Talk:Jacques Cheminade

Education
What does this mean: "He is a graduate of ... École nationale d'administration (ENA) graduate-group Jean Jaurès 1967-1969 ...," and do we have a source? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is true (cf. ), but its meaning is indeed ambiguous. As a result of a collective students choice prior to their studies, it implies no specific relation of Cheminade himself with Jaurès. In particular, it does not support the claim Jaurès is Cheminade's spiritual godfather. It is therefore probably more encyclopedic not to mention this trivial detail of potentially non-neutral implication. &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;Tk 08:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleting material from reliable sources
I think the rule here is that one should not remove material from reliable sources unless there has been some sort of discussion. I am talking about this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques_Cheminade&diff=482463822&oldid=482431244 Any reference to the controversy over interest-free loans has been eliminated, which I think is a mistake, because that is an important part of the controversy. I notice that the edit summary says "neutralization" -- does that mean that the topic of interest-free loans has been "neutralized"? I'm going to restore it. If you think it should be excluded, please explain why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.58.78 (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The court accepted 0.7 MF in interest free loans contracted before the first ballot, but rejected 1.7 MF contracted after. I provided a translation and a quote of the ruling. Your claim, "Cheminade was charged with accepting FFr1.7 million in interest-free loans from his supporters", was not in the court decision and misrepresented it. &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;Tk 08:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In this deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques_Cheminade&diff=next&oldid=482504399 you provide an edit summary which says "rm Cheminade's POV attributed to reliable source's "findings"." What exactly are you saying here -- that Cheminade controls Les Inrockuptibles? Because it appears unambiguously in the article. Did you put "findings" in quotes because you believe the magazine is somehow being manipulated by Cheminade? You also deleted this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques_Cheminade&diff=482504399&oldid=482490478, calling it unsourced. The article says Ils estiment que 1,7 million de francs de prêts sans intérêts, offerts par des particuliers, sont des dons déguisés qui "constituent pour le candidat un avantage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.150.225 (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Source says : "Jacques Cheminade juge la procédure abusive, puisque même la jurisprudence de la Commission des comptes de campagne recommande qu'en matière politique, les taux d'intérêts peuvent être nuls." This is not "finding" nor endorsing, simply quoting Cheminade's POV. &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;Tk 13:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The part which is Cheminade's POV is that he found the decision "abusive." That never made it into the Wikipedia article. The material that you removed was that the Public Accounts Committee recommends that the political campaign loans be zero interest, which is factual, relevant and not POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.196.37 (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Cheminade juge que [..]. puisque" (Cheminade judges that [...] because) : his claim throughout. &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;Tk 17:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been looking at some Wikipedia policies that apply to this situation. I see that you have deleted some material because you say it is "incorrect." The policy that covers this is WP:V, where it says that it isn't up to us to decide whether something is correct. The standard is whether it has been published in a reliable source. I see also that you have used a court document as a source, which is probably a bad idea according to WP:PRIMARY, because in effect you are using your own interpretation of a primary source instead of relying on an interpretation from a secondary source. You seem also to strongly object to having Cheminade's views on the legal case included in the article. Under WP:NPOV they should be included if they appear in a good secondary source, which they do. Also, since this is a biography of Cheminade, his views are relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.155.53 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific? Thanks, &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;Tk 16:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See my responses below.

