Talk:Quantic Dream

Fair use rationale for Image:Quantic dream logo.gif
Image:Quantic dream logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quantic Dream. 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/20121018103757/http://www.1up.com/news/quantic-dream-game-focus-emotions to http://www.1up.com/news/quantic-dream-game-focus-emotions

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) 01:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes
PNG has a better quality and you can easly read the word "Quantic", so is just better. Date format and "List of" removed, well...I thought they were better too. I really suggest to put the PNG, while the other two changes can be reverted if they violate regulation (but I don't think). Lone Internaut (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Date format should be kept per WP:ARTCON (article uses dmy format as the company is located in France); regarding list, there isn't quite a guideline, but "List of X" is the most common format with unspoken consensus on. Regarding the image, the PNG appears to depict and outdated, clipart-style logo of the studio, unlike the SVG, which has the most recent. Instead of replacing the SVG, which is superior to the PNG as it is a vector graphic, it should be edited to be more readable, e.g. flip white->black, or add a light background. I will get on doing that SVG edit shortly, and propose the result here; if we can both agree to that version, I will upload it here; if not, we can use the PNG. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help with the SVG, let's see how it comes in edited-more readable version. Lone Internaut (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For comparison, I uploaded renderings of the original and two vartations here. I think the second variation looks a little too brownish, so I would prefer the first one. What do you think? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The first one is better, so my choice falls on it. Nice work. Lone Internaut (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ New file is up, if the logo does not refresh in the next minutes, hit Ctrl+Shift+R for to force a cache refresh. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I say it's good. And for portal bar? Should be kept as I did in that version? Lone Internaut (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking into the revisions, I probably missed the portal bar being added; apologies. You may re-add it as you please. { Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 22:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ A pleasure to collaborate. See you around. Lone Internaut (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Founding date
Regarding the recent founding date change, I believe the old sources for the formation date refer to the company's incorporation, which indeed happened on 3 June. Consider splitting the sentence in two: "Quantic Dream" founded 2 May, "Quantic Dream SA" incorporated 3 June. Regards, Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Or the registration entry for Infogreffe happened on 3 June since the website states on "03/06/1997". Sebastian James (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Infogreffe is the portal of France's corporate registry, "Entered" here refers to when the corporation was entered into the corporate registry, which means that it incoroprated. Furthermore, the Infogreffe website only opened in 1998, making it unlikely that the date refers to when the company was entered into the website. The French (original) version of the site further says "Immatriculée", which more closely translates to "registered". Regards, Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * French Wikipedia states that before infogreffe.fr, the data was accessible by Minitel via 3615 Infogreffe (1986-1998). It is possible to move the registry to infogreffe.fr. Sebastian James (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but I still don't think that it is the date when the website received it. The date presented still is the date when the SA was added to the corporate registry, aka. was incorporated. Further info if you check the last page under the "official documents filed" tab: The incorporation documents were filed on 5 May and the incorporation was finished on 3 June. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Added info. Hope I understood you right. Cognissonance (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup! I made a small adjustment for clarity, though. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 05:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

