WikiProject iconFrance Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

European elections 2014

I intend to remove 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 mention "UPR", and I see no reason to make an "educated guess" leading to think the CSA has sent a message about UPR media coverage. This is not a generalist article about the 2014 European election campaign, but about a fringe political party. Why should this information appear in this article, while it is not related to this political party ? Touriste (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Party's membership disagreement and sources

2970 - 5000 - 7000

It's a serious problem with number of "adherent-e-s"; because no mainstream medias take this number seriously or the statement aren't verified. problem of primary source... Problème car aucune source sérieuse ne prend ce nombre d'adhérent-e-s (ou 5500 ou 5900) seulement revendiqué par Asselineau et repris avec toute nuance et conditionnel de rigueur par l'ensemble de la presse, ici cité comme "source" sans nuance et sans conditionnel lorsque ce ne sont pas des propos tenus directement lors d'une émission de divertissement (on n'est pas couché).--86.68.87.55 (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://lamayenneonadore.fr n'est pas un site de journalisme reconnu ou de qualité pour servir de source dans une encyclopédie.--86.68.87.55 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of the number of party members is an issue for all political parties. Where is the source for the 143,000 members on the UMP page? Similarly, the 60,000 members of the PS is a claimed number simply relayed by Le Figaro. As official audits do not exist about the size of parties, they are by essence unreliable. Maybe should we provide the claimed numbers and warn the reader that they are indeed claimed numbers? DaweiK (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vous noterez bien que j'ai conservé la seule source du Figaro qui prend à son compte des chiffres soit 2960 adhérents. Sinon votre défense pikachu-victimisation devrait plutôt s'attacher à trouver de réelles et sérieuses sources (la mayenne j'adore !! ce n'était pas sérieux du tout !! ) Only serious sources are serious.--86.68.87.55 (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I re-inserted all the sources you removed. "Only serious sources are serious": criterion is independent from the topic of the article and, reliable, so as long as this is not a blog, but made by journalists, even though local ones, sources are valid. here, Var Matin is announcing more than 7,000, dated Feb 25th 2015. I added this in the article. D0kkaebi (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Les propos repris de l'upr ou de son site mais non vérifiés par les journalistes ne sont pas des sources sérieuses ni indépendantes (la mayenneonadore.fr ou la mayennejadore.fr ne sont définitivement pas des sources sérieuses) !!!--84.100.171.95 (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Please use English, this is not Wikipedia French. D0kkaebi (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unserious sources (http://lamayenneonadore.fr !!) + primary sources + POV = bye bye--84.100.171.95 (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no primary sources, and all the sources are reliable (news website not blog) and independent from the party. Thank you to base your modifications on facts. D0kkaebi (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your POV is based on poor (very) sources (unserious like mayennejadore.fr !! it's a joke !!); where are the scholar or serious newspaper sources ? Conclusion, undo your POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.250.33.145 (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if you want to discuss about Mayennejadore, why do you remove other sources like Var Matin? For Mayennejadore, it is an online regional newspaper made of 9 people. Tell us why it is not reliable. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All your sources are funny like mayennejadore.fr. Var matin is a non-verified figure about upr etc--84.100.171.95 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Var-Matin belongs to the Group Nice-Matin, one of the major newspaper owner in the south of France. How come they are "funny"? D0kkaebi (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a (obvious ) figure in a source (by chance you find some major regional newspaper mixed with your unknow websites of all kind ((mayennejadore)) ) isn't serious (number with no verification) so it's a funny funny way to do encyclopedic job ...--86.68.87.219 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are: Var-Matin, La Mayenne on adore, France TV, Valeurs Actuelles, Paris Normandie fr, France 3, Le Figaro and Nord Eclair. Do not hesitate to define which are serious and not serious and under which condition that you will find in the Wiki help. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see below --86.68.87.24 (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources

