers and magazines about this website to discredit it completely. It doesn't pass the criteria of reliable sources. I saw above many trying to pass off blog articles from the newspaper websites as real articles, and it's the same process with this website. I checked again and I read the negative comments from Loreleil about the website. It seemed to be a consensus, but a supporter of Asselineau used it again with somebody else, who probably didn't pay attention what this website is. Jelt (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we should stick to fact and fact like this article of France soir describes Jean robin as "journaliste et éditeur libre". If you doubt, it was already debated on the French Wikipedia and it was agreed that Jean Robin is a "journalist". Now, I do not know why we should use the quote of some journalists more than any other. D0kkaebi (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, in addition to Enquete-Debat, there is now also the source from Numerama. Here is the title and text, I propose:
CENSORSHIP AGAINST FRANCOIS ASSELINEAU
(sub title) In the Media
François Asselineau had claimed to be victim of censorship by the French media. As official candidate for the French presidential election, 2012, he believes that French media are not following the recommendation advised by the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuelSource Tropique FM]. In an answer to François Asselineau's complain, the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel recognized that François Asselineau has to be treated fairly compared with other candidates considering his online popularity Source CSA.
(sub title) In French Wikipedia
François Asselineau complained several times in the media about the censorship of his page on the French Wikipedia source Enquete & debat. According to Numerama, the page is forbidden of being created because he is considered not meeting the politicians accessing conditions due to lack of notability and for not having be elected to any French national election. Numerama "ironically" notes the existence of the English version of François Asselineau's page that they consider well furnished with information and regularly updated Source Numerama. --Lawren00 (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this could be used as a source (even if I think the journalist has done a poor job in understanding what is the difference between WP and the Chapter Wikimedia France...
On the element about the CSA you are misunderstanding the letter from the CSA they didn't recognize your political parti and your candidate were treated unfairly.... they just told that if they notice such problem they would react :) Did they react up to now ? no. Loreleil (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Loreleil, thank you for your point of view. However, please keep your point to the content of the article and avoid indirectly accusing me of "non-neutral" point of view by labeling that it is "MY" party and "MY" candidate. Just a quick check at Wikipedia:Etiquette can remind you this Labeling editors or their edits with terms like "racist", "sexist", or even "poorly written"[disputed – discuss] make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you must criticize, do it politely and constructively. Avoid usage of invectives, expletives and the seven words, even if the same are used without an intention to attack any editor, as these may be easily construed to be personal attacks and may not productively add to the collegial and congenial environment that the project strives to propagate.
For the CSA, I agree with you, and that is why I do not think I misunderstood their writings but I believe you misunderstood my writings since you are saying that I wrote that CSA agreed Francois Asselineau's complain which I did not. I just wrote that they recognized that François Asselineau has to be treated fairly compared with other candidates considering his online popularity . It is just a translation of the 4th paragraph of the letter. --Lawren00 (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Added --Lawren00 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I was clearly not OFFENSIVE in anyway, you already said in the past you were member of the party and suggesting you were supporting the candidate. Telling otherwise would be "negating evidences"... We all know that this article has specific interest for you (you don't contribute much on any other subject in any wiki). In the non neutral aspect "the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel recognized that François Asselineau has to be treated fairly" shows that the CSA told that Asselineau has to be treated fairly, but no CSA doesn't tell that : they say : any candidates have to be treated fairly, by taking into account their respective existence and "representativeness" and Asselineau is no exception. Loreleil (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I never said at any time that I, lawren00, is a member of the UPR. And my life out of wikipedia has no relevance in your argumentation. Even if you had Harry Potter's Magic wand that could reveal my real identity, let me warn you that I do not want to see my name in Wikipedia. If you do put my name in Wikipedia, or a link to it, I would have to request administrator to block you by invocation of Template:Pinfo4. Regarding my participation, I created totally 10 articles, 8 about Korea where I belong to the portal, one about a technology and Francois Asselineau. So you are lying again when you say I don't participate to other subject. 90% of my contribution are for the Korean portal. Now please read again Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, I wish I will not have to talk about that anymore. --Lawren00 (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Stop talking about asking for my block if I do X or Y, I didn't do anything that is corresponding to this fact... The rest I suggest any other one to check the contribs since 1 year :) Loreleil (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
This section is non neutral. You cannot use the word "censorship" when the sources don’t even use it, or for Wikipedia which is private, and can't use primary sources as unique PoV. You are doing original researches here. Schlum (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your help on improving the article. Accusing us of doing PoV when everything we add is first exposed in the talk is a bit arch for a new comer on English Wikipedia. Regarding your point, the word "censorship" is used by Jean-Jacques Seymour, also here and there. The change you made "Media Images" does not fit at all since the section does not talk about his image in the media in general. If you would like to propose an alternative title, feel free to propose it here first, let's find a consensus, then proceed to the change. --Lawren00 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
We cannot leave a title which is non neutral and presents a PoV ; if you think than "Media images" don’t fit the content, maybe you can find a better alternative, but using such a word representing F. Asselineau point of view (quoted by some journalists) is out of question. Schlum (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not a POV but the words from Jean-Jacques Seymour and Jean Robin here. The changes you made with the new title Complaints against Media and removing the sub-part titles mentioning French Wikipedia and censorship in the title are ok. However, I would appreciate that you discuss it here, find a consensus, then make the changes as I advised above. --Lawren00 (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Words of J-J. Seymour and J. Robin (quoting F. Asselineau) are a PoV. Title must be neutral, and speaking about "censorship" (furthermore about a non-public space) is not for sure. Content must be neutral too, currently, it is only showing F. Asselineau’s point of view, but maybe this new source will help to balance the NPoV, explaining most of WP fr editors point of view on F. Asselineau notability ? Schlum (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
And concerning the § about CSA, this source should be mentionned to balance the NPoV too, showing the CSA’s point of view about F. Asselineau’s assertions. Schlum (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Here let me quote Enquete et Debat's article: the title says "Wikipedia France censure François Asselineau, pas Wikipedia US" and within the article "l’encyclopédie en ligne wikipedia, qui censure François Asselineau dans sa version française comme nous l’avions déjà évoqué en janvier 2011" can be read. It does not say Francois Asselineau who is claiming of being censored but it says Wikipedia that is censoring Francois Asselineau. Therefore it became the point of view of the journalist. For the 2 sources that you found, I agree to integrate them if it can enrich the section. Feel free to propose how you would integrate that. --Lawren00 (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
New source from France televisions with a paragraph about Francois Asslineau entitled "François Asselineau : le censuré de wikipedia". We have now 3 sources talking about "censorship". --Lawren00 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Another source by Nouvel Obs mentioning his aired-time in the media = 0. This was his reason of complain to CSA.
Another source talking about Asselineau-Wikipedia and mentioning the wiki fr notability guideline La Voix Du Nord --Lawren00 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
As explained, you've over interprated CSA decision about taking into account Internet : it s used to determine those who has claim to be candidate to be able to determine who should seriously be taken into account for the fairness in the media's "presence" Loreleil (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The pdf answer from the CSA is a primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation (w:Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources). The answer from the CSA also states that his case is special because his party was never in any election before, and that they would react if they notice any violation of the "equity principle". How can someone choose what should be included here or not? Jelt (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
That was the translation of the first statement "Il a certes un beau CV, mais rien dans tout cela n'entre dans les critères d'admissibilité des hommes politiques", écrivait en 2008 un contributeur de Wikipédia, pour proposer le rejet de la page Wikipédia de François Asselineau." If you have a better version to propose, please suggest. D0kkaebi (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
According to me, the article states: "Il est expliqué que l'homme ne respecterait pas les conditions d'accès aux entrées Wikipédia pour un personnage politique, parce qu'il n'a jamais été élu au niveau national et qu'il n'a pas assez de notoriété.", but not because the editors considered so, which would give the impression that it's arbitrary. There's this article, which details the notability conditions. I'll have to think about another version, but his claim of being censored should be removed: it's in neither article and not neutral at all. Jelt (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as I remember, the word "censored" appears in 3 articles. It was discussed above already. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Twice on a unreliable website, once on the title of a 3 line paragraph about Asselineau, saying that his page is blocked and referring to the Numerama article. Great claims require great sources, and there isn't any. None of the numerama articles state the he was censored, and they are far more important on this topic than the other sources. Jelt (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
So we have the journalist Jean Robin saying Asselineau is being censored in 2 articles. Then we have France-Television saying he is being censored in the title. I think France Television is the most famous media out of all of those who have written something about it. D0kkaebi (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Original text:
Among materials considered to assess the capacity to express candidacy's intention, the usage of on-line communication means will be considered. Considering the assessment of Mr Asselineau's representativeness, it will be taken into account that the recent creation of the Union Popular Republican can not, as a result, exhibit any recent elections' figure.
Text in the article:
In response to Asselineau's complaint, the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel confirmed that any potential candidate has to be treated fairly, and that all communication tools will be taken in account to measure the candidate's representativeness, including Internet ones[23]
My proposal to be closer from the original text:
In response to Asselineau's complaint, the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel answered that, considering the recent creation of the Union Popular Republican, result to recent election can not be taken into account to assess the representativeness of Mr Asselineau. Instead the usage of on-line communication means will be considered.
Tell me your opinion and if not agree, how you would modify. --Lawren00 (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to show us the complete lack of neutrality in your contribution : you have transformed the sentence to something that is completely not said by the counsil... Since nobody neutral except me is looking into this problem, I will let it as it even if we clearly are here in a case of pov pushing : nothing to do since it's completely under control of pov pusher... Loreleil (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

