Misplaced Pages

Talk:Popular Republican Union (2007): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:42, 1 July 2015 editFrancis Le français (talk | contribs)364 edits →Vandalize ?← Previous edit Revision as of 14:03, 1 July 2015 edit undoFrancis Le français (talk | contribs)364 edits →Page protection: examplesNext edit →
Line 113: Line 113:


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 ]. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC) 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 ]. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

== sample 1 ==
different examples--] (]) 14:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
=== Bondy Blog ===

=== Another shitty source ===
and not encyclopedic

=== Ghost source ===

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

=== bizarre ===
=== Lie 2 ===

=== Wrong source ? ===

Revision as of 14:03, 1 July 2015

WikiProject iconFrance Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. 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
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages'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)


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)

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)

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.--86.68.87.55 (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 mayenneonadore.fr ou la mayennejadore.fr ne sont définitivement pas des sources sérieuses) !!!--84.100.171.95 (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Please use English, this is not Misplaced Pages French. D0kkaebi (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Unserious sources (http://lamayenneonadore.fr !!) + primary sources + POV = bye bye--84.100.171.95 (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 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)
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 mayennejadore.fr. Var matin is a non-verified figure about upr etc--84.100.171.95 (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 ...--86.68.87.219 (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 --86.68.87.24 (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

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)
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)
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 ! --86.68.87.219 (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--84.100.171.95 (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 --84.100.171.95 (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe for you, this page has neither, no encyclopedic interest? https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not D0kkaebi (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Only sources matters ! Maybe you wanna write an non-encyclopedic article ..--86.68.87.219 (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  ? )--84.100.171.95 (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)

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)

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.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, unfamiliar with the practices of the English Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.--84.100.171.95 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC) + the frenchy can check (bad poor or wrong) sources
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)
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) 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)
"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") ...--86.68.87.24 (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 ) ! --86.68.87.24 (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 !--86.68.87.24 (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 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)

Sources about Asselineau

--86.68.87.172 (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 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)
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 upr.fr 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[REDACTED] source (france-politique.fr it's not a vlid source).--Francis Le français (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 erros, mistakes or forgery...--Francis Le français (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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 /Stalk 02:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

sample 1

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

Bondy Blog

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

Another shitty source

the site title is laughable and not encyclopedic

Ghost source

404 invalid source

a lie

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

bizarre

request for clarification on a "bizarre" source

Lie 2

the source doesn't say that

Wrong source ?

wrong source ? not a word about UPR

Categories:
Talk:Popular Republican Union (2007): Difference between revisions Add topic