New table
I have reinstated the new table with the things you mentioned in your revert summary. Why exactly did you revert my edit by the way before starting a discussion on the talk page? - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 22:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , as I linked -- WP:BRD -- you need to achieved consensus before having your edit reinstantiated. As I stated before, I don't think that the table should quadruple in size just to make way for one platform per row. This is done in some list-style articles where every row is sourced independently, but this is not the case here, as we have many collective sources. I furthermore personally dislike that "Publisher" (now singular for some reason) is centered, while all others are not; I'm not saying that the others should be centered too, none should. I will revert your edit again, please gain consensus for your styling first. Pining regulars for comments.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 23:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , before reverting my edits you should instead consider fixing what you think is wrong before going and reverting the edit. Constantly doing that angers editors like myself, and may stop them from editing in the future. So please unrevert your change and fix what you think is broken, because the table in its prior form before I went and changed it, was beyond wrong and quite inaccurate. And as for the "one platform per row", that was the only way I could conveniently fix the Publisher section due to the fact that doing what I did would be quite difficult to do, hence why I did what I did. You may have a focus on editing video game articles, but you should put more thought into what you change / revert. Just a simple bit of constructive criticism. Oh, one more thing: I centered the publisher names because I previewed the article without the centered titles, and it looked a bit off, so that's why I centered it. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 23:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I get your point. I restored some details (X360, Aspyr, Quantic Dream for Fahrenheit), though I noticed that "Self-published (original Windows release)" is probably factually incorrect; what you are citing is the GOG.com release, which came about six+ years later. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 23:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , it still looks really off. I'm sorry but I personally don't find the reasoning behind defending the old table valid aside from wanting it to be compact. Compact isn't always better and it's still giving off quite incorrect information, as your changes don't indicate who published what, where my updated table did. And you modifying the older table to include that would IMHO make the table look even more off. I still don't see what was wrong with the way I had the table... - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 23:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , this table is supposed to give a brief overview over the games developed by Quanitc Dream + involved parties and platforms. It is not supposed to be overly detailed (and thus volumant), that's what the individual articles are for. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 23:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , it was still brief. I just changed the table to have some added detail to clarify things for the reader so they had a better idea as to who published what. Sorry that involved increasing the height of the table, but it would be best if users had more detail when they go and look at the QD article, because perhaps readers don't have the time to scroll through large articles like Fahrenheit (2005 video game) to get information on stuff like that. Again, I still have the opinion that the newer table should be reinstated. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 23:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're well entitled to have your own opinion, but you will have to accept that others can and will have other opinions, so you will have to reach consensus for your version to remain. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 00:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Table looks fine as it is now. 's changes inflated it unnecessarily. Cognissonance (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I disagree. The changes I made would've been quite hard to do in the current table, and it was missing quite a bit of information, and generalizing who published what titles and for what versions, meaning it was / is giving off incorrect information to readers. E.g., Atari didn't publish any of the Fahrenheit versions aside from the PlayStation 2, Xbox, and Xbox 360 versions. So yeah, I disagree that I inflated the table unnecessarily. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 23:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

To me the table looks good as it appears now. The important thing is that it's compact without sacrificing basic details. I agree not to overly details, indeed I personally didn't like the extended version originally conceived by Kamran, as that information can be found in specific articles. Lone Internaut (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

A comment on the workplace controversy
The section is wholly appropriate, no question, but I just don't think it should be titled "Harmful workplace controversy" as it can be read different from intent (that is, why the issue is over a controversy over a "harmful workplace" concern, it could be read as a "workplace controversy" that was harmful). Additionally, it was more than just "harmful workplace" but things like the crunch time and wrongful termination. "Workplace controversy" fairly summarizes those three points without going anywhere else. --M asem (t) 16:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)]  19:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I originally proposed hostile workplace, a well-defined legal term, but that was also reverted so I went with harmful since that word already appears in the section text. Crunch time and wrongful termination are also features of hostile work environment so I don't see a conflict there. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Workplace controversy" is still correct but without any percieved tone or wording issues. --M asem (t) 05:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not shy away from calling a thing what it is. Wikipedia is not censored. Hostile workplace is the legal term for the thing they have been convicted in court for ("security obligation" is the French equivalent). I suggest "Hostile workplace investigation" for section title if we want to avoid the word controversy. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Security obligation" is for "emotional abuse" here. An employee felt bad when they found out that they were photoshopped. QD team didn't know that because their stuff didn't check all the personal computers, and they prevented it from going off the rails. That's why they lost a court case against an employee, and were fined only €7,000 instead of €114,000. Here, "harmful" (?) is one employee making offensive photoshopped images of co-workers in their free time. All other statements are just allegations. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)]  08:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Emotional abuse is still part of a hostile workplace though. The investigation uncovered multiple facets of a hostile environment and they were convicted on at least one of them. That warrants a more descriptive section title. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe if it was "Harmful workplace accusations" or "Accusations of a harmful workplace" or the like? Flipping it around would get the language confusion out of the way though the header would be longer. --M asem (t) 21:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be ok with that. I'd slightly prefer "hostile" to "harmful" since hostile workplace is the legal term. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Heck, maybe "Allegations over harmful workplace" would work as that similar to a section over at Riot Games. As long as you're fine with the reordering like this, I'm fine with how you want to then phrase it. --M asem (t) 22:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I switched 'over' to 'of' because I don't think over is appropriate grammar? Not sure. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm going to drop this here as I don't have immediate time to work on it, but it is a 3page article in depth and with coverage on both QD (via Cage) and the papers involved on this story. . It goes to places that feels too indepth for WP, but then there's a level of detail needed to be impartial...--M asem  (t) 20:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This article has been heavily criticized for basically allowing QD to only talk to the reporter in a tightly controlled setting in order to write its own hagiography. I don't think it should be used. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's basically just QD's own emails, no additional statements from anyone else. I've not done any work to include it, nor plan to unless this goes into any more depth from other sources. --M asem (t) 17:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Followup
Per This press release the Paris Appeals court has found in favor of QD, among other things. I haven't seen this mentioned in other press yet, so I'm going to wait until third-party comes along to figure out how to add it, but heads up to look for this. --M asem (t) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion (Sept.2021)
Too many parts sof this section are wrong, it reuse press article using statment of the company and union communications, it's not encyclopedic sources. Please use only original sources of journalist's investigations. All that is not the chronology or the public justice decision, only fake news and communication language. Here is the good and french version, too many guy have been paid to modify this page : In March 2017, four employees resigned because of the circulation of photomontages that they considered degrading for them, and asked the Court to reclassify to dismissal at the employer's fault[38].