After coming back on the change proposed to the lead, I am thinking it would be proper for changing it according to the article content.

François Asselineau (French pronunciation: [fʁɑ̃swa asəlino]; born 14 September 1957) is a French politician. He belonged to the Rally for France (RPF), before creating his own political party, Popular Republican Union, (UPR), a movement known for its patriotism and Euroscepticism.

Here is my proposition:
François Asselineau (French pronunciation: [fʁɑ̃swa asəlino]; born 14 September 1957) is a French politician and an Inspector General. He belonged to the Rally for France (RPF), before creating his own political party, Popular Republican Union, (UPR), a movement proposing France's unilateral withdrawal from the European Union, the Eurozone and NATO. He is candidate for the 2012 French presidential election.
--Lawren00 (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Added --Lawren00 (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Jelt, you added the 17 endorsements in the lead. I disagree since it is not an important information helping to understand briefly who is Asselineau. As a comparison, I did not see any political person with the %age made at election mentioned in the lead. It is better to keep only the most important information there. It was discussed already above. If you want to discuss it still, please add your comment in the proper part. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there are politicians with their percentage in the lead, for instance, the French articles of fr:Nicolas Dupont-Aignan and fr:Jacques Cheminade. I checked for the candidates that didn't receive enough endorsements, and it's true that it's not indicated. For exampe, the fr:Nicolas Miguet article doesn't tell how many he received. Therefore, I deleted it in the article about Asselineau. I thought that it would be useful to specify his popularity in French politics, but it doesn't seem to be common to do so in the lead. It was an error from me. Jelt (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, it was removed. D0kkaebi (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI: proposed deletion of François Asselineau on the French Wikipedia

It might be useful to have a look at the assessment of François Asselineau's notability as per the current AfD on fr:WP, Discussion:François Asselineau/Suppression.

This AfD has been initiated following numerous requests to restore the French article from Mr Asselineau's supporters, in the context of the coming French presidential elections.

The final list of candidates is to be closed in less than a fortnight. Close to fifty politicians have announced they intend to run (among whom François Asselineau), but actual candidacies are subject to first obtaining 500 approvals ("signatures") from other political personalities (mayors of small towns, etc.). --Azurfrog (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What French Wikipedia (or any other language Wikipedia) does is of no concern to us, nor should it be. SilverserenC 17:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
You are absolutely right! So all these French editors must be dead wrong, and probably don't know a thing about notability in French politics anyway. I wonder if any of these buggers can even read a French article? --Azurfrog (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sure : the French most certainly can't possibly have a clear view of who is notable in their country and who is not. Should this article be kept - God forbid - it will certainly require a major cleanup. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
No doubt the editors of the French Wikipedia have a handle on their own notability criteria, and what subjects meet it or not. Furthermore, if the article is kept on the French Wikipedia, no doubt the editors there will apply the rules and guidelines prevalent there to govern cleanup of their article.

Hang on, were you two discussing this article, on this Wikipedia? Fair enough; are you prepared to engage in any edits of this article by the standards of the English Wikipedia? (And "God forbid" that it be kept? I've asked this question before, but honestly, I'm curious: what about this article bothers you so very much, to the point where you're acting as if its mere existence is an insult? Did this guy kick your cat or insult your parents?) Ravenswing 18:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

He says that cause lots of french are deluded left-wing extremists and they think anyone who is against the european union is a nazi even though ironically this union is what the nazi wanted. They probably think that censoring this guy will save countless babies lives, I'm not even exaggerating, you cant imagine how thoughts and opinions are controlled in France. Although you can see it a little just by how they desperatly try to censor this page and how they are not used to be told "no", lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mankindfails (talk • contribs) 16:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is not for assumptions about wether left wing/roght wing opinion might be on such or such subject. Nonetheless it is pretty interesting to note that for french administrators, existence of an article on a foreign wikipedia is not a reason to create the same article on the french wikipedia (arguing that two wrongs dont make a right) but thats they'd like to deletion from the french wikipedia be followed by foreigns wikipedias (argumenting to wrongs is a right)!
Moreover, there is a television video (from the state owned tv France 2) dealing with how this man is censored by the (french) wikipedia. This video is accessible via the agoravox link here after: www.agoravox.fr/actualites/politique/article/wikipedia-france-et-la-censure-de-145089 ≈≈≈≈84.97.15.69 (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

Alright ... I've done some cleanup, largely on grammar, syntax, spelling errors, WP:PEACOCK violations, and WP:MOS errors: things like every instance where the subject's full name was rendered, dates not in English style, and WP:UNDUE trivia such as listing every minister under every government in which the subject worked. I've also removed a couple of poorly sourced paragraphs per WP:BLP.