None of the journalists are allowed to audit the political parties to check the numbers. That is why they use the word "claim". That is the word used twice before introducing those numbers in the article. So there is no problem on quoting them. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non serious sources because all figures aren't assume by journalists - it's a big problem (the lies of upr membershisp numbers) ! --84.100.171.95 (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It can not be something else than "claimed" memberships because there is no official organism in France in charge of auditing political party memberships and the journalists are not able to audit the association. But if you have really hard time to sleep at night because it is not written "clearly" claim, I can suggest to change the title of the column from "membership" to "claimed membership". What do you think? D0kkaebi (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not encyclopedic at all ! --86.68.87.219 (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the definition of being encyclopedic against enforcing your own point of view. If all journalists quote these numbers, then they think it is worth knowing that. Please read here. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know the rules of wikipedia. It's not neutral to pretend big numbers and figures when yours sources doubts about or just reports the candidate's propaganda. Please read NPOV etc--84.100.171.95 (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part on the 2015 departmental election

I am adding the sources I found to write the part about the departmental election:

Regarding the results, our of the 2,054 cantons, UPR presented 14 lists scoring in average 1,63% of votes cast. D0kkaebi (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Few of this sources talk about an political action against european flags ... none give the results ...--84.100.171.95 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal: UPR ran in the 2015 departmental elections with 14 lists out of the 2,054 cantons Source LNR. They intended to alert electors notably on UPR's program and that the local situation is the consequence of national and international circumstances. They were hoping to score honorably Source Var Matin Ouest France. During the campaign, Yannick Herve, candidate in the Canton of Erstein, has been detained and questioned by the gendarmery after having taken down European flags from 6 communes' city halls while informing them beforehand. His intention was to protest against a symbol that is claiming to be unconstitutional in France. He has been charged by the 6 mayors for theft. UPR scored in average 1,63% of votes cast.BFM TV, Sandra GandoinDNA D0kkaebi (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relevance of that ? no encyclopedic interest --84.100.171.95 (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe for you, this page has neither, no encyclopedic interest? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not D0kkaebi (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources matters ! Maybe you wanna write an non-encyclopedic article ..--86.68.87.219 (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we can find 10 articles in the press talking about this, then it is notable event to be mentioned. Because this paragraph is based only on information withdrawn from the press, that is why it is encyclopedic not my or your point of view. D0kkaebi (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't find only one article relevant ! This ain't a notable encyclopedic event (do you understand the difference between press or news and encyclopedic  ? )--84.100.171.95 (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we find multiple notable sources talking about the same event it means it is a topic of concern and thus valid for wikipedia. D0kkaebi (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedic's principles doesn't mean that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project (is not a newspaper ).--Francis Le français (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Ip:86.68.87.219, "Only sources matters !" D0kkaebi (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources matter for encyclopedic subject !! please read (and understand) this wikipédia rules : WP:NOT + WP:NOTNEWS.--Francis Le français (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Départementales

sources do not say what the contributor wrote in the first part (14 cantons but not the second figure = all cantons). the second part is not significant and this has already been mentioned her. --Francis Le français (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comment in the proper part and erase the new part your created on this page. It is been a month we are talking about this so instead of snapping based on things that you have missed, I would recommend to adopt a more collaborative attitude. The figure of all cantons is to relate the small scale participation of UPR in this election. It is not a primary research if this is your meaning. D0kkaebi (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change or move my comments (it's a better collaborative attitude). Differents sources doesn't contain your word or analysis D0kkaebi + it's primary work/research (malgré ce que vous en dites). A non-working blog isn't a valid effective source.--Francis Le français (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a mess, isn't it.

Coming back to this after a year, two issues are painfully apparent: that the article is no longer written in a coherent style, and that there is at least one anon IP who wants to communicate in French. Since this is the English Wikipedia, that's inappropriate, and I suggest to any editor that if they wish to communicate and edit in French, they take their business to the French Wikipedia. WP:COMPETENCE is a definite problem here.

