Talk:Popular Republican Union (2007)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject France (Rated 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics / Political parties  
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force.

European elections 2014[edit]

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)

Party's membership disagreement and sources[edit]

2970 - 5000 - 7000[edit]

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).-- (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC) n'est pas un site de journalisme reconnu ou de qualité pour servir de source dans une encyclopédie.-- (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

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.-- (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 ou la ne sont définitivement pas des sources sérieuses) !!!-- (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Please use English, this is not Wikipedia French. D0kkaebi (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Unserious sources ( !!) + primary sources + POV = bye bye-- (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
Your POV is based on poor (very) sources (unserious like !! it's a joke !!); where are the scholar or serious newspaper sources ? Conclusion, undo your POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
All your sources are funny like Var matin is a non-verified figure about upr etc-- (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 ...-- (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
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)

see below -- (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Primary Sources[edit]

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)
Non serious sources because all figures aren't assume by journalists - it's a big problem (the lies of upr membershisp numbers) ! -- (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
It's not encyclopedic at all ! -- (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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-- (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Part on the 2015 departmental election[edit]

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)

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

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)

What is the relevance of that ? no encyclopedic interest -- (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe for you, this page has neither, no encyclopedic interest? D0kkaebi (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Only sources matters ! Maybe you wanna write an non-encyclopedic article ..-- (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 ? )-- (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Quoting Ip:, "Only sources matters !" D0kkaebi (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
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)


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)

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)
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)

Definitely a mess, isn't it.[edit]

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)

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)

  • Ah, but once again, this is the English Wikipedia, not the French one. We need pay no attention to what a Frenchman would call "centrist" -- what matters is what your average English-speaker would think of as "centrist." There's no need to go fishing for terms so as to avoid using the word. Ravenswing 06:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
UPR = is not a moderate party, is a far right wings (many sources in french), the "diverse" non classification isn't a serious argument.-- (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC) + the frenchy can check (bad poor or wrong) sources
Also described UPR : "confidentielle" confidential (la confidentielle Union populaire républicaine, parti ultrasouverainiste et complotiste dirigé par l’énarque François Asselineau.)-- (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
Ravenswing before talking, where is your first source for "centrist" ?
You may be hate left-wing ? We give few for you (antifascist) +
One other source (ask me for help in translation )-- (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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") ...-- (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
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)

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 ) ! -- (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

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)
A secondary source is better than many primary and non neutral sources. Encyclopédic !-- (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 . -- (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Another source saying UPR is neither right nor left D0kkaebi (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

Sources about Asselineau[edit]

-- (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

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)
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)
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 D0kkaebi (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
We already answered to you about the same claims above. No need for copy-paste. There is no link in the article to as a source neither "ipolitique". D0kkaebi (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You never answer about Marianne and show your non-knoledge about the wikipedia source ( it's not a vlid source).--Francis Le français (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
You have not answered about the site, 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)

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)

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). is questionable. etc--Francis Le français (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither right or left doesn't mean centrist WP:OR.--Francis Le français (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Vandalize ?[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
You prefer add lies and leave invalid or weak sources ? --Francis Le français (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
See below all the sections + one lie here--Francis Le français (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Source of this information here "son parti se développe d'abord par Internet". D0kkaebi (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wrong ! History is cruel.--Francis Le français (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

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)

sample 1[edit]

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

Bondy Blog[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)

Another weak source[edit]

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)
Non professionnal journalists...again ...--Francis Le français (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Ghost source[edit]

404 invalid source

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

a lie[edit]

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)
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)
Wrong ! History is cruel.--Francis Le français (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)


request for clarification on a "bizarre" source

This is the official radio of Quebec University. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
The author does not look like a student at all. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
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)

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

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

Lie 2[edit]

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)
Deduction and personal projects not contained in the source.--Francis Le français (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Good faith, do you know the encyclopedic 5P ?--Francis Le français (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wrong source ?[edit]

wrong source ? not a word about UPR

It does not appear in the version I restored. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
wrong return of "la tribune".--Francis Le français (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)


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)

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

Third opinion issue[edit]