That being said, Lawren00 states - here, as well as on my talk page - that all changes ought to be discussed on this talk page, and consensus obtained, before being made. Not only do I note that he has made numerous changes without obtaining anyone's permission in advance to do so, but this is not the customary practice on the English Wikipedia. While I'm sure that as a very inexperienced editor (he has fewer than 200 edits) he might not be aware of current policies and guidelines on the matter, consensus is only ever necessary for contentious changes, or in topic areas under discretionary sanctions. In especial, WP:BLP enjoins us to aggressively remove items which are poorly sourced on a BLP. If there are any changes which Lawren00 disputes, let's hear them. Ravenswing 02:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the last time I wrote here, in the "#Wikipedia France censorship and Mr Asselineau" section above, the title was changed to a contentious one, and the discussion lead to nowhere. I don't want to work on that article without heading to the library again to check their microfilms, and then I might be able to print some. Is anybody interested? Regards, Comte0 (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello thank you for your hard work on the article. Just to justify a bit about how I did, when I was building the article, yes I refereed few times in the talk page. Once the first satisfying version was done, I always reported my changes here, prior posting. The idea was to avoid edition war. I did the same for other articles where I participated. Now, you mentioned that we do not do this way on the English Wikipedia and I believe none of the wikipedia have ever set a rule to do like this (neither French Wikipedia, French admins will confirm or not). My intention was just to avoid the creation of bad atmosphere. If it is disturbing wikipedia to proceed this way, then I will not push. For the changes I would like to dispute, I should get a consensus before posting when other should not. I feel a bit ... discriminated? Anyway, I do not complain and I accept this way of doing. --Lawren00 (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Article 50 of TUE

by the usage of TEU Article 50 is mentioned by La Croix. --Lawren00 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
New version:

Modification added in the article. --Lawren00 (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nationalization

UPR wants to nationalize highway, TF1, sinking banks, water management, Laposte, GDF Nord Eclair + Dauphiné Libere
New version:

  • He further favors the nationalization of troubled banks, TF1, La Poste, GDF, highways and water management. [source nord eclair], [source dauphine libere].

hoping thereby to regain control over capital flows. [20]. This part is to be developped with other sources since there is no relation with nationalization and regaining control over capital flows. --Lawren00 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Added --Lawren00 (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither right nor left

This mention was removed from the article but it was sourced by La Voix Du Nord where they write "au-dessus du clivage droite - gauche " + Dauphiné Libere. --Lawren00 (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Change proposition:

  • Asselineau runs on a neither right nor left [source Voix du Nord] [Source Dauphine Libere] anti-EU platform, stating that all French policy decisions are by an "unelected oligarchy, not French," leading to the political disaffection of the French public, and that the continued rule of the EU over European affairs will lead to a "global apartheid." --D0kkaebi (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Added --D0kkaebi (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

For a French, the idea of Asselineau being 'Neither right nor left' is just hilarious. Former associate of Pasqua and de Villier, Asselineau is not only right wing, but 'extrême droite'. UPR is one of many little nationalist parties, for which the FN ('Front National') is not radical enough. Paranoid believer in conspiracy theory, He has clearly stated (http://www.upr.fr/dossiers-de-fond/robert-schuman/la-face-cachee-de-robert-schuman) that the construction of Europe is a CIA plot and that Marine Le Pen (Head of FN) has stolen many of his ideas... The article of La Voix du Nord, cited above, is just bad journalism, merely repeating UPR propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanequessi (talk • contribs) 10:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please find sources, thank you. D0kkaebi (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In this article (http://www.sudouest.fr/2013/06/11/ils-ont-vu-de-la-lumiere-1080940-710.php) François Asselineau has been described as a far-right conspiracy theorist, I quote: "" Asselineau advocates a full sovereignism with a touch of anti-American conspiracy theory, " Rudy Reichsdadt analysis." "Jean-Yves Camus ventured to another hypothesis: "One can imagine that he distract voters from the Front_national. Candidate well in all aspects, he may divert those who are seduced by sovereignism and hard right." "Despite its rhetoric mainly based on the rejection of the 'system', François Asselineau remains a man rooted to the right of the right, Rudy Reichstadt analysis. " I think it should be mentioned somewhere, the actual state of this Wiki seems too much partisan. --Graviora manent (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, the problem is this point of view is opposed to the point of view of many other articles (2 above + others not listed here) and not the least, the position of French government toward UPR which position them NOT at the extrem right (LEXD) like FN but in the diverse (LDIV) [7] As a comparison, DLR is positioned as diverse right (LDVD) D0kkaebi (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I know, I've already mentioned this on the french version. Does this source is very comprehensive about his politic position ? Not really, as you can see the far right french party National_Front_(France) (FN) hasn't had the specific (LEXD) far right sign, instead it has "LFN" (FN lists) it's quite too generic, conversely we can find another notable source : Arrêt_sur_images [8] it describe him "at the frontiers of far-rightism". Don't forget that the UPR asked the Council of State for a change, from LDIV (Divers-Right) to DIV (Divers) [9] so it's not a really independant source and the notification "divers" is equivocal. At least the ASI source is enough notable to be mentionned somewhere and it should be written that is political position is controversial. I think you should not revert versions without more arguments or your motivation will seem doubtful, especially because Asselineau's supporters are known to be very POV-pusher. Graviora manent (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

UPR created 50 years after Rome treaty

Source bondy blog. Bondy Blog is not a common blog on the Internet. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondy_Blog In 2009 it was awarded the best political blog by challenges. Since 2006, Bondy blog is taking care of the political elections part of Yahoo France. --Lawren00 (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
proposal for inclusion:

capital, goods and person flow regulation control

capital, goods and person flow regulation control Nord Eclair New version proposal:

  • He believes that withdrawal from the EU and the euro by the usage of TEU Article 50[24] will get France out of its current crisis by regaining control over capital, goods and person flow regulation control [source Nord Eclair]. --D0kkaebi (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Added --D0kkaebi (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

2004 report bearing premises of UPR

This was removed from the article "François Asselineau was openly defending an economical patriotism and criticising the institutions within the European Union that he judged too liberal.source Libération, L'état a la traque aux intrus économiques, 24 November 2004." I think it makes sense mentioning since it can be easily linked with the ideas he is defenfing for the UPR. --Lawren00 (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

UE creation of the US

Source Dauphiné Libere + bondy blog. --Lawren00 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Other things not mentioned in previous version of the article but that could be added

--Lawren00 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Boycott of presidential election

under 2012 French presidential election
He called for boycotting the elections, which he described as a farce. source Al-Alam. --D0kkaebi (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no article in french wikipedia about F.Asselineau!