In January 2018, the studio was the subject of an investigation conducted jointly by Le Monde, Mediapart and Canard PC. They denounce the company's management methods: “a toxic corporate culture, management with inappropriate words and attitudes, under-considered employees, overwhelming workloads and questionable contractual practices” [39] [40] [41]. The investigation was quickly picked up by the international press [42] [43] [44].

In April 2018, Quantic Dream lodged a defamation complaint against Le Monde and Mediapart42 who maintained the advanced informations[45].

Two of the plaintiffs were dismissed in 2017, a third won their case in August 2018, the Court considering that the company had deliberately allowed the dissemination of photomontages deemed "homophobic, misogynistic, racist, or even deeply vulgar" to continue. " [46] [47].

The studio is condemned a second time by the Court in 2019, to damages, the court noting that “the employer has committed a violation of the obligation of safety” towards one of its employees who was the victim of harassment on the workplace, "without the employer, however informed, not reacting". However, the dismissal is not recognized[48] [49] [50].

On September 9, 2021, Mediapart wins definitively against Quantic Dream [51].

The judges consider that "the journalists had, for each of the charges, a sufficient factual basis", also qualifying the journalistic work with the following expressions "good faith", "represents a legitimate aim of information, and even a subject of "general interest", "no personal animosity" [51]. They also validate the existence of undeclared financial transactions, the "true-false dismissal" of Guillaume de Fondaumière, and strangely similar dismissal procedures" [51]. --Ayden75 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Besides what I've said on my talk page, I will point out that the version we have had - outside of the confusion related to the employee suits - are 100% consistent with the information above - but expand on it appropriately further with addition information (such as that the case against Le Monde was ruled in Quantic Dream's favor). There's nothing that is inconsistently different between the version you are adding and our version, outside the sources used.
 * I will also point out that claiming editors are being paid to edit this page is approaching a personal attack and unless you have proof of that, you need to back. I have zero connections to anyone at all involved in this QD mess and I doubt any of the other major contributors to this page have either based on my knowledge, I am simply trying to document a complex situation as reported by our preferred English language sources. We can't use court documents directly per our sourcing policy. That may be different at fr.wiki, but en.wiki has these strict requirements. --M asem (t) 22:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

--Ayden75 (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Hello, I do not disagree with the content of the articles, but these articles are about communications from the company. The company has already been caught for generating redactions on its pages. Consequently, it is important to only consider articles which mention verified statements such as those of judges, victims, witnesses. To put forward in Wikipedia arguments of defense of Quantic Dream represents a risk of harassment for the victims who already suffer from these fake news which taint court decisions however very precise and perfectly justified. Masem seems to be determined to continue to spread the word of the company through articles which nevertheless address many other elements, he focuses on elements favorable to the company, that is to say the elements of language that they have widely disseminated. in press release.

