● PHANTOM
🇮🇳 IN
✕
Jump to content

Talk:Luc Besson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Luc Besson. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger (2018) Virginie Besson-Silla --> Luc Besson

[edit]
MERGE Virginie Besson-Silla --> Luc Besson

Virginie Besson-Silla should be merged to Luc Besson article. She is insufficiently notable in her own right for a standalone article, IMHO. Quis separabit? 23:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Including rape allegations in the lead?

[edit]

I propose that the allegations be added to the lead section because of their seriousness and relevance to Besson's career and public image. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title and attempt to obscure the final judicial verdict

[edit]

Hello,

The original section title, “Rape accusations and definitive acquittal by the courts”, accurately summarizes the content of the section, as it presents both the past accusations and their final judicial outcome. Recently, this title was replaced with “Rape and assaults” and then “Rape and assault accusations”. This change removes the notion of accusations in the first version and entirely omits the court verdict in (first and) the second, which completely skews the information and contravenes Wikipedia’s core principles.

Substantive issues raised by this title change

-Role of a title: summarizing the topics covered The function of a title or subtitle is to faithfully summarize the subject(s) discussed. Here, the section addresses two inseparable elements: the existence of rape accusations AND their judicial outcome. Both aspects are central and must appear in the title. Removing either one misrepresents the summary and misleads the reader.

-Legal status: final verdict The judicial decisions were confirmed multiple times and definitively upheld by the Court of Cassation in 2023, with no possible appeal, resulting in the complete dismissal of charges against the director. As of 2025, there is therefore no ongoing procedure or charges against him. Omitting this fact from the title presents a legally inaccurate situation.

-Respect for neutrality and the presumption of innocence Replacing “rape accusations” with “rape and assaults” turns a past allegation into an established fact, which violates the principles of neutrality and the presumption of innocence, particularly strict in biographies of living persons. Such a title implies that the acts are proven or ongoing, which is factually false.

In accordance with Wikipedia practices, any disagreement over an existing title must first be discussed. Therefore, it is not the responsibility of those restoring the original title to justify its legitimacy, but rather the responsibility of contributors wishing to modify it to explain how it would violate rules of neutrality, proportionality, or verifiability. At this stage, no sourced argument has been provided, nor has any discussion been initiated on the Luc Besson page, which is why I am raising it here, even though it is normally not my role to do so.