Mr Asselineau is boycotted by the TV and main-stream-medias in France, but also by the french moderators, here on wikipedia! Not even a translation of the english version! It doesn't appear normal !!! --Pangeol (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This article does not exist in French ??? ... or is there a bug somewhere ? 212.198.148.180 (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the article was deleted in December 2012, fr:François Asselineau. GB fan 13:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
As written in the article, Asselineau is banished from Wikipedia French. The article was deleted in 2008. D0kkaebi (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify: Asselineau is not "banished" from WP (fr). The French speaking editors came to the conclusion that he does not meet the notability criteria and have therefore decided to cancel his article. This decision is subject to review once it will appear that the criteria are met. --Lebob (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no article about François Asselineau in the fr.wikipedia.org? Why is the governing body of the Free encyclopedia not reprimanding those who are censuring him? The censorship team excuse is that he is not known enough, then how come the English version is not censoring him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.39.166 (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no French article because he doesn't fit the admissibility conditions (you can read both Numerama articles on this topic). There is no governing body in wikipedia and no censorship about Asselineau. If newspapers would write articles about him, he would be on the French wikipedia. You should complain to them instead of blaming wikipedia, and groundless accusations of censorship will not help you.
The English version has different admissibility conditions, which make him admissible here, but not on the French wikipedia. He is also probably not admissible on the German wikipedia, as they have very different conditions, but nobody reads his article there. Jelt (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced information in this article?

As I don't want to go to an edit war, I'll detail what I changed yesterday here:

  • This source doesn't state that Asselineau graduated from HEC in 1980 (only that he studied there), that he graduated from ENA (it says that he was a student there) and certainly not that he achieved the "second highest honors of those specialized in economics".
  • Which source states that he was between 1989 and 1990 chief of mission for the National Credit? None of the 4 first references detail which years he worked as a chief of mission.
  • The third reference is dead.
  • Nobody qualified his candidacy as experimented, the reference states "Présenté comme "le candidat le plus expérimenté"" which means that he or his party presented him as such.
  • The same thing for his "thoughtful" candidacy. The source states that there are joke candidates and other who are serious, and that Asselineau is not a joke candidate. It's not at all the same thing as being thoughtful.
  • His result in the legislative election is 0,58% and not 0,57%, see the provided source.
  • The pdf answer from the CSA is a primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation (w:Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources). The answer from the CSA also states that his case is special because his party was never in any election before, and that they would react if they notice any violation of the "equity principle". How can someone choose what should be included here or not?
  • The website "Enquête&Débat" is not a reliable source and the Numerama article already deals with his problems with the French wikipedia.
  • The Numerama article never states that "Asselineau is considered by editors not to meet the requisite notability criteria" but twice that he wouldn't meet the requisite notability criteria, the second time they specify that it's because he was never nationally elected and doesn't have enough notability.

Moreover, marking my edit as vandalism is a violation of the "assume good faith" guideline. Jelt (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello.

1/ I did not put a source behind each 3 words. here the evidence that he graduated in 1985 from ENA. here, the evidence that he graduated from HEC. I do not have time to search once more where was the source about the second highest honor, and some of the source are now out of reach. But ok let's remove it until we can confirm once more.
2/ National credit here
3/ Yes some references are not available anymore because Les Echos changed their archives to paid archives. Your participation on the article forces me to re-do all the work of sourcing once more.
4/ I do not interprete, I stick to the article and the article says Présenté comme "le candidat le plus expérimenté".
5/ The article divides the other candidates into 2 categories, thoughtful and joke candidates. They put Asselineau in the first categories and then talk about the jokes candidates "Quid des autres candidats ? Certains sont sérieux, d'autres moins. On retrouve François Asselineau, fondateur de l'Union populaire républicaine et candidat déclaré aux dernières élections présidentielles. Fautes de parrainages, il s'était retiré. D'autres candidatures sont plutôt fantaisistes.".
6/ Thanks for the typo.
7/ There is already a big discussion about that opened above. Why don't you give your point of view there so that all people who participated in the discussion can give their point of view?
8/ Ok, who decided it is not a reliable source? It is a news website independant from Asselineau and his UPR. Once again why don't you give your point of view in the long discussion above?
9/ That was the translation of the first statement "Il a certes un beau CV, mais rien dans tout cela n'entre dans les critères d'admissibilité des hommes politiques", écrivait en 2008 un contributeur de Wikipédia, pour proposer le rejet de la page Wikipédia de François Asselineau." If you have a better version to propose, please suggest.
10/ Sorry if that hurted you but when I see the suppression of 2 information sourced from SudOuest and L'Express, imposing a point of view above any consensus reached through long discussion, "vandalism" was the closest word to summary your contribution. D0kkaebi (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
1 and 2/ It doesn't need a source behind each 3 words, but at the end of every paragraph, there should be enough sources to check everything. My problem was especially these second highest honors, that I didn't see anywhere. As a result, I checked the other informations which weren't there.
3/ I corrected it.
4/ The article states that he was presented as "the most experienced candidate". As said, that's how his party presented him, not the opinion of the journalist. The quotation marks show that it's a quote. Therefore, it cannot be used to describe his candidacy.
5/ My problem is that I would not translate "candidat sérieux" as thoughtful, which would be "réfléchi" ie, that he thought a long time about it, as, for example, to make sure that his political program was perfectly planned. Here it means that he's a normal politician, having a political program without any ridiculous measure like the joke candidates.
7/ I think that the conversation has been over for two years. I only indicated that it was a primary source, because there shouldn't be a discussion about how to sum it up: a secondary source should have done it. If nobody talked about it, why is it even in the article? It's only a detail, and the article should not compile all claims from Asselineau. The numerama article here only says "Dans une tribune publiée sur Agoravox, l'Union Populaire Républicaine (UPR) explique qu'elle a fait appel au CSA pour se plaindre de l'absence de couverture médiatique de la candidature de François Asselineau.". No article ever talks about the answer from the CSA.
8/ The rules of wikipedia decide so. Only serious information websites or newspaper are reliable, not private or conspirational websites that are not worth anything more than a blog. Look here: w:Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
9/ According to me, the article states: "Il est expliqué que l'homme ne respecterait pas les conditions d'accès aux entrées Wikipédia pour un personnage politique, parce qu'il n'a jamais été élu au niveau national et qu'il n'a pas assez de notoriété.", but not because the editors considered so, which would give the impression that it's arbitrary. There's this article, which details the notability conditions. I'll have to think about another version, but his claim of being censored should be removed: it's in neither article and not neutral at all. Jelt (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
hello,
1, 2, 3, 6 We agree.
Regarding 4, I see your point. Then let's remove it. By the way, the source I used, it looks like used in a different place in the article, so we can not just remove the source but have to modify where it was replicated.
5/ I still disagree. First, the election was unexpected and anticipated because of the dismissal of Cahuzac, thus, if your interpretation was the meaning the writer wanted to reflect, absolutely none of the candidacy could have been "thoughtful". Also, thoughtful does mean only that the thinking was long time wise, it can mean also the thinking was deep. The meaning is, thoughtful to oppose to jokeful or light candidacy. If you have a better translation, please propose. All those following do not fit: serious (grave), staid (organise), meaningful (...).
7/ Yes, but let's continue it there. Please copy your point of view there, and I am sure we can write a better version.
8/ I said that because whether the source was reliable and independent, it was already discussed above.
9/ For this one also, let's continue that in the proper part. As far as I remember, the word "censored" appears in 3 articles. It was discussed above already.
10/ You added the 17 endorsements in the lead. I disagree since it is not an important information helping to understand briefly who is Asselineau. As a comparison, I did not see any political person with the %age made at election mentioned in the lead. It is better to keep only the most important information there. It was discussed already above. If you want to discuss it still, please add your comment in the proper part.
11/ I have also these sources that I could not use in the article, if you see where we could enrich the article with it: counter punch article, causeur interview, article La Voix de la Russie