I'm minded that a lot of the trouble with this and associated articles last year came from visitors from the French Wikipedia, unfamiliar with the practices of the English Wikipedia, and at this stage, it's appropriate (as well as, possibly, high time) to ask their motives for coming here to edit. In the meantime, time for some cleanup. Ravenswing 10:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for improving the article. I was wondering about the term "centrist", if that can be applied here since in France centrist represents a political force, MODEM / UDI, that is not linked at all with UPR. French government classified UPR has "diverse" not a "centrist party". classification of UPR by French government explanation on term they use DIV, LUC..., explanation on who represents the centrist in France . If you think neither right nor left would not fit, then what about synchretic? D0kkaebi (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPR = is not a moderate party, is a far right wings (many sources in french), the "diverse" non classification isn't a serious argument.--84.100.171.95 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC) + the frenchy can check (bad poor or wrong) sources[reply]
Also described UPR : "confidentielle" confidential http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/2014/12/05/apres-la-quenelle-le-temps-des-querelles_1157617 (la confidentielle Union populaire républicaine, parti ultrasouverainiste et complotiste dirigé par l’énarque François Asselineau.)--84.100.171.95 (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We really don't have to give a lot of credence to what a noted left-wing publication editorializes about the UPR. If they did, of course, because the source you cite mentions the UPR in just a single sentence, and doesn't characterize it as "far right wing." Ravenswing 06:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing before talking, where is your first source for "centrist" ?
You may be hate left-wing ? We give few for you (antifascist) http://rebellyon.info/Attention-l-ultra-droite.html + http://confusionnisme.info/2015/05/15/lupr-en-visite-en-crimee/
One other source http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/1242473-onpc-en-invitant-francois-asselineau-laurent-ruquier-cede-a-la-pression-des-complotistes.html (ask me for help in translation )--86.68.87.219 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Centrism", as used in the article to describe UPR, strikes me as downright bizarre, and seems to be a personnal opinion, not an established fact as I haven't seen anything to that effect in the sources. Indeed, I could accept "Syncretic politics" as a reasonable way to help describe UPR. But "Centrism"? Come on now! --Azurfrog (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are talking about "neither right nor left" but the problem is that does not mean much to english native according to ravenswing. So a clear translation of this term could be either "syncretic" or "centrism" since anyway government classify the "DIV" lists with the centrist. D0kkaebi (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources aren't talking about "syncretic" or "centrism" but "complotiste (conspiracy theory)" etc. The only sources saids "neither right or left" are from the u.p.r (it's not neutral (WP:5P2 ) and not encyclopédic). A deduction from the government rankings/classify is not encyclopedic and NOR WP:NOR (-DIV- doesn't mean "centrist" but "divers") ...--86.68.87.24 (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources aren't talking about "syncretic", "centrism" neither "Popular Republican Union" because they are written in French not in English. Beside it does not look like you read the article to say that the sources for their positioning is upr's website. On the article the sources are from La voix du nord and Dauphine Libere, 2 of the most sold Daily newspaper in France. D0kkaebi (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you understood there is a source just above ? Look over (libération is a national newspaper - le dauphiné and la voix du nord are regional). The UPR website isn't an independent (or trustworthy and reliable) source (the one-o-one encyclopedic basis ) ! --86.68.87.24 (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your source of one semi-sentence of an article on Dieudonne and Alain Soral is the proper source to define upr's political positionning according to your point of view? D0kkaebi (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary source is better than many primary and non neutral sources. Encyclopédic !--86.68.87.24 (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
la voix du nord and dauphine are both secondary sources. Do you pretend their articles are non neutrals but liberation article is neutral? D0kkaebi (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
La voix du nord = Cet article est temporairement indisponible = unavailable. Dauphiné libéré = does not contain "centrist" + this party is not defined in this newspaper article. Your incorrect use of source is not neutral. + a source for upr = conspiracy party http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/1242473-onpc-en-invitant-francois-asselineau-laurent-ruquier-cede-a-la-pression-des-complotistes.html . --86.68.87.172 (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another source saying UPR is neither right nor left D0kkaebi (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the source coming from "Le Dauphiné Libéré" because it does not contain any information saying that UPR is a centrist party. D0kkaebi reverted writing "It is the last sentence of the article. For the specific "centrist" word, please see discussion page". The last sentence of the article says "Et dès qu’est posée une question sur l’éventuel isolement de la France si elle sortait de l’UE, sa réponse fuse : « La Suisse et la Norvège ne font pas partie de l’Union européenne, cela ne fait pas de ces pays des Corée du Nord pour autant... »" In English, it may be translated by "When we ask him about a possible isolation of France if it quits EU, his answer is: " Swiss and Norway do not belong to EU, and they are not like North Corea ..."". I do not see what is related to the party position in this sentence. And concerning the specific "centrist" word, I di not find anything here that could help me to see on what the "Dauphine libéré" article says that UPR is a "centrist" party. Still about the sources claming that the UPR is a centrist party, the second one coming from "La voix du nord" is not available online anymore. Do you have a copy of this article because for now, it is completely useless and I cannot check anything. Pamputt (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No the last sentence is this one "Nous sommes pour la souveraineté française, mais nous ne sommes ni xénophobes ni d’extrême droite. Nous transcendons la gauche et la droite." We are in favor to French sovereignty, we are neither xenophobe neither from the extreme right. We are above the left and the right." Regarding La Voix du Nord source, it is true that the article is not available anymore and I could not retrieve it. Maybe we should delete this source and use the one from Sputnik and the official ones from the government at European election (LDIV) and at departemental election (LDIV). D0kkaebi (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence doesn't say centrist (neither right or left isn't "centrist" ! ). Use the russian propaganda (sputniknew who didn't say "centrist") for sourcing a nationalist party, it's ironic. [1] I've already explain to you the concept of original research WP:OR.--Francis Le français (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about Asselineau