Summary The original title faithfully summarizes the two main subjects of the section: past accusations and their final judicial outcome. The replacement title tends to obscure the court verdict and unbalance the presentation of facts. I remain, of course, open to a reasoned and sourced discussion. However, any further unilateral modification of the original title without prior consensus would violate Wikipedia practices and constitute a forced action. by Royge 12 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I therefore note that the user Goweegie2 has once again attempted to force the change through, instead of participating in the discussion opened here — a discussion that he should have initiated himself, given that he is the one challenging the original title.
Once again, he has provided no counter-arguments to the detailed message above. In the edit summary accompanying this latest forced change, he further accuses me of being another user whom I do not know and with whom I have never had any contact on other pages.
I am still waiting for a genuine discussion to take place. Failing that, I will submit a request for mediation, or even a request for a block Goweegie2.
At this stage, Goweegie2 puts forward no argument explaining why the original title would be inappropriate — despite the fact that I have clearly explained above why his modification is problematic. He refuses any dialogue and repeatedly resorts to forcing changes through.
----
Royge 12 (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you open to a third opinion and furthermore if someone requests a third opinion will you take their comments in stride? As with most Wikipedia drama this is a silly debate and I'd very much like if we could come to a civil compromise on how to proceed. Phoeromones (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to any remarks or counter-arguments. However, the involvement of a third party seems premature at this stage, for a simple reason: I am currently the only one presenting a substantiated argument. No elements have been put forward to explain how the original title fails to summarize the text, nor how the proposed title would do so more accurately. As already noted, the section deals very predominantly (approximately three quarters) with the judicial process and the final verdict.
In the absence of any specific counter-argumentation or justification for the proposed change, it is difficult, if not impossible, to engage in a genuine debate aimed at reaching consensus. Under these circumstances, third-party intervention would not be particularly useful at this stage, as no counter-arguments have yet been presented. However, should counter-arguments be put forward and disagreement persist despite that, third-party involvement would then, in my view, be fully justified. Royge 12 (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repost my message from User talk:Royge 12 here because in hindsight it should have been here originally.
"The section should be titled "Rape and sexual misconduct allegations" or something along those lines. Emphasis on allegations.
Regardless of verity, there were allegations. They should be addressed neutrally, especially in the header which some people will view before the text itself. Another notable example is Kevin Spacey, who was found not guilty on allegations of sexual misconduct by a court of law. Both the subheading and title of the entire page dedicated to the allegations do not mention 'definitive clearing by the court.'" Phoeromones (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this counts as a counter-argument in your eyes? I don’t think it's premature either, since this has already gone on for two days even while you continue to edit the page with no resolution. (No ad hominem I promise) Phoeromones (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the counter-argument, it is helpful to finally have one to discuss.
However, I disagree with the conclusion for several reasons.
The core issue is not whether allegations existed; this is undisputed and clearly covered in the section. The issue is whether the section title accurately summarizes the section’s content as a whole, in line with Wikipedia’s summary-style principle. In this case, the section is not primarily about the existence of allegations, but about the judicial process and its outcome, which represents the large majority of the content (multiple dismissals, abandonment of charges, and a definitive acquittal upheld by the Court of Cassation).
A title such as “Rape and sexual misconduct allegations” summarizes only the opening lines of the section and omits the subject of most of the text. This creates an imbalance and may mislead readers who only read the heading into believing the situation is unresolved or ongoing, which is factually incorrect.
Regarding the comparison with Kevin Spacey, the situations are not directly comparable. In Spacey’s case, allegations span multiple jurisdictions and legal contexts, with outcomes that were not unified or definitive at the time the section structure was established. In contrast, the French judicial process concerning Luc Besson reached a clear and final conclusion, confirmed at the highest judicial level. Wikipedia content should be case-specific, not based on analogy.
Finally, Wikipedia’s biographies of living persons policy requires particular care to avoid titles that may unduly harm or mislead when the legal outcome is definitive and well sourced. When the outcome constitutes the majority of the section’s content, omitting it from the title does not enhance neutrality; it reduces accuracy.
For these reasons, a title that reflects both the allegations and their definitive judicial outcome remains, in my view, the most neutral, informative, and policy-consistent option. Royge 12 (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that when one or more editors wish to modify an already established text or heading and no consensus has been reached, the original version should be maintained in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Contested changes should wait until a consensus is achieved before being applied. Therefore, unilaterally modifying the base page’s title or content without agreement is not permissible Royge 12 (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's only one editor (you) who's pushing for the phrasing you're going with. The only other accounts agreeing with you have names like "~2025-bunchofnumbers" and have almost exclusively made edits to either the Luc Besson page or your talk page. It's some of the most obvious sockpuppetry I've ever seen and you're not fooling anyone. Goweegie2 (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Goweegie2,
If you wish to propose a new title, you must engage in discussion and respond to the arguments I presented above. The section deals primarily (around 75%) with the judicial process that led to multiple dismissals and the final dropping of all charges against the director — all of which I have detailed earlier.
Instead of addressing these points, you have made personal attacks, which do not advance the discussion. If you disagree with the current title, please explicitly counter the arguments I have made, with sources if necessary, rather than resorting to attacks or forced edits.
The original title remains in place until a consensus is reached. I invite you to participate constructively in the ongoing discussion to resolve this issue. Royge 12 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have outlined my arguments below, and I hope we can engage in a substantive discussion on the topic, rather than resorting to personal attacks that do nothing to advance the debate. :
The core issue is not whether allegations existed; this is undisputed and clearly covered in the section. The issue is whether the section title accurately summarizes the section’s content as a whole, in line with Wikipedia’s summary-style principle. In this case, the section is not primarily about the existence of allegations, but about the judicial process and its outcome, which represents the large majority of the content (multiple dismissals, abandonment of charges, and a definitive acquittal upheld by the Court of Cassation).
A title such as “Rape and sexual misconduct allegations” summarizes only the opening lines of the section and omits the subject of most of the text. This creates an imbalance and may mislead readers who only read the heading into believing the situation is unresolved or ongoing, which is factually incorrect.
Regarding the comparison with Kevin Spacey, the situations are not directly comparable. In Spacey’s case, allegations span multiple jurisdictions and legal contexts, with outcomes that were not unified or definitive at the time the section structure was established. In contrast, the French judicial process concerning Luc Besson reached a clear and final conclusion, confirmed at the highest judicial level. Wikipedia content should be case-specific, not based on analogy.
Finally, Wikipedia’s biographies of living persons policy requires particular care to avoid titles that may unduly harm or mislead when the legal outcome is definitive and well sourced. When the outcome constitutes the majority of the section’s content, omitting it from the title does not enhance neutrality; it reduces accuracy.
For these reasons, a title that reflects both the allegations and their definitive judicial outcome remains, in my view, the most neutral, informative, and policy-consistent option.
I would also like to point out that the French Wikipedia Luc Besson'page uses the same title, which was established through a consensus process.
Royge 12 (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering that users C.Fred, Phoeromones, and myself seem to be in agreement on this and you're the only dissenter here (excluding those anonymous logged out accounts that suspiciously have only ever made edits to the Luc Besson page and your talk page in their entire existence) it seems that there is a consensus on English Wikipedia, and that consensus appears to be that "Rape and sexual misconduct allegations" (or something to that affect) is a better and less loaded header than "Rape allegation and definitive clearing by the courts". There would not be an edit war to speak of if you had not dug in your heels on this so much. Your phrasing is loaded and unencyclopedic as it implies Besson's definitive innocence based on a single acquittal (for a crime that is notoriously difficult to prosecute for which leads to many perpetrators getting off scot free), and deliberately neglects to mention the other sexual misconduct allegations against him which he has not been as "definitively" acquitted of. Every other logged in user has advocated a more neutral phrasing, and you have repeatedly lied to claim the alternative proposed phraseology indicates his guilt when it makes no such claim in either direction. Also, you've repeatedly referred to me as "he" in this discussion, and my pronouns are she/her, but that's just a nitpick not really relevant to the rest of the discussion, I just thought I'd let you know. Goweegie2 (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Royge 12 As you stated above, The original title remains in place until a consensus is reached. Looking at the page history from before your contested changes, that was "Rape allegations". I've left it at "Rape and sexual misconduct allegations", although I can roll all the way back to the first one if you prefer, while we wait to see if consensus emerges to change it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Goweegie2, now that you're trying to block me, are you finally attempting to explain yourself and stop just resorting to forcing edit like you have for the last 48 hours?