D0kkaebi (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello
4/Normally, it was used only there. The source for "atypical" is used 4 times, but it's still there.
8/ I didn't see this part but enquêtes&débat is not at all a reliable source. They state themselves that they are not professional (see here) and the French wikipedia article on the founder fr:Jean Robin (éditeur) has enough quotes from famous newspapers and magazines about this website to discredit it completely. It doesn't pass the criteria of reliable sources. I saw above many trying to pass off blog articles from the newspaper websites as real articles, and it's the same process with this website. I checked again and I read the negative comments from Loreleil about the website. It seemed to be a consensus, but a supporter of Asselineau used it again with somebody else, who probably didn't pay attention what this website is.
9/ Twice on a unreliable website, once on the title of a 3 line paragraph about Asselineau, saying that his page is blocked and referring to the Numerama article. Great claims require great sources, and there isn't any. None of the numerama articles state the he was censored, and they are far more important on this topic than the other sources.
10/ Actually, there are politicians with their percentage in the lead, for instance, the French articles of fr:Nicolas Dupont-Aignan and fr:Jacques Cheminade. I checked for the candidates that didn't receive enough endorsements, and it's true that it's not indicated. For exampe, the fr:Nicolas Miguet article doesn't tell how many he received. Therefore, I deleted it in the article about Asselineau. I thought that it would be useful to specify his popularity in French politics, but it doesn't seem to be common to do so in the lead. It was an error from me.
I must still look more into the other points. Jelt (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
5/ What do you think of: "His candidacy has been qualified as atypical and as one of the thoughtful candidacies not representing a major party."? I think it would be better to specify each time "by the magazine XX". I thought again about it: "His candidacy has been qualified as atypical by the magazine La Dépêche du Midi and considered as one of the thoughtful candidacies not representing a major party by the magazine L'Express".
11/ I don't think the first two sources add anything to the article. The Voix de la Russie source could be interesting, but it states at the end: Les opinions exprimées dans ce contenu n'engagent que la responsabilité de l'auteur. Therefore, I find it very complicated to know what it is really worth. Jelt (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok remaining only 11 to be dealt here. I think it does not matter since it looks like a regular way of doing in their website. Most of the news are coming from RIA Novosti and when La Voix de la russie's journalists are writting such as Laurent Brayard or Francoise Compoint they always finish the article with these lines. D0kkaebi (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
There's also the part about wikipedia and the CSA, but I won't have much time during the next days... Jelt (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 European Election

Hello, since the election is now passed, maybe we can write the part for this event. Here are the sources collected. If anyone has more reliable sources, please share:

D0kkaebi (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Asselineau runned for the 2014 European Parliament election as the head of the list for the Île-de-France constituency. His purpose was to introduce UPR's program hoping to bring electors deceived from the current political system to his analysis Le Parisien and gain in notoriety thanks to the mediatic exposure Essonne Info. Asselineau complained to CSA to not have access to media and claimed that media's principle of equity was to expose parties that are already well-known France TV Info. The CSA issued two warnings at 10 and 2 days before the end of the campaign about the emergency to balance the desequilibrium of the parties exposure Reuters. Asselineau scored 0.56% of votes cast France TV Info in his constituency.

D0kkaebi (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed the (sourced) sentence "The CSA issued two warnings at 10 and 2 days before the end of the campaign about the emergency to balance the desequilibrium of the parties exposure" as I don't understand its relevance in this article : neither the sentence nor the sources on which it is founded quote "Asselineau" or "UPR". This is an article about François Asselineau, not about the 2014 European election campaign. Why should this information appear in this article ? Touriste (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution. So the relevance is simple, Asselineau as other parties, complained that they were not invited in the media. The CSA, without specifying which parties, said many parties were not invited in the media which include UPR but not only. So it supports the complains of Asselineau that he addressed to them. I hope it is more clear for you. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand your position. I don't follow you, though : you write here that "parties (...) not invited in the media (...) include UPR", which is in contradiction with a document to be found on the CSA website : [10] : UPR was covered by France 2, France 3 and RMC Découverte. Linking the CSA communiqué of May 21st and François Asselineau (or UPR) is Original Research. Henceforth, I feel free to remove once more this sentence which is not provably related to the topic of this article. Touriste (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is unbelievably biased

It blows François Asselineau's meager results in various elections out of all proportion, while totally "forgetting" the reason why he is vaguely known in France: very few French people indeed have ever heard of François Asselineau. But those who have know him for his conspiracist theories and harassment of the media at large (including the French WP), for instance through his "Groupe Wiki de l’UPR – Cybermilitantisme" headed by Marvin Leroy, in charge of François Asselineau's Internet activism.
Please read the French article for further references on this matter, and a more balanced approach of the subject. --Azurfrog (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Do not add negative information about a living person and source it to a blog. GB fan 20:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, the point is not controversial, and Laurent de Boissieu's blog is a well-known website on all political matters, and cannot be considered as un unreliable source. But OK, I won't push the point further for the time being, on the basis of this sole source at least. --Azurfrog (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
If you do not think it is controversial you can take it to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you think the blog is a reliable source you can take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. GB fan 20:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe I said I wouldn't push the point further without additional sources... --Azurfrog (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a relatively detailed article, from a French newsmagazine, about the fact that he and his party keep complaining about being ignored by the media, and rely mainly on Internet activism. This 2012 article is about his notorious "feud" with the French wikipedia, and mentions the fact that he remains unknown to the general public. He was invited a few days ago on a French talk show and this article keeps calling him, on September 22, a complete unknown. ("illustre inconnu") Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
If you would like to enrich the article with new sources, please propose your source and your potential modifications. We could discuss it here, make a consensus before proceeding the change. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Intention to correct undue weight and reach appropriate balance

This article does not comply with WP:UNDUE:

  • It gives undue importance to meager election results (a full chapter for an election in which Asselineau barely garnered 189 votes!).[1]
  • It does not properly explain his ideas and agenda.
  • It does not properly explain his relationship with the media, nor his Internet activism, even though sources widely consider that it is at the very basis of his (small) notability.