And of course i don't understand your choice of some statment of Quantic and not some other from french journalist investigation. For example that part is wrong : ''That July, Quantic Dream lost one court case against one of the employees who left due to the faked photo scandal,[40] who saught €114,000 in damages and have their resignation be considered wrongful termination under the French employment law of prise d'acte , it was in november 2019 during an audience of "départage" (in french), and the guy don't ask for 114 000 he ask for legal indemnity only calculated by judges and lawyers, inside justice decision we can read :  - Indemnité pour licenciement sans cause réelle et sérieuse : 86 112 € - Indemnité de licenciement conventionnelle : 5 621,20 € - Indemnité compensatrice de préavis : 14 352 € - Indemnité compensatrice de congés payés sur préavis : 1 435,20 € - Manquement à l'obligation de santé sécurité : 5 000 € - Article 700 du Code de Procédure Civile : 2 000 € Soit un Total de : 114 520,40 €'' It's fully explain here : https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/economie/291119/quantic-dream-condamne-pour-ses-photomontages-douteux?onglet=full Appeal of this guy wil be in may 2022 like said Union Solidaire Informatique Jeux Vidéo

This part is wrong too : In April 2021, the Court of Appeal of Paris reversed the ruling against Quantic Dream over the wrongful termination, asserting the employee had been complicit in the situation and cleared Quantic Dream of any wrongdoing.[48] This appeal is about an other guy of IT who wins in 2018, not the one of 2019, or physicalreason is that justice in France is very long in France november 2019- april 2021 for an appeal in France it's too short.

This part is wrong too : ''"In April 2021, the Court of Appeal of Paris reversed the ruling against Quantic Dream over the wrongful termination, asserting the employee had been complicit in the situation and cleared Quantic Dream of any wrongdoing.[48]" '' Very easy to explain why it's wrong, 2020 Court Appeal and 2019 audience "de départage", Quantic Dream has ever been condemned twice for 2 different guy because of breach of the obligation of security. The reverse of ruling is only because of the motivation of resignation/dismissal, he has done a unilateral resignation so he has to explain precisely the danger he risk to stay into the company, he fail on that point in front of the Court Appeal. He just appeared on 1 photomontage he has found... the 600 others photmontages haven't been join to the case. So he has to refund money accorded from the first audience and paid for 2 months of salaries he has to do if he resigns work contract. Justice decisions are publics !

Quantic Dream spread informations to newspaper with confusion details, you have 4 cases but they never precisely explain all, just speak about money, try to explain guys have try to take money and what Quantic Dream win. They never explain that, for now, they finally lost 3 cases on 5. The wrong part is that employee lose more money to sue them because of their dismissal decision and layers invoice.

To conclude about www.gamesindustry.biz, and this part of this article : "https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-06-22-quantic-dream-and-union-at-odds-over-grotesque-trial". ''De Fondaumière asked: "I'm not under oath, so, I can lie?" However, our sources suggested that was a misinterpretation on the union's end.'' It's pure lie, they don't have independant sources at the audience, the only peoples present were journalists, victims, union peoples, and Quantic Dream side. We spoke together and no one, except union, has accepted to answer Marie Dealessandri, so she should simply precise that their sources are Quantic Dream employee.

--Ayden75 (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Here is a full complete justice chronology detailed and in english : https://solidairesinformatique.org/2021/04/08/about-quantic-dream/ You can find so many informations to confirm what i try to explain to you : https://solidairesinformatique.org/2021/04/20/about-quantic-dream-and-its-deceitful-statement/ On the next fews days or weeks, you will have many french newspaper speaking about that, everyone is waiting the final diffamation written judgement.

So if you don't want my version, ok, but try to think about victims who loose money and time, have been harassed for many years, they don't want to see fake news about how they try to falsy get money. Even if they win, fake news make them loose. It's hawfull to spread that kind of informations, just try to stick of truth please.