I will address your latest message point by point:

Your accusation of “loaded language” I have repeatedly explained that the section is about the judicial process and its outcome, which constitutes roughly 75% of the content. The original title accurately summarizes the section, including both the allegations and the definitive acquittal confirmed by the Court of Cassation. The replacement title you propose omits the verdict, which misleads readers about the legal outcome. This is not “loaded” language; it is factually accurate.

Furthermore, you wrote that “for this type of crime, many perpetrators get off scot-free.” This statement is defamatory and incorrect in the context of this case, as the judicial process was clear and definitive: all charges were dropped and the Court of Cassation confirmed the acquittal in 2023. The title does not claim that Besson is “necessarily innocent”; it simply states that he was definitively acquitted by the courts, which corresponds exactly to the content of the section. The role of a title is to faithfully summarize the text, and here the section primarily deals with the judicial process and its outcome. Your comments reflect a personal opinion and distract from the debate instead of addressing the factual arguments about the title.

Allegations of other unacquitted misconduct There is no ongoing procedure or charge against Luc Besson as of 2025. All judicial decisions regarding the accusations covered in this section were definitively resolved. It is therefore irrelevant and misleading to introduce alleged other accusations as a justification for changing the title. Wikipedia policy requires titles to reflect the content of the section, not unproven claims.

Your repeated personal attacks Instead of addressing the above points with sources or counter-arguments, you have resorted to personal attacks, misrepresentation, and threats of blocking. This does not advance the discussion and is contrary to Wikipedia’s guidelines for dispute resolution.