This is why I plan to rebalance the article by adding to it some key chapters from the French article.
Please do not change it without prior discussion here. --Azurfrog (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I find your attitude at the edge. This article has been written for several years with many different participations and everything in this article was reached through consensus and agreement. You can read this discussion page as an evidence. And, according to your single point of view, which, we understand is coming from the bias of the French Wikipedia, this article is not well written and should be re-written and not modify without your consent. Is there any reason why you should have a special treatment? Bring your modification proposal here and those that reach a consensus here will be acceptable. For now, we are forced to revert your biased modifications and your semi French sentences. I hope you respect the consensus and not imposing your single point of view. D0kkaebi (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi D0kkaebi,
You don't have a consensus to revert Azurfrog. You should wait for this. More, you should explain why you think that his edits are wrong or not appropriate.
It seems to me that he has just added sourced material (from his point of view to equilibrate the article, which sounds to be a reasonnable purpose.)
Pluto2012 (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, you 2 are new here and ignoring all the discussions above. So this is the other way around. You should bring your modifications here with sources. You had too many POV in what was written. You can not just ignore all the consensus reached previously. Thank you to respect the consensus and not imposing your point of view. D0kkaebi (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
You wrote in your edit summary that what Azurfrog had added was "ultra bias[ed]" but you didn't give any argument here to justify your revert.
A consensus can concern former sections of an article but certainly not the addition of new material.
What are your concerns with what was added ? Are the sources not reliable ? Is the information irrelavant and if so why ? ...
I have reinserted the content that you had removed.
Pluto2012 (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, this so-called "ultra-biased" is reliable content, as it simply is the translation of french article’s parts which was carefully written by many users with the reliable sources that appeared those last months, and lots of discussions. If someone is "ultra-biased" here, something tells me it’s D0kkaebi aka Lawren00 ([11]), member of UPR team ; someone should tell him he is not this article’s owner. Schlum (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess that what is called "ultra-biased" by D0kkaebi is any piece of text which has not been duly approved by the UPR. As a matter of fact the part of the article removed by D0kkaebi was indeed a partial translation of the French article. This section has been written on the base of the available French sources (which are currently the only ones available on François Asselineau. --Lebob (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Lebob, I expect "partial translation" does not mean my translation is biased in any way (actually, it's quite faithful), but only that, so far, I have translated only part of the French article ;-)... --Azurfrog (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops! Could this be a false friend? I wrote partial having in mind the meaning Existing as a part or portion, i.e. in translation of the French "partiel(le)"... ;-) --Lebob (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Total Lot-et-Garonne

What next?

I don't intend to translate the whole French article unless someone believes it's necessary and helps me with it, as it is pretty boring.

Even though, I think two other things should be changed in this article:

  •  Done The lead section should be reviewed to become "a stand-alone, concise overview of the subject", as required. As such, mentioning that Asselineau wanted to run for President without being able to become a candidate seems wholly irrelevant to me, all the more as he apparently fell very short of what support was required (17 vs the 500 supports that were required...). The lead section should now focus on providing some clear overview of his political agenda/views, and on his activism on the Internet as this is how he finally managed some notability.
  •  Done The "Political activities" section should be seriously shortened: there again, it is irrelevant to make anything but a brief mention of the fact that he was a would-be candidate in the French 2012 presidential elections. Same thing for the 2013 French legislative election, for which far too much is made of the short mention in one paper that, contrary to other minor candidates, "he was not a joke", or a "ninny" (= some other minor candidates being called "candidats fantaisistes", or even "zozos"). Moreover, even then, he barely managed 189 votes in this election, which is... well, "a joke", and far less than one of the so-called "ninnies", such as Anne Carpentier, who obtained 1,078 votes...
    Let's get serious: is such a result in a local by-election something to brag about in the English WP?

Your thoughts on the above? --Azurfrog (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we further reduce the sections devoted to "Career" and to "Political activities", as per the French article, or is it OK as they are now? Should we leave the lead section as it is, or translate it directly from the French article?
Any suggestions to help the article become neutral and adequately balanced? --Azurfrog (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The article is much more balanced now, using the best parts of two WPs to improve an article is quite WP's spirit, thanks a lot! In the lead section, translating the French article would only add the main ideas of the new sections (conspiracy theorist, harasses media), but this may be viewed as details that are mentioned enough in the text of the sections. Oliv0 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Oliv0 and support Azurfrog's edits and suggestions. Take note that a better translation of Jean-Yves Camus' judgement on Asselineau ("bien sous tous rapports") might "proper" rather than "decent". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Jean-Jacques Georges: I must say I hesitated to translate this. IMO, "a proper man" is a wee bit ambiguous, as it could mean something like "a real man"; whereas the meaning of "decent" is pretty obvious and straightforward, as in "he is quite a decent guy". But if you feel "a proper man" is a more adequate rendering, OK by me.
@ Oliv0: A "lead section" should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies", so that is seems right to expand it to reflect the new sections.
--Azurfrog (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
ofc, the lead section must reflect all prominent parts of the article ; and parts which are mostly based on primary content have to be shrunk as well. Schlum (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
And now, to answer the section title "What next?", I believe the next step would be to get a B-Class quality rating (just under the Good Article level) in cooperation with the contributors in the two projects shown at the top of this page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. Oliv0 (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
My my! A "B-class rating" is the kind of evaluation you can expect for an article such as Jane Austen, for instance. Now, such an article clearly is not in the same league as this one, if only because of the secondary sources available (shelves of books have been written about Jane Austen, while Asselineau will probably never be the subject of a single one).
As the French article has just been deleted (high time I translated it! ;-)...), I can't see how a French politician who has just been considered as "not notable" on the French WP for lack of significant and independant sources could be considered here as a valid subject for a "B-class article".
--Azurfrog (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought "proper" might be a better translation, especially since Camus' judgement on Asselineau is not entirely clear : what he seemed to mean by "bien sous tout rapports" was - at least that's what I understood - that Asselineau looked like a proper/decent/serious man, and could therefore hope to appeal to "traditional" right-wing voters (the context in this article was Asselineau's potential electoral appeal - the subsequent election actually showed that he had none). Hence, I though that "proper" would be more adequate, as in "a person who may inspire confidence". I might be mistaken, though.
As for the rating, I definitely agree. In France, we don't even have any newspaper articles centered on Asselineau, let alone books. Journalists mention him - provided that they mention him at all - like a marginal curiosity of French politics, and so far there seem to have been no in-depth analysis of his positions or his micro-party, except on a few websites/blogs. There might be more analysis, one day, but so far he has less political clout than Jacques Cheminade (Lyndon LaRouche's French representative). The article definitely had to reflect this, so Azurfrog's edits are more than welcome. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I see my idea of quality rating was perhaps a bit provocative. Bien sous tous rapports is a French phrase and the translation should be a common English phrase, maybe thoroughly respectable/decent. Oliv0 (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree: could be something like "a thoroughly respectable fellow" ("respectable fellow" rather than "respectable man", as I think it better renders the somewhat ironic touch conveyed by the French stock phrase, "bien sous tous rapports"). Up to you really. --Azurfrog (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have just finished translating the lead section of the French article (now deleted). As the criticism/harassment of the French WP - obvious to anyone intervening on fr:WP - may not be as obvious to English-speaking editors, I have taken care to increase the number of sources, citing 5 of them (among many others).
If I may add a personnal comment about this alleged "censorship", I would like to point out the fact that - to-date - no media has ever made an in-depth analysis of Asselineau's ideas, and the "secondary sources" that can be found for the moment are more "tongue in cheek" comments than anything else.
Hence the considerable reluctance of French contributors to consider that the French notability guidelines could be met by Asselineau. --Azurfrog (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The French article can still be seen (temporarily?) at archive.is/ImbUr (link not allowed here, see Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC). I also used the translation "thoroughly respectable fellow" as discussed above. Oliv0 (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Jean-Jacques Bourdin episode"