Disputed content
What's the issue with this addition? It seems adequately sourced to me; the JDD is a mainstream Sunday newspaper, and the article does seem to make that point. -- J N  466  12:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unprecedented ruling. Non neutral. Replaced by a paraphrase of Zarka, a teacher of constitutional law, in a peer-reviewed publication: the 1995 presidential election was the first one for which the Constitutional Council had to appreciate the regularity of campaign accounts, in application of a law passed in January 1990.
 * At issue was whether interest-free loans made to Cheminade's campaign should in fact be considered gifts, in which case Cheminade would have accepted contributions over the permissible limit. This unsourced description of the issue is not neutral. It contradicts the previous paraphrase of the ruling : The court considered 1.7 million francs, "over a third of the total of his declared receipts[,] comes from twenty one loan agreements concluded after May 7, 1995". I have replaced it by a sourced comment : according to Zarka, Cheminade was "financed after the vote by substantial gifts from private persons".
 * Cheminade asserted that the Public Accounts Committee recommends that campaign loans be interest free. Journal du Dimanche contacted an independent expert who cited Article 1892 of the Civil Code to support Cheminade's view.  Exceptional claim not supported by cited source. The JDD actually reports a statement by Cheminade on the Civil Code and a comment by a lawyer on the same code, confirming Cheminade is right as far as the Civil Code does not require a "consumption loan" to bear interests, with no further opinion from that lawyer on the relevance of that comment from Cheminade on the Civil Code to electoral matters or the Electoral Code. The alleged contradiction between the views of the Commission nationale de contrôle de la campagne électorale présidentielle and those of the Constitutional Council is therefore not supported by this source. Besides, though it is an anachronism to state its opinion, as it was created in 2007 and the law was changed in 2001, partly because of the Cheminade ruling, the Commission says : "loans or refundable advances granted by private individuals are prohibited according to paragraph 3 of II of article 3 of the law of November 6, 1962". We could report, quoting one or both sources used in the diff above, Cheminade's claim on the Commission's "jurisprudence", but we could not say this claim is supported by these 2 sources and we would have to clarify for the reader what the Commission really says. Would it really improve the article? I doubt it. &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;Tk 16:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Unprecendented ruling is precisely what the source says: ...cette décision, qui constitua une première dans l'histoire de la Ve république.
 * "On m'a dit : "vous avez présenté des prêts de personnes physiques sans intérêt, or l'absence d'intérêt dénote une intention donatrice, donc on requalifie cela en dons'. This is quite straightforward. If interest-free loans are considered loans, Cheminade does not go over the contribution limit. If interest-free loans are considered gifts, he does go over the limit. If your other source has a different interpretation of what transpired, the solution is to include both interpretations under NPOV. It is not for an editor to decide whether one source invalidates another source.
 * "Exceptional claim not supported by cited source"? Contactée par leJDD.fr pour confirmer cette conclusion, une juriste spécialiste du sujet, qui préfère garder l'anonymat, s'est penchée sur la question. Pour elle, pas de doute possible : Jacques Cheminade est dans le vrai. The proper way to deal with this is to report on the controversy without taking sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎99.126.45.183 (talk • contribs)

Not sure what you had in mind when you wrote "Unprecendented ruling is precisely what the source says". It was not sourced here and I could not find it in JDD or Inrockuptibles. Unprecedented contradicts Zarka, a reliable source, who explains there could not be any precedent as it was the first time the Constitutional Council had to examine presidential campaign accounts, in application of a law passed in January 1990. Are you claiming the Zarka source is not reliable here ?

Concerning your second point, your assertion "if interest-free loans are considered loans, Cheminade does not go over the contibution limit" is your POV. The ruling and its analysis by Zarka stress the fact that out of 2.3 MF in interest-free loans, 1.7 was contracted after the election and rejected for that reason.

The exceptional claim I was referring to is "the Public Accounts Committee recommends that campaign loans be interest free". I said JDD does not support this. Its source only confirms Cheminade's limited claim there is no provision in the Civil Code requesting a loan to bear interests. Nothing more. As I said, I don't mind including this, provided the text makes it clear the Constitutional Council recommended to avoid loans from private-individuals to presidential candidates, which has been since stipulated in the Electoral Code and enforced by the Commission. Claiming The Commission recommends that campaign loans to presidential candidates should be interest free is not true : the Commission enforces the law. &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;Tk 16:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In order to reach consensus on this point, I have included here a ref to Cheminade's claim on the Civil Code. &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;Tk 17:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacques Cheminade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927215940/http://www.solidariteetprogres.org/spip/article.php3?id_article=2746 to http://www.solidariteetprogres.org/spip/article.php3?id_article=2746

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jacques Cheminade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317100958/http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/Election-presidentielle-2012/2012/03/08/article_jacques-cheminade.shtml to http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/Election-presidentielle-2012/2012/03/08/article_jacques-cheminade.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306214112/http://www.lesinrocks.com/actualite/actu-article/t/78636/date/2012-02-23/article/quand-la-republique-couvre-largent-noir-de-la-droite/?tx_ttnews%5BsViewPointer%5D=1&cHash=7bc16c7e55704eb41801096abc880ca6 to http://www.lesinrocks.com/actualite/actu-article/t/78636/date/2012-02-23/article/quand-la-republique-couvre-largent-noir-de-la-droite/?tx_ttnews%5BsViewPointer%5D=1&cHash=7bc16c7e55704eb41801096abc880ca6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607052859/http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2003/eirv30/eirv30n39.pdf to http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2003/eirv30/eirv30n39.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521083358/http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2005/2005_10-19/2005_10-19/2005-14/pdf/18-19_14_intfrance.pdf to http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2005/2005_10-19/2005_10-19/2005-14/pdf/18-19_14_intfrance.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120722042320/http://www.axisforpeace.net/rubrique41.html to http://www.axisforpeace.net/rubrique41.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)