  • I removed this from the third opinion noticeboard because it appears to be part of an ongoing dispute among several editors, not to mention that Malik Shabazz already suggested other forms of dispute resolution. If this talk page continues the way it has been, I wouldn't be surprised if the article were protected again, so maybe everyone should just cool off for a bit (for example, Francis Le français, "another shitty source" wasn't exactly the wisest choice of words). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    Hello Erpert blah, blah, blah..., thank you for your quick feedback. I would like to correct one thing, there are no several editors but just me and Francis le Francais. For now, I do not think there is a need to escalate to a more formal place, however, if you think the debates is already too hot, I am ready to go to an RfC or a mediation. Let me know your opinion. D0kkaebi (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    But it feels like an extension of this section, which indeed includes several editors. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you Erpert blah, blah, blah... for your answer. For the section you are pointing which is specifically to define the political position of UPR, it was not listed in the third party opinion issue. If we have to come to a mediation for this specific part, I will proceed to a formal mediation as you recommend. D0kkaebi (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I changed the section title (wise advice, thank you User:Erpert).--Francis Le français (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

New section: positions[edit]

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)

New Section: Critics and supports[edit]

"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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

rfc: UPR article (French Political party)[edit]

RfC questions:[edit]

  • Is the part related to Departmental election is valid or does it fall under WP:NOT? Discussion here
  • What is the political positioning of UPR? Several proposal in the talk including: neither right nor left, syncretic, centrist, diverse, far right, sovereignist. Discussion here
  • Is bondy blog source valid? . Discussion here
  • Lamayenneonadore source valid? Discussion here
  • Official radio of quebec university valid source? Discussion here Vagueness and doubt about the source, is a more accurate explanation.--Francis Le français (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Announcement of presidential candidacy at national congress, does it fall under 5P? Discussion here the adequacy and the actual content of a source seems a fair summary.--Francis Le français (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Commentary on RfC questions[edit]
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)
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)
Modified accordingly to above comment D0kkaebi (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments and Discussion[edit]

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Look, both of you: you're attributing stuff to me that I never said. Let's wait for other editors to comment, as other imputs are severely lacking. I merely said that the section needs to be rewritten and better sources found. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • OK, but the non collaborative attitude of D0kkaebi (non answering differents questions and massive-undo to a bad version ((with revert of "citation needed" ! ! )) doesn't help).--Francis Le français (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments: I don't have time to become very involved right now, but am making a quick comment so I might be later. I believe that "Eurosceptic, nationalist," and ideologically "mixed" are adequate descriptors of the UPR's politics. I can understand why some on the left would call them right wing, and on the right would call them left wing. Also, their involvement in any elections is relevant. Sorry that I don't have specific commentary on sources right now. As other users have noted, this page needs editing for English style and grammar. -Darouet (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with Darouet, and posterior to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Popular_Republican_Union_.282007.29 I think we can establish that unless anyone proposes new wording for review, the best course of action would be to tag the article under various grounds (i.e. neutrality and copy edit) and hope someone's up to the task eventually. I could tackle this, but I'd probably only get to it in a few months' time. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
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)

POV by D0kkaebi/Lawren00[edit]

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)

