Talk:Reconquête

Proper sourcing

I'm seeing a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced material added to the article recently. Just a reminder about Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

All material... must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports^[2] the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

One of the issues I'm seeing on the article is an editor making a statement about Reconquête and sourcing it in good faith with a source about Zemmour that does not provide any support to the assertion about the party. One issue that turns up again and again, is labeling the party position as "extreme right" or "far-right" in the Infobox, or calling it "Islamophobic". These are contentious labels, and must be scrupulously sourced or they must be removed immediately. If such a claim can be directly supported by the majority of solid, reliable, independent, secondary, sources *about the party* (not about Zemmour) then we can add terms like these, along with citations, but not before that. There is good support for those terms at the Zemmour article, but this is not the Zemmour article, and while there are isolated sources that use those labels (two, at this writing) they are a tiny minority of reliable sources, and do not represent the mainstream view.

Any assertion of fact in the article that is not directly supported by a citation may be challenged and removed by any editor, and contentious material will be removed immediately, per Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

On the flip side, we also have editors who are removing well-sourced material (such as here) without explanation. In this case, it's the issue with "far-right" again, only in the opposite direction. The fact that Zemmour is far-right is attested by many dozens of sources at the Zemmour article, and three solid citations (in English) here, which is more than enough to substantiate this fact. This term should not be removed when describing Zemmour in this article, except with the most extraordinary evidence. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

There are still edits happening all the time, changing the description of the party position without any sourcing; mostly, but not solely, by IP users. If this keeps up, I will ask for page protection. Do not change the description of the political position of the party to "far-right" (or to anything else) without valid sourcing that meets Wikipedia's standards. Repeated changes of this nature may lead to warnings on your user page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sigh; keeps happening, from both registered and IP users. I've requested semi-protection. Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Zemmour and his party should be far-right, there's plenty of articles on the topic from mainstream sources in the last week alone. The name is also a reference to the Reconquista which ended with the displacement of muslims and jews from Iberia. How it's not cut and dry that him and his party is far-right or islamaphobic is beyond me. Secondcodwar (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Secondcodwar

Zemmour is indeed far-right, as many dozens of references make clear at the article on him; three citations are more than enough in this article. As for the party ideology: of the two sources you gave, ABC doesn't mention the party at all, and CNBC mentions it just once, but it does not support your assertion in the slightest. If you can demonstrate that the majority of reliable sources describe the party that way, you're more than welcome to change the designation of the party to "far-right" in the article; currently, however, they do not. Mathglot (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Rédacteurs français, soyez la bienvenue! ~ Welcome, French editors!

An English translation follows the French:

Vos modifications de l'article et de la page de discussion sont les bienvenues ici sur la Wikipédia anglaise, tant que vous respectez les règles et directives de de la Wikipédia anglaise (voici une liste). Voici quelques-unes des plus importantes à connaître pour cet article :

• WP:Original research ⟶ fr:WP:Travaux inédits
• WP:Neutral point of view ⟶ fr:WP:Neutralité de point de vue
  • WP:DUE WEIGHT ⟶ fr:WP:UNDUE (on ne peut donner plus de poids à une opinion ou à une thèse qu'elle n'en possède réellement)
• WP:Verifiability ⟶ fr:WP:Vérifiabilité
• WP:Reliable sources ⟶ fr:WP:Sources fiables
• WP:Citing sources ⟶ fr:WP:Citez vos sources

Grosso modo, il y a une équivalence approximative entre la plupart des politiques les plus importantes des Wikipédias anglaise et française, cependant il y a des différences, et lorsque vous contribuez ici, il est fortement recommandé de lire et de comprendre les directives anglaises pertinentes, et de s'y conformer.

En particulier, la Wikipédia anglaise prend la WP:Verifiability très au sérieux, assurez-vous donc de bien le comprendre lorsque vous qualifiez la position politique ou l'idéologie de Reconquête, ou de Zemmour ; toute affirmation non soutenue sera supprimée, et des insertions répétées de contenu non soutenu peuvent entraîner des avertissements sur votre PdD utilisateur.

Ceci est la Wikipédia anglaise, dont le contenu des articles *doit obligatoirement* être en anglais, et les commentaires dans les pages de discussion *devraient* être en anglais. Ne vous inquiétez pas trop des fautes d'orthographe ou de grammaire anglaise ; tant que le contenu que vous ajoutez à l'article est compréhensible en anglais, quelqu'un viendra plus tard corriger les fautes d'anglais. Tant que votre sens est clair, et que vous vous conformez aux politiques et directives de la Wikipédia anglaise, vous avez le même droit d'éditer des articles ici, que n'importe qui d'autre. (Si vous souhaitez poser une question ici sur la PdD, mais vous redoutez que votre anglais n'est pas à la hauteur, ajoutez-la en français, faites-moi signe en utilisant {{re|Mathglot}} dans votre message, et je la traduirai pour vous.)