On consensus and forced edits As per Wikipedia rules, if one editor wishes to change an already established title, the original title must remain until a genuine consensus is reached. Unilaterally enforcing your preferred phrasing or attempting to have another editor blocked violates Wikipedia guidelines. I have already invited you to participate constructively in the ongoing discussion, which you have refused. Royge 12 (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to emphasize once again the core principle at stake: the l title “Rape accusations and definitive clearing by the court,” does nothing more than summarize the two main subjects of the section: the existence of allegations and the judicial process that led to the definitive acquittal and complete dismissal of charges. This is exactly what Wikipedia requires: titles should accurately reflect the content of the section, not express personal opinions or moral judgments. The text itself is overwhelmingly focused (around 75%) on the judicial proceedings and the final verdict. Any suggestion that the title should omit the acquittal or highlight alleged other misconduct is based on personal opinion, not on the content of the section, and therefore goes against the neutral, factual standard expected in Wikipedia headings. It is worth noting that the French Wikipedia page on Luc Besson follows the same approach, using a title that balances allegations and the judicial outcome. This shows that the current title is both policy-consistent and case-specific. Wikipedia is neutral: it reports what happened, it does not take sides or imply that the justice system is wrong. The title’s only purpose is to reflect what the section actually discusses. In short, the title “Rape accusations and definitive clearing by the court” is neutral, accurate, and fully compliant with Wikipedia standards. Any further attempt to unilaterally replace it with a title reflecting personal opinion rather than summarizing the section would violate Wikipedia guidelines. Royge 12 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind everyone that the French Wikipedia page uses exactly this title, which simply summarizes the content of the section. Around 75% of the text deals with the judicial verdict, confirmed four times. A title limited to just the first few lines (“rape accusations”) misleads readers who only see the heading, as it suggests that no verdict has been issued and that charges are still pending against Besson—which is factually incorrect.
A section title should accurately summarize the content of the text. The alternative you propose covers only about a quarter of the section and therefore does not comply with Wikipedia’s standards for accuracy and neutrality. Moreover, claiming that the courts “probably made a mistake” is a personal opinion, potentially defamatory, and has no place on Wikipedia. On this platform, it is not allowed to declare that the justice system is right or wrong. Royge 12 (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interlanguage Wikipedia editor customs do not apply do not each other. What is proper, relevant, or recommended in one wiki does not carry to another wiki, although some guidelines are more universal. Phoeromones (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You threatened to have me blocked before I ever submitted that sockpuppetry complaint, which mind you I submitted because the only other users supporting your position in this edit war have been logged out accounts whose entire edit history has been to Luc Besson's page and your talk page (barring one which made exactly one edit to another page about French cinema). Your response to me pointing out this very obvious sockpuppetry has been to accuse me of leading some kind of witch hunt against you, even though I am simply pointing out what appears obvious to any outside observer. Additionally, you continue to accuse me of trying to brute force impose my edits, all the while you have been doing just that singlehandedly (despite your sockpuppetry) while three other users (including myself) have advocated for the header "Rape and sexual misconduct allegations" or something to that affect. Simply accusing the other side of doing what you are actually doing won't get you anywhere. Additionally, I admit I lost my cool a bit in the edit summaries, although considering you are going to bat so hard for Luc Besson of all people (a man who has been a known creep towards women and underage girls since the 90s) I'd say my initial reaction was quite understandable. Goweegie2 (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Your repeated further edits to this talk page to add things that could've been included in your initial message have caused me to have to resubmit my above note several times due to edit conflicts. I don't know whether this behavior is intentional, but it is quite irritating, so please try and include everything you want to say in your message the first time around. Goweegie2 (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that your latest message mainly consists of off-topic remarks and personal opinions about Luc Besson, rather than addressing the concrete arguments I have presented. The central issue remains the section title: it must accurately summarize the content of the text, which the original title does perfectly. As repeatedly noted, around 75% of the text concerns the judicial process and the definitive acquittal confirmed by the Court of Cassation.
Your comments about other users or your personal interpretation of Besson’s past do not change the fact that the proposed title omits the majority of the content and misleads readers. The purpose of a title is to summarize the text factually, not to reflect opinions or moral judgments. You continue to express personal views when the title’s role is simply to convey the content of the text — in this case, the definitive acquittal by the courts — which is not a personal opinion, it is exactly what the text addresses. I am not asking for your opinion on Luc Besson or the justice system; such comments are off-topic and demonstrate a lack of neutrality in your approach.