I strongly support Oliv0's statement. Almost since the beginning of his registration on WP (en) D0kkaebi/Lawren00 has behaved as a single purpose account and the big bulk of his contributions has been devoted to the articles François Asselineau or Popular Republican Union (2007). As such this would not disturb me too much if it would also not appear that he has endorsed medium or high level responsibilities in the UPR organization, which he has never disclosed (at least to the best of my knowledge). This raises the question of a potential infringement to conflict of interest guidelines. I think that this issue should be scrutinized in depth by the administrators as this situation very obviously creates problems because many of his edits are controversial to say the least. --Lebob (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Same here: shouldn't we, after all, state who D0kkaebi/Lawren00 really is? Shouldn't we disclose his exact rank within the Popular Republican Union organization, since he never did it himself?
We are dealing with a blatant conflict of interest, and D0kkaebi has the front to come forward and shamelessly complain that he - of all people! - has to "to protect the page" to "keep it neutral"!
To begin with, as per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure policy, shouldn't D0kkaebi/Lawren00 have immediately disclosed (on his talk page and in the edit summary accompanying his contributions to this article and to François Asselineau) that he is a high ranking member of PRU/Union Populaire Républicaine, and so, that he just can't be neutral?
--Azurfrog (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
All comments above are not very appropriate here; plus, they carry overtones of witch-hunt I strongly disapprove of. The account in question is a single-purpose-account. All right. Just like the other user whom he was edit-warring with, right? We tried to resolve things peacefully here, so please do not come here to add fuel to fire.
Also, in terms of POV and Trolling, Asselineau's fans have found a force to compete with:
See the French Wikipedia Village Pump, where one user proudly states (in French, obviously) that the French Wikipedia finally managed to take control of the Asselineau and UPR pages on the ENGLISH one!![1]
Or the Lombard WP Asselineau page, where the same kind of humility shows:
″As for the existing English article on this French politician, who do you think is best qualified to properly evaluate the subject and assess the French sources, the English-speaking editors, or the French ones, as per the current deletion discussion?″
And so on, wherever the page has survived.
Also, I cannot understand how one could (whoever he is, and I don't think it matters much) be a high-ranking member of UPR if it is a micro-party. Mind your wording, people!
Anyway, I do not think that all of those who care for a better page about UPR/Asselineau or for pages about them at all, are Asselineau's fans. That is at least not my case and I would appreciate if you (French Wikipedians if I am not mistaken) let things follow their due course gently, without unnecessary allegations about contributors to the article. In other words, improve the page or leave it.
Peace.--Write Serum (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
That quote in French is bewildering (French Wikipedia Village Pump). How can Azurfrog defend that (he seems to be the author)? I am puzzled. (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
There is of course nothing wrong in the French text of the ref just below, as I say below. Oliv0 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Everything is wrong with it. You're comment doesn't respond at all to the verifiable facts, it just accuses someone of things irrelevant (and does so on a wild guess). That is weird. Do you have a COI? (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Is what you are speaking of really the French excerpt "Après de longues..." just below, which only reflects good WP behaviour against non-neutrality as I explained below? By the way, I am neutral and concerned only by neutrality, and now the weird comment seemingly non-neutral is yours against Azurfrog and then me. Oliv0 (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that very quote. I was only teasing you. But honestly, we see here again why this NPOV thing tends to backfire. One often tends to think of himself as neutral, and consequently reinforces his own blindness to what would be obvious to an external viewer. It is only human. The strongest counter-poison to this is to accept the idea that nobody is neutral, ever! ... If you can't adopt your opponent's point of view, you will always fail to understand his actions and reaching a consensus is next to impossible unless you use force to impose it. And this is precisely what happened here. French Wikipedia's article on any subject is no more neutral than anybody's. The decision of some Influencial figures of French Wikipedia to impose their version to the English Wikipedia is called POV-pushing, plain and simple. And not only has it been forced it has also been shamelessly admitted with what might even seem like pride. You only fail to see it because you are part of a group that thinks this is justified based on your neutral appreciation of irrefutable reasons. Switch your point of view slightly in a direction or another and "Oh wait!" it all falls apart. Maybe there is no good guys. Conflicts are mere misunderstandings with useless tension on top. Tension tends to create rash actions. To an external viewer Azur's comment seems both abusive and stupid. One's neutrality is POV-pushing to another and vice versa. Did you fail to realise supporters of the party this page is about feel it's content to be both extremely defamatory and insulting? Based on my personal research they are probably right. But whatever way, this simple feeling, right or wrong, perfectly explains their reactions and also should help you understand that they have tried very hard to stay civil while their hearts were certainly calling for harder measures. Have you guys tried to stay civil and helpful as hard as they did? Based on what I read, I certainly don't see that. Don't be surprised then things don't get better. I guess this is what you get with the rules here. But adhering to rules (as one should) doesn't necessarily force you to blindfuly believe them as truths. Rules are artificial. Please pay attention to people. Whatever the rule says you should do, you can do with kindness and/or pedagogy. Listening to others is enriching, not a weakness. Well, just my suggestion. (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Since the French WP article had been improved during its AfD by using for interpretations of facts only widely distributed independent secondary sources centred on the subject (per French notability criteria), Azurfrog's idea to base on it a rewrite in English did not impose anything wrong but improved neutrality, it was "NPOV-pushing" and not POV-pushing. If what all independent sources say is insulting to supporters, it is not WP's fault, WP rules are to use independent sources and this does make things better towards neutrality instead of POV feelings. Oliv0 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "NPOV-pushing". It is a contradictio in adjecto. Pushing is pushing, there is no way to defend that. I think you could benefit from reading again my previous message. For one, it already answers the points you raised in your new message. Sincerely yours. (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ ″Après de longues batailles (il y aura fallu quatre PàS et une refonte totale de l'article !), les contributeurs de la WP francophone sont enfin parvenu à obtenir un article anglais neutre, ou presque. Un tel article pourrait peut-être être admissible ici, où les critères sont un peu plus exigeants pour les personnalités politiques, même si ce n'est clairement pas l'avis de la communauté francophone jusqu'à présent.″
D0kkaebi disappears and Write Serum appears with the same kind of speech. The French text just above says "contributors coming from the French WP succeeded in making the English article almost neutral", which means improving the English WP and not "taking control". (High-ranking people in a micro-party probably imply what we call in French wikt:fr:armée mexicaine "Mexican army": too many honorific titles - but this is out of the scope of this talk page.) And of course it is quite true and obvious that French-speaking editors can more easily assess the value of French sources than English-speaking editors, and then if an honest assessment is made about the quality of a source (is it independent, is it a real analysis or just a brief mention, etc.) it becomes easy to apply the rules of the English WP. Oliv0 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
″D0kkaebi disappears and Write Serum appears with the same kind of speech.″, you say. Did Dokkaebi disappear? If so, what was all your talk above about? I appear ″with the same kind of speech″. Really? Seriously? You're trying to make a point again, with unnecessary allegations again. Can't refrain?
If your skills in French can be of help and you try and use them on improving Asselineau page (badly needs it, to remove poor sources and put back good ones that were removed; easy for you to judge by yourself with your superior skills) and this one, honestly, I'd be glad to confess you're right in the rest of what you say above.--Write Serum (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, one can indeed wonder, when a brand-new editor (13 edits here...) appears out of nowhere and seems to be confusing single-purpose accounts (which are bad enough, on any subject) with someone who has been identified from the beginning as one of Asselineau's senior lieutenants. As for the alleged "overtones of witch-hunt", I hope they do not target the (very necessary) reminder I made of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure policy.
As it is, I very much doubt that DOkkaebi wrote himself the messages signed by Write Serum; however, I am amazed that a new account so conversant with the ins and outs of Asselineau's pervasiveness all over Wikipedia should have missed why balanced articles on Asselineau and his PRU are so difficult to manage: indeed, as long as we have someone around whose covert job it is to write on the subject and promote it, setting up neutral articles will always remain a difficult, conflict-ridden process.
Which is why having D0kkaebi disclose officially his position within Asselineau's organization would immediately relieve the tension and undoubtedly help improve things. --Azurfrog (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, personal attacks can not justify any edit revert. Cases of edit warring and personal threat has been opened. So I will not answer on that. In the meantime, thank you for listing all your proposal of changes and let's discuss that calmly. We can produce a better article all together. D0kkaebi (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