--86.68.87.172 (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your sources. First, I would advise to not use those small websites such as conspiracywatch, streetpress, otherwise, I guess it would be ok to use other more popular pure players such as egalite et reconciliation, quenelleplus and so on. For L'Express article, it is mainly about Soral, Dieudonne, Lepen, just a sentence about Asselineau, not worth using. For the NouvelObs article, the article is about Asselineau, not UPR. Finally, for Marianne article, it is clearly at charges against Asselineau and is not factual. I am not sure whether there is anything we can use in the article. D0kkaebi (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. it is ironic that many sources currently used are from small non-significant sites. Are you now finally agreed to do the cleaning ? it is also ironic that you make changes (on this article UPR) by recommending to others not to do ?--Francis Le français (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)D0kkaebi your analysis of French political journal "Marianne", shows that you are here in defense of asselineau and upr (not neutral) and you did not understand the principles about sources.--Francis Le français (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used are newspapers with neutral tone. If you would like to use "anti-fascist" website then the other side could use website such as Egalite et Reconciliation or Quenelle+ which are by the way far more popular in term of audience than the "anti-facist" websites quoted above. I do not think we need to use websites from any extremist, whether they are "anti-racist" or "dissident" on this article. The modification I made to the article had been proposed a month ago and if you missed it, I recommend you to pay more attention to this page. If you really would like to use Marianne's article in the UPR article, tell us how. D0kkaebi (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC) In addition, to counter balance the Marianne's article, if you would like to use it, we could use this source that is defending Asselineau against the "anti-fascist" point of view http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/07/the-french-chose-a-new-president-will-the-eurocrats-let-him-do-anything/ D0kkaebi (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stay calm D0kkaebi. Marianne extremist or antifascist ? it's a joke ? Who decided the neutral tone (you alone ? ) ? ipolitique isn't a valid sources, are you agree ? upr site is not an independants sources, are you agree ? A lot of ip aren't agree with you for more than a month; so don't play the oldie.--Francis Le français (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We already answered to you about the same claims above. No need for copy-paste. There is no link in the article to upr.fr as a source neither "ipolitique". D0kkaebi (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You never answer about Marianne and show your non-knoledge about the wikipedia source (france-politique.fr it's not a vlid source).--Francis Le français (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered but since you don't read answer until the end, I will just quote myself " If you really would like to use Marianne's article in the UPR article, tell us how. In addition, to counter balance the Marianne's article, if you would like to use it, we could use this source from counterpunch that is defending Asselineau against the "anti-fascist" point of view." D0kkaebi (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered about the site france-politique.fr, you have not shown to counterpunch is a valid source (that ignores the arguments you claim - evokes asselineau marginally), you attempted denier "marianne" magazine as valid source, you have not answered the invalidity of bondy blog. Changes sourced, common in Wikipedia do not have to have your prior approval (do you know that). In the list of errors and changes I have proposed, you have said that on points that proved false in relation to the rules of Wikipedia. --Francis Le français (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