Pour une aide générale sur des questions concernant l'édition, vous êtes invité/e à poster une question au WP:Help desk, ou au WP:Tea house. (Vous pouvez également poser vos questions sur ma PdD en anglais ou en français.)

English version of the welcome message to French-speaking editors above, along with some helpful tips.

Your edits at the article and on the Talk page are welcome here at English Wikipedia, as long as you comply with the WP:PG policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia. Here are some of the most important ones to be aware of: WP:Original research ⟶ fr:WP:Travaux inédits WP:Neutral point of view ⟶ fr:WP:Neutralité de point de vue WP:DUE WEIGHT ⟶ fr:WP:UNDUE ("one cannot give more weight to an opinion or a thesis than it actually has" [quoting the French policy] ) WP:Verifiability ⟶ fr:WP:Vérifiabilité WP:Reliable sources ⟶ fr:WP:Sources fiables WP:Citing sources ⟶ fr:WP:Citez vos sources At a high level, there is a rough equivalence between many of the most important policies on English and French Wikipedias, however there are differences, and when editing here it is highly recommended that you read and understand the relevant English guidelines, and adhere to them. In particular, English Wikipedia takes WP:Verifiability very seriously, so be sure you understand it when characterizing the political position or ideology of Reconquête, or of Zemmour; any unsupported claims will be removed, and repeated insertions of unsupported material may result in warnings on your User talk page. This is English Wikipedia, so new article content *must* be in English, and Talk page comments *should* be in English. Don't worry too much about mistakes in English spelling or grammar; as long as your article content is understandable, someone will come by later and fix any errors of English. As long as your meaning is clear, and you comply with policies and guidelines, you have the same right to edit articles as anybody else. (If you wish to ask a question here on the Talk page, but your English isn't up to it, just add it in French, ping me, and I'll translate it for you.) For general help with questions about editing, you are welcome to post a question at the WP:Help desk, or at the WP:Tea house. (You can also ask at my Talk page, in English or in French.)

Merci, and once again, welcome to English Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Should their statements against capitalism be incouded

Should they be included or excluded Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why I shouldn't be included. Der under Smurf (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Smurf; as long as it is well sourced, and WP:DUE. The one caveat I would add, is to draw a distinction about who or what the statements apply to: i.e., is it about the political party platform, or is it comments, speeches, or writing by Zemmour only, outside the realm of his role as party candidate for President? If it's really pertinent mostly to Zemmour and not the party, then it might better at the Eric Zemmour article than here. So it's a bit of a judgment call. Mathglot (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Political position of the party

I'm a little confused as to why the party is labelled as right-wing instead of far-right. It is unambiguously to the right of the National Rally, which is itself labelled as far-right on its Wikipedia page. Dizuix (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Europe Elects also ranks the party as far-right. PLATEL (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@PLATEL: thanks for adding your source. This is literally the first source I've seen that unambiguously lists the party as far-right. That's no big surprise, but still, there simply aren't a lot of sources which say this, or at least, I haven't found one. It would be good to have two or three really solid sources speaking of the party as "far-right" before we can add it to the article in Wikipedia's voice (as opposed to the weaker, in-text attribution, which could just be some random blogger's opinion). Something like Ouest France, Le Monde, Le Figaro, L'Express, Le Point over there, or BBC, Reuters, AP, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, in English. Two very solid sources of that caliber, and I'd say we can add it to the article. (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

References

WikiZedia

Organized interference with this article by the Zemmour campaign

This article is being edited by members of a task force attached to the Zemmour campaign. Please see WP:VPM#WikiZedia: an organized influence operation at Wikipedia by the campaign of a candidate for French President. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

For those not following this closely, here's the Tl;dr: French ANI has banned 15-year veteran editor fr:Cheep (talk · contribs), one of the top contributors at fr-wiki, for having been a member of a "covert task force" within the digital arm of the Zemmour campaign, in charge of promoting pro-Zemmour content at French Wikipedia, along with six other editors. Since then, en-wiki has also indefinitely blocked Cheep (talk · contribs) at ANI, and several others are in danger of being blocked there as well. The French press has been following this closely, reporting on both the POV-pushing at Wikipedia by the Zemmour campaign, as well as reporting on the actions by the French ANI board that carried out the bans. Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

COI tag (February 2022)

As per edits by Cheep and the related organised influence campaign (also mentioned in the section above) —AFreshStart (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Should we add content about the WikiZedia affair to the article?