I therefore invite you to refocus the discussion on the substance: the title must cover both the allegations and the judicial outcome, in accordance with Wikipedia’s neutrality and summary guidelines. Any off-topic comments or attempts to divert the discussion have no place here. Royge 12 (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The title should simply summarize the content of the text. The text begins by presenting the accusations, then devotes about 75% of its content to the judicial verdict, confirmed four times, and the final dismissal of charges. Responding by criticizing the reliability of the justice system or bringing up Luc Besson’s problematic past is completely off-topic. The goal is not to judge Besson or question the justice system, but to choose a title that accurately reflects what the text discusses. The verdict is clearly addressed in the text, and the title must reflect that.It's actually quite simple Royge 12 (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine. Let's focus on the substance of your proposed heading. "Definitive clearing by the courts" clearly contains a pro-Besson bias in an attempt to convince readers that he was fully exonerated, as the adverb "definitively" implies positive evidence in his favor was found, when in reality the case was dismissed due to a lack of evidence either way, meaning your proposed heading is misleading due to the argument from ignorance fallacy. Additionally, it excludes any mention of the other sexual misconduct allegations against him, of which there are several. Additionally, your argument about it being the heading on the French Wikipedia should not be taken as a valid reason to include it on English Wikipedia over the objections of other users, as individual Wikipedias have different admin teams which can often lead to different editorial standards. (See the scandal-ridden mess that was Croatian Wikipedia in the 2010s for an extreme example. I doubt French Wikipedia is anywhere near that bad, but given that it's possible for that to happen I don't think "it's like that on another Wiki" should be sufficient reasoning.) Goweegie2 (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also you once again added an addendum in a separate edit, causing me to experience another edit conflict when I was typing this response. Please confine your comments to a single edit, causing other users attempting to respond to you to experience an edit conflict is incredibly irritating and disruptive. Goweegie2 (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finally addressing the substance. However, your characterization of the judicial outcome is factually incorrect and not supported by the actual rulings.
First, the wording “definitively cleared by the courts” is not biased, nor does it rely on an argument from ignorance. It accurately reflects the legal reality established by multiple judicial decisions, culminating in a final ruling by the Court of Cassation in 2023, the highest judicial court in France.
To be precise, the case was not dismissed merely due to an absence of evidence “either way,” as you claim. The Paris public prosecutor explicitly stated that “the investigations clearly establish that the criminal facts of rape were not committed, that the absence of consent of the civil party is not established, and that the existence of constraint, threat, or violence is not characterized.” This is a positive judicial finding, not a neutral or inconclusive one.
Chronologically:
  • In February 2019, prosecutors dropped the case due to lack of evidence.
  • In December 2021, after a second investigation, a judge again dismissed the case.
  • In June 2023, the Court of Cassation definitively upheld these decisions, acquitting Besson. This ruling bars Sand Van Roy from bringing the same charges again in France or elsewhere in Europe.
A decision by the Court of Cassation is, by definition, final and without further appeal. In legal terms, this constitutes a definitive judicial outcome. Describing it as such is neither promotional nor misleading; it is a statement of fact.
Second, your argument about “other sexual misconduct allegations” is a separate issue. The section in question deals specifically with the rape accusation brought by Sand Van Roy and its judicial trajectory. A section title is meant to summarize the content of that section, not to aggregate unrelated allegations discussed elsewhere in the article. Introducing them into this title would itself be misleading
Third, my argument is not that the English Wikipedia must copy the French Wikipedia. The relevance of the French version is contextual: it shows that including the judicial outcome in the title is not inherently non-neutral or unprecedented. Ultimately, the justification here rests on policy—particularly WP:BLP and the requirement to avoid presenting allegations without their resolved legal outcome—not on cross-wiki conformity.
Finally, regarding edit conflicts: I acknowledge the inconvenience and will ensure that my future comments are consolidated into a single edit.
In summary, the objection to the word “definitively” is based on an inaccurate description of the legal record. The charges were not left unresolved; they were dismissed multiple times and definitively terminated by the highest court. Omitting this outcome from the section title would misrepresent the content and the legal reality.
Royge 12 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I just said is literally the current text of Luc Besson's page; it's as if you haven't read it. "Definitively" is the exact legal term. Royge 12 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rehashing the same points in way too many messages gets nowhere. Once you've said your piece, you shouldn't need to make another long message until you have brand new material for the sake of brevity. Phoeromones (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as Goweegie2 already said, please keep your messages in one place and stop posting hasty addendums; it's kind of just generally annoying. Phoeromones (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except the most recent message, no counter-argument addressing the substance of the issue had been provided. I repeated my points because you consistently avoided responding to the core arguments. Reiterating the same position becomes necessary when the underlying questions remain unanswered. Royge 12 (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A dispute resolution noticeboard discussion was created regarding this talk page section.
You can find the relevant discussion here. If your name is listed, you are encouraged to add your own summary of the dispute in your words. Phoeromones (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User Royge 12 and Disruptive Editing