France-politique is the website of Laurent de Boissieu, journalist at La Croix. It gives info on how Asselineau was at RIF before creating UPR. Validity of BondyBlog is explained clearly below, read again. Regarding counterPunch, and Diana Johnston, if you think them as unreliable source, can't help you further for your understanding of things. For the rest of writings, I don't understand what you try to mean. D0kkaebi (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bondy blog is not a reliable source cause the journalist isn't professionnal (see below and do not like you did not read the rules of Wikipedia I quoted you - if you think them as reliable source, can't help you further for your understanding of things). France-politique.fr is questionable. etc--Francis Le français (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither right or left doesn't mean centrist WP:OR.--Francis Le français (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, it is a "quoted part" of the article which means that it comes directly from Asselineau. It is only primary source. Pamputt (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Francis le francais, if you just make the effort to read a little bit above, a native English contributor, thus who knows a world more than you in his own languages that you are obviously not proficient at all, told you that "neither right nor left" would be translated into "centrist" in English. I did not agree with his interpretation neither but accepted since I totally recognized that his level of objectivity is higher than mine on this topic. If you do not agree with him, why don't you inform Ravenswing on his page and give him a lesson on the way you see things since it looks like you are really the expert here.
Pamputt, you are right so what about using the sources of Sputnik and French government? D0kkaebi (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Make an effort to read and understand the wikipedia'rules i've give you before. The opinion of one person isn't a rule and if the word "centrist" isn't in a source, it is a big big problem (i think it's a fault and a fraud !).--Francis Le français (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalize ?

D0kkaebi you have denounced my legitimate editions as vandalism. This process is shameful on your part but recurrent. I made different change on this article and you revert with one undo and falses reasons. Please open a discussion for each subject but be collaborative and respectful of other users who do not necessarily review.--Francis Le français (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you admit that you do not review history/discussion before changing the article, I would like to suggest you to submit your changes here, so that users that have invested lot of time on this article and have an overview of it, can quickly judge if your changes makes sense. Your attitude of changing the article and then claiming that you are victim of abuse because you did not know it was discussed before is at the edge. D0kkaebi (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're dreaming...You doesn't own this article and i prove severals errors, mistakes or forgery...--Francis Le français (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody claimed owning this article. I protect it against people who tried to destroy it, like here or here D0kkaebi (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You prefer add lies and leave invalid or weak sources ? --Francis Le français (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I add lies? I protect the article against lies, invalid sources, vandals and people who do not review the previous discussions and modify the article as they feel like D0kkaebi (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See below all the sections + one lie here--Francis Le français (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source of this information here "son parti se développe d'abord par Internet". D0kkaebi (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong ! History is cruel.--Francis Le français (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

As a result of recent edit-warring, I've protected this article for four days. I encourage everybody to continue discussing their proposed changes to the article and, if necessary, to pursue WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sample 1

different examples--Francis Le français (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bondy Blog

a (non-notable) blog invalid (404 error) isn't a source

Since liberation took over the Bondyblog, they erased the article about Francois Asselineau. here is the cash version still available on Google Cash. Regarding the notoriety of the Bondy Blog, I think you need to read about it before saying it s non-notable. Start by the wiki page, then you can read about the opinion of Le monde "Le Bondy Blog dans la cour des grands and finish by the "Prix Challenge" that they got in 2009 as the best Political blog. D0kkaebi (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VERIFY & WP:NEWSBLOG the author isn't a professionnal journalist (These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals ) ...--Francis Le français (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you sometimes even check your sayings? While the article about Asselineau was written they had 2 editors in chief, Nordine Nabili and Antoine Menusier. The first one had managed Marne La Vallee radio, Beur FM, worked for Radio France Internationale and Reuters. Regarding Antoine Menusier he is journalist at l'Hebdo, Le Courrier, Slate and Causeur. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong and wrong... This article is credited to Mr Yannis Zébaïr only ([2]). the authors of this interview are Julian Lopez and yannis zebair. But they are not professional journalists. your deductions and personal research are worthless face rules wikipedia I quoted you (have you read?).--Francis Le français (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean that their editors in chief are not really supervising the articles the website edits? D0kkaebi (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rules (of wikipédia) are the rules. Please read them - I you have provided links above. The page (bondy blog) does not indicate that the names of journalists you mention proofread articles. Also the Wikipedia rule is article written by professional journalists and recognized. If you object to a Wikipedia rule, how can think you have reason alone ? --Francis Le français (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed to request a third opinion D0kkaebi (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VERIFY & WP:NEWSBLOG the author isn't a professionnal journalist (These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals ).--Francis Le français (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another weak source