There are now at least twenty sources about the WikiZedia affair, which is about the clandestine attempt to influence Wikipedia in order to promote Reconquête and Zemmour's candidacy in the French presidential election. They appear in highly reliable sources, among them Le Monde, Le Parisien, Nice Matin, Libération, Sud Ouest, Europe 1, L'Express, a couple of Belgian outlets, and The Guardian. (A more complete list of press articles can be found here. For more details about WikiZedia, see this discussion.) This does not have to meet notability standards in order to be added to the article, and that list seems like sufficient coverage to easily pass the bar of WP:DUEWEIGHT for at least a couple of sentences about it in the article, but I thought I'd ask for feedback first. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: it seems relevant and appropriate to me. Jr8825 • Talk 03:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems fair. Zemmour was not personally involved, therefore it shouldn't be mentioned at his article. Also, what about creating WikiZedia? There's lots of sources after all. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I think adding it is DUE. I slightly disagree with Comte0 on two points however. Firstly while Zemmour may not have personally been involved in the WikiZedia campaign, it did/does form a part of his presidential campaign. I think a brief mention/blurb of it on his article, linking to the main entry on it is DUE.

Secondly, I'm not sure if WikiZedia meets WP:N yet. Primarily because of WP:BLP1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. A way around that might be to create a page on Zemmour's presidential campaign, similar in spirit/style to pages like 2017 Marine Le Pen presidential campaign or 2012 François Hollande presidential campaign, but that would also require sufficient coverage of the rest of his campaign. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrote my response before finishing yours, and it was almost identical, except that I think it does meet N but not PAGEDECIDE, which means it should be hosted here (or at Zemmour) until the host article is too big to contain it, or even more stories come out about it.

And because it was the campaign doing it and not Zemmour, I think it should be here, not there. What do others think? Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess there's a philosophical question there, between the differences in action of an election candidate and their campaign. My instinct says to put it under Zemmour, in a section titled something along the lines of "WikiZedia and the 2022 French Presidential campaign", as I don't see a difference between the actions of a candidate and their team. In my experience (UK/Ireland elections) an electoral candidate is usually held responsible for the actions taken by their campaign team, though I can't discount French electoral law being different in that regard.

But, depending on how much of Reconquête is Zemmour, in the same way that the Conservative Party (UK) is largely the party of Boris Johnson, or the Republican Party (United States) was largely the party of Donald Trump, I could see an argument being made for it residing here. Sorry if that's a non-answer for now. Need time to think and possibly convincing arguments to be made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If that were true, though, then we should never have an article for a political party, just make it a major section under the party leader. But I don't think you're saying that. And it's not a non-answer, it's an honest answer; you just see both sides, which is fine; let's see what others think. Mathglot (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thinking on it some more, if there ends up being enough material about the campaign to support a separate article about it, then I agree with you that it would belong better there than at either the candidate or the party articles. Mathglot (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources available

There are plenty of sources from which to source this. For a list of over two dozen references (at this writing), please see WP:VPM#Reaction in the French press. Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Content added; discuss

I took a first stab at adding a section about this; it's entitled Online influence campaign, partly because it's a natural descriptive expression and nobody would recognize "WikiZedia", and partly because it targeted Facebook also, not just Wikipedia. It was the online division within the campaign that did this, not Zemmour himself, so I added it in this article, but I'm open to suggestions, both on content and placement. Mathglot (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Made some additions to note the total of seven banned editors. It's kind of amazing how closely French sources are following this, including linking directly to the ANI discussion on fr-wiki, quoting long paragraphs directly from it, and commenting on how many volunteers there voted to ban Cheep. Mathglot (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should less talk about wikizedia who us only à small détail in the history of zemmour. One should not forget that cheep was only a voluntary contributor who has made his best to improve articles about the national right who has sufered of many mediatic bias. It looks like a conspiration theory when one pretends that there was a professionnal group who wanted to traffic wiki, moreover the single so called proof if wikizedia is a journalist who is not very nationalist-friendly, we are not forced to believe him, we should ask Éric if that is true,he is the best source! Apokrolo (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS Apokrif (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikizedia is globally banned

They are globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (four of seven members), but there is no reliable secondary source to score it. Thingofme (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Intro, 1st sentence

Hello. I couldn't find any policy page explaining that the political spectrum should have a dedicated sentence at the end of the intro and not be used as an adjective. If this policy exists, could it be pointed out so I can adapt to what is required?

I the meantime, I replaced the far-right mention as it was. It has been pointed out to me that articles such as Donald Trump, Rishi Sunak, Benito Mussolini do it that way. I'm not a fan of other content, but I should point out that Horizons (political party), Socialist Party (France), La France Insoumise are consistent with the way this article is presented. So without a specific policy being pointed out to me, I'm not sure why the setup should be changed and for which reason. Gyrostat (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)