 * The biggest problem here is that you don't seem to understand what rule English Wikipedia goes by for sourcing. First, yes, before you made changes I know there was confusing between two different lawsuits and I was working to dis-entangle them between the one that QD was found in violation of, and the one were QD was initially found in violation of, but later won on appeal. But to get to the details, we have to go by what is reported in third-party sources, we can't use court documents directly. I don't know fr.wiki's policies on sourcing quality, but I know our policies inside and out and can tell you that we go by third-party sources over anything else. And we don't second-guess reliable sources unless there are other reliable sources that introduce conflicting information, which there isn't any here.
 * I will point out that the issue on paid editing was a factor on fr.wiki based on the entry there and this article but that issue of paid editing doesn't apply to en.wiki here. I have looked through the contributors to this article since 2018 (when the 3 reports were made) and those that contributed to this article 90% of the time are all long-term editors in good standing and are not paid editors, so any issues that happened on fr.wiki are of no importance here.
 * Also, while it is important to capture input from Solidaire Informatique (just as we are doing for the Ubisoft situation) as a workers union on the side of the employees here, they're a party in the overall situation as they are helping to defend the employees in court, and thus, their statements are to be treated as claims just as anything put out by Quantic Dream. This are claims we absolutely cannot include without any third-party backing due to our WP:BLP standards since they direct attack David Cage and other named individuals at QD, for example. (I'm also considered with how the union group is attacking one gaming journalist who likely doesn't have the same resources as a group like the New York Times to reach out to the former employees to get their side. Seems rather hostile for no reason).
 * The goal here is neither to attack nor defend QD, nor attack or defend Le Monde/Mediapart/CanardPC, nor attack or defend the employees. En.wiki's neutrality policy is to document controversial aspects as covered by third-party reliable sources. You've made us aware there are some gaps here that I've worked to correct and fill in and that we're still missing a few pieces that haven't been reported, but in the larger picture of things, we had the story pretty much correct and neither in praise or hostile to any party in this controversy. The way you're trying to press the employee/Solidaire Informatique aspect with how the story is covered in reliable sources is at odds and weighs the story the wrong way from how most reliable sources are covering it. En.wiki works on "verifyability, not truth" though obviously we want to make sure we're as reasonably precise as possible (hence why I wanted to make sure to disentangle the two lawsuits that were being intermixed). --M asem (t) 00:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking for sources (in English or in French) that clarify the existence and distinction between multiple lawsuits that QD has taken up against its former employees. You allude to the fact that English reporting has conflated some of these together which has the effect of wrongly implying that there was only one lawsuit that was overturned in favor of QD. Can you point to reporting in French media outlets that can help explain this? I believe Mediapart and Le Monde have been diligently reporting on developments of this case but I don't have the French fluency to search for it effectively so your assistance is appreciated. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A note on your change from "allegations" to "reports", the fact that QD was cleared by the court suggests these are still allegations. My read of the new source on Mediapart is that they reported on what they got, with due diligence as to avoid the libel charge, but that doesn't mean their investigation results were necessarily true. I would still think we should call these "allegations". --M asem (t) 01:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm basing the change off of this reporting which explains the two recent rulings in layman's terms. For Mediapart specifically, QD only objected to 7 passages out of dozens and dozens of (at the time) allegations contained within their original report. And the court ruled in favor of them, verifying 3 of them to be true and 4 of them to be having a "sufficient factual basis". I think focusing only on the 7 passages (which were all, in effect, also found to be true) loses the forest for the trees. The Kotaku article itself seemed kind of redundant to what's already cited but if you think it would help, I'm happy to add it. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I added it just in case, as well as this source that clarifies that QD lost two other libel cases filed on behalf of QD as a company. So in effect, out of four libel cases (two personal cases from Cage and de Fondaumière, filing jointly, and two corporate cases), only one was found in favor of QD and only because the allegations in question could not be verified to protect the anonymity of the sources. I'm now more confident than ever that we should call them reports and not merely allegations. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Losing libel cases doesn't mean the investigative reports were factually true. At least in the US (and I don't know of the case in France), defamation like libel requires an element of malicious intent by introducing false information. "if" this were in the US, the failure of the libel claim wouldn't validate the information was true, simply that there was likely no malice in how the reports were made. For France this suggests that the defamation laws are defendant friendly (in this case, in favor of the media sources) since they only have to show a good faith evidence of trying to report the truth. That means, to me, is that we should still treat their reports as important but not 100% factual in Wikivoice, hence why they should remain "allegations". Unless there's evidence in the court documents that the judge affirmed that the reports were mostly true. --M asem (t) 02:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That said, I see what you said about the court making the determination some of the reports claims were true, so that's fine with me to leave it at "reports". --M asem (t) 02:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we came to a consensus on that. I am keen to note that the lawsuits only asserted that 7 statements were untrue libel, which is a tacit admission that all the other uncontested statements of the report are therefore true. It's a common tactic among libel trolls to get one statement convicted in order to paint the perception that all other statements are similarly tainted when they are pointedly and knowingly not. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)