Another controversy around Asselineau's "hardball tactics and harassment" centers about the way he finally managed to be invited by Jean-Jacques Bourdin to increase his coverage by the media, even before finally securing an invitation to On n'est pas couché :

As for Jean-Jacques Bourdin (the editor-in-chief of RMC), he declared during the Salon du livre de Paris [fr] in March 2014 that "the more Asselineau's supporters call me and write to me, and the less I will take it into account", as "I don't like being told who I have to invite, whoever he is",[1] wondering "whether Asselineau was some kind of a guru" and insisting that he "was fed up with receiving e-mails and messages".[2] Asselineau immediately countered by claiming that "Jean-Jacques Bourdin is a shame to his profession",[3] while a petition was launched requesting that Jean-Jacques Bourdin invite François Asselineau.[4] Asselineau was finally invited by Bourdin in May 2014, on the occasion of the European elections.[5]

I plan to add this paragraph to the article ("Relationship with the media"), as it probably illustrates Asselineau's tactics even better that the invitation by Laurent Ruquier, all the more as it took place some 6 months before.

Any remarks on this? --Azurfrog (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ Jean-Jacques Bourdin, inviterez-vous François Asselineau ou Alain Soral ?, at 0 mn 15"
  2. ^ Jean-Jacques Bourdin, inviterez-vous François Asselineau ou Alain Soral ?, at 1 mn 05"
  3. ^ François Asselineau : "M. Jean-Jacques Bourdin déshonore sa profession"
  4. ^ Pétition pour que J.J. Bourdin invite François Asselineau
  5. ^ François ASSELINEAU invité de Jean-Jacques BOURDIN RMC INFO
IMHO, it would be a good idea to refer - briefly - to this anecdote, as it is a very revealing example of Asselineau's tactics (and how they can sometimes backfire) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't mean to go beyond what I wrote above, which is just enough to understand how it works: endless messages from supporters to get an invitation, refusal (public or private), complaint lodged by Asselineau, more Internet complaints, more messages from his supporters, so as to finally obtain what they wanted: increased media coverage. --Azurfrog (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree, Azurfrog and JJG, you did tremendously good work to improve this article, but here you are going too far for me. Your planned insertion contains five sources, none of which belongs to a reputable media. We are not here to give "example[s] of Asselineau's tactics" but to sum up what reliable sources tell us about Asselineau ; and this clash with Bourdin has not been covered by what I consider to be reliable sources. Touriste (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me it has more to do with several of these sources being primary sources or non-independent sources than with reliability: in particular, it is difficult to challenge that Jean-Jacques Bourdin said what he appears to say in these sources. Now, the lack of secondary sources is not in itself a problem since no interpretation of the facts is given, they are just reported as such.
But OK, remark duly noted. --Azurfrog (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Isn't that section about controversies already overlong for an article about a politician? It might be better to summarize it all, though I know it is not an easy task. Oliv0 (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, my proposal is probably too long anyway. However, this episode is enlightening, especially when reading the analysis made about it by the "Bureau National de l'UPR", under the title L'Affaire Bourdin ("the Bourdin case"). --Azurfrog (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we should try to be short. As for the Bourdin episode, Touriste has a point when he says that the sources are not very reputable (I may be wrong, but this video seems to have been made by some Alain Soral supporters) : however, Bourdin himself is a reliable media professional, so I guess what he says on the subject qualifies as a source, whoever he said it to (judging from the video, he might not have known who were the guys interviewing him). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Bourdin is a reliable source, and even a reliable secondary source when he gives his opinion of Asselineau's tactics. Problem is, he is not an independent source, hence the quotemarks. --Azurfrog (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Could it be worse than the (many) controversies a group of French wikipedians create on each and every wikipedia that have an article about Asselineau? Considering they never made any (constructive) edits in these wikipedias, shouldn't it be associated with "hardball tactics and harassment"? Sincerely/coralament, Claudi/Capsot (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be about my deletion request on the Occitan WP, but the problem there is that the notability criteria do not seem to reflect the more lax current practice. In other cases, if an article does not match the local notability criteria, a proposal to discuss deletion is not considered harassment but considered useful. Anyway, this is not the right place to discuss it, since it does not help to improve the English article. Oliv0 (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Szia! No, actually you got me wrong at least partially. It is not just your deletion demand or your intervention(s) in the Occitan wikipedia, it is simply the last straw ("la goutte qui fait déborder le vase) of a process that has been going for a month (or even more) in many "small" wikipedias (and even elsewhere like in the German wiki which, also, still conserves the article... Man I saw you were there and wrote in German, automated translation or real proficiency?) led by "a team" (mainly Darkoneko, Azurfrog, Lomita, you and some others...) of French wikipedians (I guess the feud has been waged for more than this, probably 3 years in this wiki...), generally not involved previously in edition on those wikipedias, nor in the wiki monitoring teams... So, one could wonder why so much "enthusiasm" about it all?
Another thing that you don't seem (or are not willing) to grasp is that there aren't any real deletion policies in the small and (hard-)striving wikipedias, nor clear notability rules set. You fail to understand that what you think are "rules" are, as a matter of fact, translations of other wikipedia(s) rules (mainly French I guess) left unchecked, and not updated, that haven't been applied nor noticed for ages. You see, we have too much work daily (more than 12,000 automatically created and linguistically deficient stubs to take care of, for instance...) to enter/apply the administrative subtleties of deletionism or inclusionism: we strive to create articles, fix what is clearly wrong, and appreciate any constructive contributions... but we hate wasting our time on FrancoFrench/FrenchWikipedian biased issues raised by people who are far from neutral and pretend to care about "spam" or "notability".
Bear in mind that creating articles is not really spam... even with the help of a poor translating tool... On the other hand, this, in my humble opinion, could be considered spam: in the Emilian wiki: "Cross wiki spamming For information - Regards --Lomita (discussioni) 19:38, 14 ott 2014 (UTC)", German wiki: "Cross wiki spamming : For information - Regards --Lomita (Diskussion) 08:17, 15. Okt. 2014 (CEST)", guess other people felt the same way: "@Lomita: Lehrreicher Fall von Cross Wiki Anti Spam Spamming. Wiki Jagdfieber. Sehr penetrante Vorgehensweise bei kleineren Wikipedien, wie ich beobachten konnte. Ein Mann, der so viel Aufwand und Aufmerksamkeit generiert, muss relevant sein. Parteigründer und Reizfigur für die französischen Medien, deshalb behalten. --Joe Watzmo (Diskussion) 19:32, 17. Okt. 2014 (CEST)".
Then I agree with you, this is not the right place (just as the other wikipedias are no extension of the French wikipedia or its customs) to discuss these things, even though I doubt that the improvement of the article is your ultimate goal, I would dare think it is rather insisting of the insignificance of this person, which in my opinion is a p(r)etty different objective (plan?). Adieu/Viszlát! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC) PS: In some ways I guess I have also answered the next comment though I can't have access to the French original article to check whether this version has better references or not. Phew, I couldn't imagine the French wikipedia had stricter playground rules than the English and German wikipedias, guess that's what makes it a real cultural exception and the cradle of democracy (or was it Athens?)!