User:D0kkaebi why you ask for problems or point lists to improve ( what I've done since my arrival) when you do not answer ? --Francis Le français (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I have answered to all changes you have listed on the talk page and if not, give me a link. I can not copy-pasting my answers all the time since you do not bring any additional point that could convince me. That is why I listed the 7 details that we disagree and listed them to get neutral input opinion. If you keep repeating the same points that have been already answered, it does not mean I did not answer. I hope you understand. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
never answered, 1, 2, 3 4...--Francis Le français (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The first link you mention had already been removed when you posted.
The second issue seems addressed as well...So I let you check your other requests and see if they still need to be answered. Thank you. --Wr. Sr. (t) 09:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
All the request need to be answered !--Francis Le français (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
They are already answered on the same link you are providing !!! Moreover it was listed as part of the 7 topics in active disagreement that will have to be taken to arbitration once the processes of edit war, Personal attacks notices will be over. For the first link you give, I told you many times that my talk page is not the place to discuss article change details. It should be here. D0kkaebi (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
{wrong} You do not answer on your personal page or on the item (talkpage) under duress. What you call "answers" are leaks in long delays and non-compliance with the rules of Wikipedia (no need of arbitration for offending source, no need of arbitration for the free participation of all people). Arbitration is a pretext for your POV. Also, your erase even the quotation request (wikipédia - citation needed) does not show required a collaborative attitude.--Francis Le français (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I used the COI-related template on both talk pages, discussion is welcome here or on COI/N. Oliv0 (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I just finished reading this mess of a talk page. Seriously, some moderators please block French ip addresses on this page or something. Yeah, I know, probably not possible... Too bad. (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you realize that your own IP address is as French as Superdupont? --Lebob (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Lol, you are right. Well I don't even bother editing the page, so I guess I am clean. (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Right/Left classification[edit]

Hello, I am a French sympathizer and I wanted to clarify:

Asselineau is on the right but the UPR is above the right-left cleavage. It is classified by the Ministry of the Interior in the Miscellaneous category (DIV). Look at the legislative elections, for example. So stop classifying the party right because it is a false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorious Samoan (talkcontribs) 23:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with this party as well and I sincerely cannot see for the life of me why it would be classified as right-wing, let alone far-right (I assume it arises from the classic "Eurocritic = Nazi" rhetoric). Besides its official "Divers" classification, its platform is closer to what one would expect from a left-wing party (anti-austerity, increased democratic participation, increased share of public services in the economy, etc.) . I might have missed something, so if anyone knows of a contradicting direct source (i.e. not an opinion piece from a political opponent, but a recording/quote emanating from the PRU itself), please go ahead... VladNautilus (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)