the site title is laughable and not encyclopedic

It is a local news website with a team made of 9 people. I do not see any problem here. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non professionnal journalists...again ...--Francis Le français (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed to request a third opinion D0kkaebi (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NEWSPAPER. Non professionnal journalists = delete this source.--Francis Le français (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost source

404 invalid source

URL changed, once the admin control is lifted, I will update proper URL D0kkaebi (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok + this sources talks about the wikipédia's upr "insistance" (insistence ).--Francis Le français (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a lie

a lie the french source say : "exclusivement en ligne" =exclusively (not primarly ! ) = diversion of sources !

I believed I wrote originally "exclusively" and it was modified later by someone else. I am ok to use again the term "exclusively". I will modify after admin control is lifted. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you recognize your mistake and it was not vandalism ?--Francis Le français (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC) + the source does not say that development is made exclusively online because (notably) of the two million views. This is a construction or a personal deduction which is not present in the source. --Francis Le français (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong ! History is cruel.--Francis Le français (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem to modify anything as long as it is justified, that's why I advocate the discussion and not the unilateral changes as you proceed. Because for one beneficial change, it includes also your several other wrong changes. I would modify the sentence as follow "The movement has been developed exclusively online and Asselineau's conferences had been seen almost 2 Million times." D0kkaebi (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) BTW, this source is talking about "primarily" (se développe d'abord par Internet). D0kkaebi (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You choose only what is ok for you (without regard to rules of Wikipedia I show you) without waiting for the end of our discussions, what perfect method ? --Francis Le français (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bizarre

request for clarification on a "bizarre" source

This is the official radio of Quebec University. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
why refuse to specify and is what this source is acceptable if these are students who are the (non professional) journalists? --Francis Le français (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The author does not look like a student at all. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of evidence is this ? Are you serious ? Is he a professionnal journalist ? Is it a serious media ? --Francis Le français (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed to request a third opinion D0kkaebi (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the third opinion doesn't fix this point; we erase it or ? --Francis Le français (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lie 2

the source doesn't say that

The source is saying that: "doit annoncer sa candidature à l'élection présidentielle de 2012, aujourd'hui à la scène Watteau". La scene Watteau is the place where the national congress took place. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deduction and personal projects not contained in the source.--Francis Le français (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you would like to modify "He confirmed his candidacy in December 2011 during the national congress of the party." by "He confirmed his candidacy in December 2011 at the scène Watteau"? D0kkaebi (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think these two things are not (zero) encyclopedic interest - please read what Wikipedia is not. --Francis Le français (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you just want to erase sourced information because you think this has "No encyclopedic interest", probably, like this whole article about UPR. So the part of the article will remain as is. Thank you for your opinion. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith, do you know the encyclopedic 5P ?--Francis Le français (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong source ?

wrong source ? not a word about UPR

It does not appear in the version I restored. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wrong return of "la tribune".--Francis Le français (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The link you point just show I revived your unilateral suppression of the BondyBlog source. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Ok, I understood, la tribune source was named leParisien that is why leParsien source appeared twice and latribune did not appear anymore. La Tribune is used to get the official list of candidates were Asselineau is not listed. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wrong again ! This link allows you to go down the page to see all the changes you have made ! this source has no interest nor any direct link asselineau or upr ! --Francis Le français (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This source is listing the official candidate list where Asselineau is not among them. Since the source number 17 contains the same info, I am ok to remove it. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Hello, In the infobox, you should change « |party_logo = [[File:Logo upr.jpg|thumb|Party's logo]] » to « |party_logo = Logo upr.jpg ». I use the edit fully-protected's template because this modification is minor and I can't follow this page. --Gratus (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Actually Template:Infobox political party requires the linked file to be specified. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion issue