[edit]

Hello, this is my first time adding a topic to a talk page or attempting to flag for a dispute resolution, so please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong.

It's my opinion that user Royge 12 is partaking in disruptive editing on this page. On February 4th, I made two edits to Luc Besson's page, I removed two quotes from the personal life section because the sources looked dubious. The quotes were concerning Besson's assault allegations and his relationship with his underage second wife. Within the hour, user Royge 12 not only reverted the edits and threatened to have me blocked, but wrote a multi-paragraph spiel on my talk page accusing me of breaching neutrality. I wont rehash the whole thing here, but it's still in the history of my talk page. talk:YaBoiNyarlathotep&action=history

Needless to say I was taken aback, I am not a frequent editor and when my edits were reverted in the past (not unfairly) I had never been met with a hostile response. I looked back at the edit history for Luc Besson's page, and barely had to scroll before I found more examples of him warring with other users, often immediately reverting their edits and threatening to have them blocked or banned. There was also some pretty blatant sock puppet-ting from Royge 12, specifically on December 20th, the anonymous users that edited Besson's page on that day only edited Besson and Royge 12's talk page. I don't know where exactly the line falls determining harassment and heated argument, but Royge 12 is definitely skirting right up to the edge of that line.

There's also his edits to Besson's page itself. Given how frequently he edits the page, and how he edits it, Royge 12 is clearly a fan of Besson, and is uncomfortable with the sexual assault allegations being so prominent, and is doing everything he can to minimize their presence. Luc Besson is not as famous as other actors/directors with sexual assault accusations, so he won't get caught out as quickly as he would if he did the same on, say, Kevin Spacey or Donald Trump's pages. As far as I can tell he hasn't posted anything that is outright false, but that brings me to another problem. He almost exclusively uses french language sources, which most of the editors on english wikipedia cannot cross reference. Again, I don't know the exact rules here, but my gut tells me that relying so much on sources that most users cannot vet isn't up to code. Especially when you are pulling quotes from those sources, which Royge 12 does often.

The biggest issue, and the one there is already a topic on for both this page and Royge 12's talk page, is his use of biased language. Very funny given how often he accuses other users of breaching neutrality. The big one is his insistence that the title for the section on Besson's rape accusations include how he was totally exonerated by the court, and I will repeat once again for everyone's benefit: there is not a singe instance of wikipedia doing this for another person accused of SA, even if they were exonerated. This page should not be the exception. But that's just the tip of the iceburg, almost more insidious, he goes to a lot of effort to obscure the content his edits. He hides changes to language at the bottom of an otherwise innocuous edit updating Besson's filmography, or labels his edits vaguley so they go unnoticed on the edit history page. My personal favorite is on Jan 26th, he removed the header for the SA allegations page so it wouldn't show up on the table of contents, and marked the edit as "reformulation." He also seems to have his own standards for what is and isn't relevant to Besson's page. His insistence on adding more and more quotes about how the courts sided with Besson is one example, the one that caught my attention was a sentence he added regarding Besson's second wife,Maiwenn, claiming that she was "deeply hurt" by people criticizing her and Besson's relationship. I see no reason for this sentence to be on Besson's page and not hers, it's a total non-sequitur, and seems only to exist to rebuff readers who might be thinking that an adult man getting a 15 year old pregnant is creepy. When I removed that sentence repeatedly, he insisted on also removing the passage about their relationship inspiring leon the professional, because in his head having one but not the other makes the page "biased." Again, this only creates bias if you think marrying a teenager is creepy. In addition, he removed any mention of Maiwenn's age at the time of their marriage, while leaving the ages for Besson's other wives, who were not underage.

I could go on, there was a lot to discover in that edit page. TLDR, I believe Royge 12 is habitually rewriting this page with a biased slant, taking advantage of the fact that this page is not terribly high trafficked and that english speakers can't check his sources, and intentionally creating a hostile environment for editors he doesn't agree with or like. IMO all of his edits to Besson's Personal Life sections should be reevaluated.

