Talk:Luc Besson

Boo-hoo "Controversy"

The photo is terrible. This isn't an article for Bridget Fonda. Absolutely ridiculous.

Also the choice of photo makes little sense. It is clearly a picture of Bridget Fonda as she appears centre frame and Luc Besson's face has been entirely left in the dark...how about a more fitting photo?

His film company, Europa Corp, is known for producing brainless entertainment, often accused of vulgarity, populism, bad jokes, weak scripts, even sexism and racism. Taxi 2, an important popular success, can be seen as the 'symbol' of this tendency.

Am I the only one who finds this sentence ridicolous? // Gargaj 00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No I quite agree. I find the whole article rather negative to be honest, how about some more focus on the positive aspects of Luc Besson's work? // --Orbitalia 20:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Luc Besson has been very oftenly demonized by french intelligentsia, which is a real honour for him. // --Christophe_deR 12:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

While it's fine to bring up these "negative issues" in this current section, it really needs to be prefaced by a more thorough discussion of his films which have been more original than many, and at least mildly if not strongly influential.71.106.27.144 16:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)wrmorton. 3/21/2006

As an aspiring Director, Luc Besson had always been one of my inspirations. Before I could truly pick apart films to their core and determine for the sake of my own style why I was attracted to them, I knew I was a fan of Besson's ability for strong emotion that was emphasized by the score of his composer Eric Serra (I especially appreciate the discovery of Natalie Portman and introducing me to such actors as Jean Reno and Gary Oldman). Despite Besson's majority of great stories in his Directing career, now looking back, the shallowness of his recent work may be considered slightly foreshadowed. I want to keep Besson in my top tier of directors but his recent body of work does cater to a state of mindlessness--films contrary to his originality and contrary to my appeal for him. I do hope to be reawakened though.

All this is question of opinion. I don't think we can say in this article this kind of thing, it's just not neutral at all. Some people love his movies, some people hate them. We shouldn't be trying to convince people that his productions are good or not. It should be removed, and this article should remain neutral. --129.215.13.83 16:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• "His film company, Europacorp, has often been accused of producing brainless entertainment, movies with weak scripts that are filled with vulgarity, populism, bad jokes and even sexism and racism. Especially Taxi 2, a popular success, has been the target of such criticisms."

Is this assessment accurate? Does it belong to an encyclopedia article? I don't see this matter being raised on the French wiki page. Even if someone could come up with a somewhat more balanced version it seems to me that the above paragraph could be written on and about any film production company... Wikigi 12:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a dedicated controversy section to address charges of pedophilia and grooming JointCompound (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Image

Even taking into account the awful wikipedia images typically in use since the ridiculous fair use fiasco, this one is especially awful. It's taken at a weird angle from behind him with the focus clearly on Bridget Fonda. Can't we do better than this? And before anyone says it - no, I don't have a better image of him nor do I know how to find one. If I did, it would be there. Doctorfluffy 22:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The current photo that show Bridget Fonda and Luc's ear is clearly inappropriate -- whether a replacement is available or not is irrelevant.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Writer/Producer

Besson is also an extremely prolific writer and producer, in fact he has produced and written far more than he has directed. It might be a good thing to add a list of his writing and producing credits, as well as update his directed movie list as it is also incomplete. (75.183.170.202 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

My immortal My Immortal (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Luc Besson's Love With Milla Jovovich

Does anyone know what happened between the two? I read he was currently seeing the actress, Maïwenn Le Besco and had a daughter with her in 1992 or 1993 (someone messed up with the dates). She is also one year younger than Milla Jovovich is. Milla was married to him 1997 - 1999.

Armoredavian (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

can we get more hobo looking picture of him?

c mon people this is the best recent picture of him? 71.99.86.158 (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

MORE HOOBOO!!!!!! ~2025-35265-43 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

"No talent french hack Luc Besson" -- Rex Reed, New York Observor

Taken is the kind of exploitave junk everyone expects from no-talent French hack Luc Besson, is the full quote.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/taken/

Perhaps this should be in the critical evaluation section

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.199.45 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Valérian

Is there someone who would like to create the page for Valérian, Besson's next film ? The page already exists in French but we can make one in English. The English title is already known (Valérian and the City of a Thousand Planets) as the film will be shot in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herve.toullec (talk • contribs) 10:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Valerian flopped because the male protagonist was, well, short, and 'normal' folks want someone 7' tall. Look at the reviews. More than half are men and women hating on his height. That said, it's a solid 7.2/10 ~2025-35265-43 (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I can't be the only one who noticed this..

How did this guy get a pass for impregnating a 15-year-old who was 18 years his junior, then leaving her a few years later for Milla Jovovich? Was he really never charged for his relationship with Maiwenn Le Besco? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.149.165 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@64.229.149.165 Because he's a brilliant, successful director. People still carry a torch for Polanski, too.

Also kind of gross when unambiguous grooming is glossed over or described as "dating" 2601:184:487F:EA10:D149:B9CA:BB:E0B3 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070915052539/http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_12003.html to http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_12003.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928081940/http://www.jewreview.net/article.php?id=1394 to http://www.jewreview.net/article.php?id=1394

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)

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

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)

• Oppose: a person is not defined by who they are married to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louize5 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Including rape allegations in the lead?

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)

Title and attempt to obscure the final judicial verdict

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)