I changed the section title (wise advice, thank you User:Erpert).--Francis Le français (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New section: positions

I think we can extend the article to open a section where we can expose the official opinion of UPR on topics when they are quoted by the press. We could list all the topics with link below. Opinion on this new section? D0kkaebi (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


New Section: Critics and supports

"In 2013, the university researcher, Jean-Yves Camus doubts the reality of membership figures" in the Popular support and electoral record. Since it looks like we have some sources criticizing and supporting UPR opinion by notable people, we could list those sources below and try to build a new section. Note: It is important to use the sources criticizing UPR, not only its president Asselineau.
Critical sources:

Supporting sources:

D0kkaebi (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism of Camus on the number must be in the part ( Popular support and electoral record) of the members figures WP:NPOVVIEW. WP:CSECTION said "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section".--Francis Le français (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a neutral section, based on fact without any judgement. I think it is better to include all the judgements in the same part. By the way, please note that in the exact same article, there is another opinion contradicting Camus, "Cette croissance est réelle et je crois qu’il faut la prendre au sérieux, a noté Rudy Reichstad" D0kkaebi (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A criticism or doubt about the number of subscriber that would separate the members figures is not be neutral under the rules I quoted. A (seperate) critic part isn't neutral. "ancré à la droite de la droite" + "complotiste" (Rudy Reichstad).--Francis Le français (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this Sud Ouest article, basically Camus doubt of UPR membership because he never saw any UPR militant and Rudy Reichstad doesn't agree with him since for him, the popularity is a fact since UPR is everywhere, so we should get ready against the new Hitler. Those are non neutral opinions. That is why I do not recommend to destroy the article as Francois Asselineau article was destroyed by adding non neutral opinions on top of non neutral opinions leading to have an article not based at all on facts but on non neutral opinions. Moreover, those non neutral opinions should be balanced with the other side non neutral opinions that will swamp the facts with big paragraph of non neutral point of view. I recommend to keep that in a separate part. D0kkaebi (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say things that aren't present in this source !
Rudy Reichstad
« C’est un véritable phénomène sur Internet. Il est difficile de passer à côté lorsqu’on s’intéresse à la mouvance complotiste. Cette croissance est réelle et je crois qu’il faut la prendre au sérieux »
+ « qu’en participant à ce scrutin qui sera plus médiatisé que d’ordinaire, il escompte gagner en notoriété ». + « Asselineau prône un souverainisme intégral mâtiné de théorie du complot antiaméricaine »
+ « Malgré sa rhétorique basée principalement sur le rejet du ‘‘Système’’, François Asselineau reste un homme ancré à la droite de la droite, analyse Rudy Reichstadt. À mon avis, son objectif est de faire une sorte d’OPA sur le public séduit par les discours complotistes de sites comme le Réseau Voltaire ou Égalité et Réconciliation, d’Alain Soral, qui récusent la pertinence du clivage droite-gauche. Je crois qu’il y voit un potentiel électoral à exploiter. ».
  1. He said the pru (upr) is strongly active (and growing) on internet (on conspiracy subject). He doesn't analyse the members figures.
  2. It's a neutral fact what they (Rudy or J-Y) think in a reliable source. WP:NPOV
  3. You want to choose one that you feel comfortable neutral regardless of Wikipedia neutrality rules ?
  4. Hitler ? Are you confused or is it a (bad) figure of rhetorical style ?
  5. In this case you exposed, create distinct parts does not meet Wikipedia neutrality rules.