I'm aware that I'm pretty much in an edit war right now, I wouldn't be surprised if Royge 12 leaves a multi-paragraph rebuttal under this, he's written more over less. I know at least one other person opened a dispute resolution discussion regarding this guy, but I don't think anything came of it. That was more than a month ago, and he's still frequently editing this page, doing the same things. I'm not really sure what next steps are, please let me know! YaBoiNyarlathotep (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The statements made about me are based on a reversal of the actual situation. The editorial compromises I proposed were refused by a single contributor, who now attempts to portray himself as the victim of a conflict he is in fact sustaining. The edit history speaks for itself.
Contrary to what is being claimed, it is this contributor who refused dialogue, who opposed three contributors in total against him, continuing his modifications without dialogue until now., and who continues to disregard the principles of neutrality and due weight. His edits seek to impose a title that does not accurately reflect the content, while over-emphasizing the relationship between Maïwenn and Luc Besson, in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP.
This approach has been accompanied by factual distortions, notably concerning the film Léon : the professional, which were corrected in my most recent edits. This demonstrates that the disagreement is not merely a matter of interpretation, but of objective inaccuracies.
Regarding the Maïwenn section, his response is clearly based on personal opinion and value judgment. Even if one may personally consider the relationship immoral, such subjective moral assessments have no place on Wikipedia, which requires an encyclopedic, neutral, and fact-based approach (WP:NPOV, WP:BLP).
Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing personal condemnation or ethical positions, but for summarizing what reliable sources state, without endorsing or amplifying moral judgments. Introducing such framing constitutes a departure from neutrality, not an editorial necessity.
The personal attacks questioning my neutrality — such as alleging that it is “suspicious” to contribute to one article and not another , are baseless and irrelevant to Wikipedia’s rules, which require that discussions focus on content, not contributors.
Finally, the claim that I am responsible for the edit war is unfounded. The conflict results from repeated attempts to force changes and from a persistent refusal to refuse dialogue for days despite the numerous compromises offered, (despite my attempts at dialogue on his page as you yourself mentioned, and the numerous compromises proposed as modifications) and to end up with personal attacks here, your position is extremely dishonest. Ans alors refusal to engage in a neutral and encyclopedic approach up to the present. Royge 12 (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An important point I have not yet emphasized:
my initial frustration stems from your clear bad faith in attempting to delete my edit. Each time I factually demonstrated that your stated reason was invalid, you immediately changed your argument, in what appears to be a deliberate strategy to maintain the deletion despite the facts.
1-You first attempted to delete my edit claiming that the sources were unacceptable because they were in French. As I demonstrated, the use of French-language sources is fully acceptable on Wikipedia.
2-Rather than acknowledging the mistake, you immediately shifted your justification, claiming that the sources were now “dubious” because they supposedly came from unreliable media. I then proved that these were major French media outlets, widely considered reliable on Wikipedia.
3-After this refutation, you changed your justification again, asserting that the sources were finally “unnecessary.”
This succession of reversals clearly shows that the deletion was never based on an objective assessment of Wikipedia’s criteria, but on a repeated and calculated attempt to invent a pretext each time your prior argument was disproven.
I acknowledge that my tone in the edit summary was sharp, and I apologize for that. Nonetheless, the underlying problem remains: the behavior of repeatedly inventing new justifications to uphold a deletion is a clear example of editorial bad faith, incompatible with Wikipedia’s principles. Royge 12 (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, regarding the title, I would suggest «Allegations and court proceedings», as it seems to accurately reflect the content and remain impartial. Cinemont (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This title suits me too Royge 12 (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maïwenn's age inclusion

[edit]

I edited the page to include the ages of Luc Besson and Maïwenn in the Personal Life section. This was to bring it in line with the rest of the section, which details the ages of both Besson and his different partners at the time of their relationships. I understand that user Royge 12 removed these ages with the belief that the controversial nature of the relationship meant that knowledge of the ages was made into biased information, but this does not make sense. We have a responsibility to present the information without comment, and omitting information for one relationship is a form of bias on it's own. It is not the remit of this page to attempt to control how a reader may feel about Luc Besson, but they should learn more about Besson by reading it. Removing factual information makes the page less effective in its purpose. My edit was undone by Royge 12, who made a peculiar allegation of 'vandalism', and made a post to my talk page in which they suggested that I was a sock puppet account, which I am not. Royge 12 - what is more likely, that somebody is making multiple accounts to try to edit the page against your wishes, or that there are at least two people who disagree with you?

Anyway, I'm quite new to this dispute business, so whatever we need to do to get a third party in to decide whether or not readers should know that Luc Besson pursued a relationship with a 15 year old when he was 32 years old, let's do that so that this can be resolved and the tyranny of Royge 12 over this page can end. ~2026-90034-9 (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same way of speaking as YaBoiNyarlathotep, same personal attack as YaBoiNyarlathotep. Your account was created less than an hour ago with the only modification being "Luc Besson," exactly two hours after another unregistered account was created with the exact same character as yours, ans with exactly the same goal. I will request a technical investigation as soon as I have time to write it up. This new discussion is pointless since it deals with the exact same debate as the discussion just before. Very disappointed on your part to see that instead of being honest, you created a fake account. Moreover, you have practically been denounced on your discussion page. That said, it's not surprising; you've been trying from the beginning to force your way through and justify yourself to de-neutralize the page. Your last modification literally says that it's not useful to mention the legal outcomes of the Luc Besson case, very funny. Royge 12 (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please desist from treating me like the same person that disagreed with you earlier. You don't own Luc Besson's Wikipedia page, so I think you should probably stop acting like you do.
As I have said elsewhere, the sooner that the boys down in the forensics lab can prove that I am a different person, the better, so that others who view this talk page can easily understand that multiple people have an issue with you editing the page to remove information that you think portrays Luc Besson in a bad light.
You seem to have a personal stake in maintaining Besson's reputation over maintaining neutrality and providing information. Luc, is that you? Surely this isn't a good way to spend your free time after the release of your latest film. ~2026-90034-9 (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You created this account solely to force your way through while a debate is ongoing on Luc Besson's page; your edit is prohibited by the rules anyway (because when a debate is in progress it is forbidden to modify according to one's own opinion without the agreement of the users of the discussion, even more so when a temporary agreement for the title has already been found, as is the case if you read the dedicated topic, and the history of modifications).. Currently, three users have commented, and only one shares your viewpoint, with no consensus reached. Royge 12 (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you are linked to the other user does not change the fact that your edit violates Wikipedia rules when a debate is already underway on the page specifically regarding the statements you attempted to modify. Royge 12 (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk about breaking the rules, why don't we talk about your own rule violations over the title of Besson's rape allegations? There were two different discussions on this talk page where you kept spamming "it's neutral to include the outcome in the subheading", even when that's obviously not true. It was being discussed between you, a user named Goweegie, and a third party named Pheromone (or something), and you still changed it yourself to "Allegations, clearly disproven" or something else clearly biased. You claimed to accept a neutral title suggestion from Cinemont, but were just lying apparently since that's not what the title was when I came to the page. I edited it while being unaware of the drama that you caused in the talk page, because it stood out to me as not following the style of similar articles.
You've said that my labelling your control over this page as 'tyranny' was a personal attack, but I maintain that it is a truthful summary of your behaviour and attitude over this page. You make edits to minimise Luc Besson's sexual misconduct (both the allegations and relationships with underage girls), and then tie anybody who challenges this up in talk debates that go nowhere, while forcefully editing the page to suit your vision and then claim that other people are breaking the rules if they make any edits while "discussion" is going on.
That is not the act of a genuine Wikipedia editor with an objective frame of mind and no skin in the game, that's the act of somebody who clearly has a personal interest in maintaining one version of events to the detriment of factual reality.
If Wikipedia moderators exist, can somebody please come in and do something about this obvious bad actor please. ~2026-90034-9 (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're not talking about the same debate, but about a much older topic. And you're completely distorting reality. Furthermore, you're engaging in defamation since you're assuming the accusations are true. However, the courts have issued a contrary and final verdict. Wikipedia is not a social network. You've been on Wikipedia for less than a day; please learn the Wikipedia rules (and be more vigilant about accusations once the courts have ruled). Wikipedia is not a forum.
Wikipedia demands total neutrality; assuming that the accusations are true is already outside of Wikipedia's rules. Royge 12 (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POV Royge 12 (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The absolute irony of you posting this is not lost on me. It's a good laugh!
You are correct that Wikipedia is *not* a social network. This is interesting considering that you seem to treat Luc Besson's page as your own MySpace page, where your vision for what it looks like is absolute and any challenges to this vision must be eliminated.
Since you are also correct that the title dispute WAS resolved a long time ago with a neutral option found, why did you maintain your editorialised version of the title?
And since we're here, why don't we actually discuss our dispute, which is about the ages being included in the Personal Life section of the page?
My argument has always been that including them brings them in line with the rest of the page and is relevant as starting a romantic relationship with a child is what most Wikipedia readers would find notable. ~2026-90034-9 (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I won't respond here anymore; you're just making personal attacks, and this discussion is pointless since there's already a debate with three contributors. If you want to participate in the debate with Cinemont, YaBoiNyarlathotep, and myself, please do so. Just to remind you, this isn't "my title" but rather the result of an agreement between three contributors. Royge 12 (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The debate with Cinemont YaBoyNyarlathotep and I have the topic name for this discussion."User Royge 12", Please reply only within this discussion thread and do not scatter the discussion elsewhere.Royge 12 (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a personal attack to describe your treatment of the page. I could just as easily describe your overreaction to my labelling of Luc Besson's behaviour as 'sexual misconduct' as a personal attack, but I am not so thin-skinned.
It's very difficult to follow any discussions, and the open dispute on the noticeboard is no longer available now.
Why will you not discuss the changes that you have made to my edit here? ~2026-90034-9 (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the debate with Cinemont, YaBoiNyarlathotep, and myself, no consensus was reached regarding Maïwenn. Therefore, I indeed have no reason to request a deletion (and I will not undo your edit). However, regarding the title, a consensus was reached (with Cinemont, YaBoiNyarlathotep, and myself), and you cannot push through by imposing yours. Royge 12 (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luc_Besson&oldid=1337593005"