What about translating this article in French?

Hi, since I notice the huge amount of time spent by many wikipedians, mostly from the French wikipedia, and pain taken in "improving" this article (well, the guy must be noticeable, or notable enough to have such a great amount of time and energy used in "improving" his biography), I will probably ponder whether I should make a translation of it for the French wikipedia (the sourcing seems quite good here!). Who knows? it might be accepted this time thanks to your abundant references! Thank you so much for your incredible contributions and help in making this article much longer and better! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, each WP has its own notability criteria, the sources given here are enough for this WP (see the former deletion requests) but not for the French WP (see the last deletion request there). Anyway now a big part of the article is a rephrasing of the deleted French article, so translating it back instead of using the original French would not make sense. And again, this is not the right place to discuss it, since it is not about the English article but the French one. Oliv0 (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Oliv0 : Ok then... this is obviously absurd : the political party this man has founded, the Union Populaire Républicaine (UPR) now has close to 7000 members (6978 at present date - february 2, 2015). That's not worth a goddamn WP Page.. so what he needs to become President before he can be considered "notorious enough" !? The membership of the UPR is rapidly growing a at geometrical rate, despite complete absence of main media coverage, and except for blatant calomny .I have seen the political line of the Front National (FN) of Marine Le Pen change according to the analysis of UPR (anti EU / pro Russia over Ukraine topic), and it has happened on other topics. In turn these Pro-Russia declerations of Marine Le Pen have been widely mediated on Russia Today, since Russia is looking for allies in the West. So indirectly the UPR is finally getting some serious mediatic traction here. The FN seems to be feeling the heat and trying to pull the rug the feet of the UPR... but unlike the FN the UPR could not hit the "xenophobia barrier" of the electorate since it does not base it's platform on intolerance. Since French WP is hellbent is censoring any reference to this man, why not make this the first bilingual english-french article on Wikipedia ? In any way, the strategy of censoring this man has failed. Deal with it. Here's a french translation for you : this is bullshit! / c'est de la foutaise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeigneurDucon (talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Run for French legislative election in the Lot-et-Garonne's 3rd constituency

Hello, since this event was widely covered by the national and regional press, I think it is time to add this part.

[Title] 2013 French legislative election [Title]

Following the Cahuzac affair and the resignation of Jérôme Cahuzac for whom Asselineau worked for as civil servant under the Ministry of Finance 1, 2, Asselineau decided to run for the legislative election in the Lot-et-Garonne's 3rd constituency aside with Régis Chamagne1, 2, 3. His candidacy has been qualified as experimented1, atypical1 and thoughtful1. However, he was described as being carpetbagged to what he explained that it was not applicable for legislative election since members of the National Assembly are representing the whole nation not a region 1. Asselineau's goal to run for this election was to expose the UPR analysis to the locals 1 and to gain in notoriety thanks to the media exposure of this election 1. He failed to reach the second round with a score of 0.57% 1.

D0kkaebi (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody qualified his candidacy as experimented, the reference states "Présenté comme "le candidat le plus expérimenté"" which means that he or his party presented him as such. The same thing for his "thoughtful" candidacy. The source states that there are joke candidates and other who are serious, and that Asselineau is not a joke candidate. It's not at all the same thing as being thoughtful. His result in the legislative election is 0,58% and not 0,57%, see the provided source. Jelt (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not interprete, I stick to the article and the article says Présenté comme "le candidat le plus expérimenté".
The article divides the other candidates into 2 categories, thoughtful and joke candidates. They put Asselineau in the first categories and then talk about the jokes candidates "Quid des autres candidats ? Certains sont sérieux, d'autres moins. On retrouve François Asselineau, fondateur de l'Union populaire républicaine et candidat déclaré aux dernières élections présidentielles. Fautes de parrainages, il s'était retiré. D'autres candidatures sont plutôt fantaisistes.". D0kkaebi (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The article states that he was presented as "the most experienced candidate". As said, that's how his party presented him, not the opinion of the journalist. The quotation marks show that it's a quote. Therefore, it cannot be used to describe his candidacy.
My problem is that I would not translate "candidat sérieux" as thoughtful, which would be "réfléchi" ie, that he thought a long time about it, as, for example, to make sure that his political program was perfectly planned. Here it means that he's a normal politician, having a political program without any ridiculous measure like the joke candidates. Jelt (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I see your point. Then let's remove it. By the way, the source I used, it looks like used in a different place in the article, so we can not just remove the source but have to modify where it was replicated.
I still disagree. First, the election was unexpected and anticipated because of the dismissal of Cahuzac, thus, if your interpretation was the meaning the writer wanted to reflect, absolutely none of the candidacy could have been "thoughtful". Also, thoughtful does mean only that the thinking was long time wise, it can mean also the thinking was deep. The meaning is, thoughtful to oppose to jokeful or light candidacy. If you have a better translation, please propose. All those following do not fit: serious (grave), staid (organise), meaningful (...). D0kkaebi (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Normally, it was used only there. The source for "atypical" is used 4 times, but it's still there. Jelt (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of: "His candidacy has been qualified as atypical and as one of the thoughtful candidacies not representing a major party."? I think it would be better to specify each time "by the magazine XX". I thought again about it: "His candidacy has been qualified as atypical by the magazine La Dépêche du Midi and considered as one of the thoughtful candidacies not representing a major party by the magazine L'Express". Jelt (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Both are ok. Maybe the second one is more accurate. I let you proceed the changes. D0kkaebi (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:François_Asselineau/Archive_1&oldid=1242253552"