--Francis Le français (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rfc: UPR article (French Political party)

RfC questions:

Commentary on RfC questions
6 RfCs in 4 days? Really? Why don't you list a series of changes you want to generally discuss once? Otherwise, just be WP:BOLD and copy edit the article after leaving an appropriate rationale on the talk page. This is being disruptive. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello thank you for your contribution. As you could see above, all of these topics that leaded to RFCs are being discussed for months without any progress between me and a new editor. If we need to change it a single RFC instead of dividing into 6 different, I can do it without any problem if this is the way to proceed. By the way, I proceeded to 3rd opinion but it was refused and I was advised to proceed to RFC. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Modified accordingly to above comment D0kkaebi (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Discussion

Boy, that's a big mess you've got there. Too many bizarre questions for my little brain to handle! Having said that, I think it must be stated that the current article's subsection on the 2015 elections is very badly written. The first sentence is OK. The rest needs to go, as it is honestly incomprehensible in English, not to mention non-neutral (these 2 issues are present in varying degrees throughout the text of the entire article). As for sources, this and this would be a good place to start in my opinion. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FoCuS contribs; talk to me!, thank you for your answer and advice. For the source you provide, the first one is the base of the paragraph you recommend to fix. All the sources are here. The 2nd one you provide does not provide much information except the fact that UPR has no etiquette and moreover is originated from a blog. I guess we need the contribution of a native to re-write properly. Since it looks like too complicate, do you recommend we go through a dispute resolution? D0kkaebi (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a blog from a respected source, which has an editorial process and a named author. I don't think there's a need to go through a dispute resolution. This seems like a matter where two editors have different ideas of how to write the article. It does need a copy edit, there's no denying it, and more experienced eyes could be of use here. Something we could do is to write a draft and have people reach consensus as to its content. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The second source say : like 5 others, the upr (pru) declare without label. Comes "without a label" does not mean "neither right nor left". The situation describe is only regional, this is a problem.
the first source is anecdotic and local not encyclopedic WP:NOT.--Francis Le français (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, me and FoCuS contribs; talk to me! have several years more of experience than you on Wikipedia. In addition, since your English level is basic and that you can not understand the rules describe on the link you keep sending, if we tell you that the sources are valid, it means they really are ! I would like to go through a mediation but since Francis just stick to his POV even though experienced users tell him he is wrong, I am not sure whether this is a useless step. I'll close the RFC for now. D0kkaebi (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the contempt which you (D0kkaebi) treat me isn't collaborative. You (D0kkaebi) believe hold the truth ?! It's me who told you(D0kkaebi), and indicated the rules of Wikipedia. You (D0kkaebi) may be several years of errors on wikipedia (with your POV) ?--Francis Le français (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have now at least 4 different person warning you on your behavior. Can we just be all wrong and only you right? D0kkaebi (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If 1000 upr'smembers are here to tell lies, a single person can have right.Focus and Learn FoCuS said you are wrong, so how do you imagine the world ?--Francis Le français (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously needs to learn about Wikipedia rules. If there are 1000 members against you, it means there is a large consensus against you and consensus makes rule. If you do not understand the basics of Wikipedia, please do not act with authority trying to control the article like you totally destroyed and made a crap article about Francois Asselineau, using blog sources when they justify your POV and removing reliable sources that you faint to not understand. And I am the one who is trying every procedures to make a mediation, and you are the one who ignore all of it and continue your revert war on this article. D0kkaebi (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If 1000 or 8400 upr's members tell lies here and bypass rules like WP:VERIFY WP:NEWSBLOG or WP:5P, it'sn't a consensus (never never never). You need to learn basic wikipedia's rules (starting "sources" may be) .--Francis Le français (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello thank you for the comments. I have filled an edit war ticket as Jaaron95 advised. Regarding the re-writing, user:Ravenswing has been the most helpful as he understands French. But even though he gave his opinion as native on the positioning of UPR, Francis le Francais did not agree (I did not agree neither, but since I consider ravenswing as neutral, I accepted his comments and changes). D0kkaebi (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV by D0kkaebi/Lawren00

This article should really be left without the POV-pushing by User:D0kkaebi=User:Lawren00, who is well-known (see Azurfrog on the French AfD for François Asselineau) as a high-ranking member and activist of this micro-party and has already been showing this activism for years here and in the article François Asselineau and its AfDs. Oliv0 (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories