Talk:Christine Lagarde

message: As mentioned in a subsection, Christine Lagarde is a convicted criminal (for negligence in the use of public funds). This is very important information to surface, and it is front-and-center in the bios of other high-profile criminals. JonQalg (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already mentions Lagarde's conviction in the fourth paragraph of the lead, and devotes a three-paragraph subsection to it.  This seems to be perfectly adequate coverage to me.  Lagarde is absolutely not predominantly known for her criminal convictions in a way which would justify including it in the first sentence of her biography, ahead of her roles as politician, lawyer, and president of the ECB as this edit attempted to do. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

text: I've reverted this out of the first sentence. It likely should have a sentence somewhere later in the lead, but it's placement in the first sentence is undue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. Reliable sources do not generally regard the conviction as central to her notability Tristario (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the addition of the word "criminal" because that is not how the sources characterize the conviction of "negligence". In fact, one source says that the criminal case had been dropped. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Per WP:BLPPUBLIC we need multiple sources saying that. And even if some do, if most of them don't, we should probably still avoid or put less emphasis on that wording per WP:NPOV Tristario (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Important to whom? What matters on Wikipedia are the policies and guidelines that govern what we say about living persons, not any editor's opinion of what is "important". Just saying "conviction" is sufficient. The WP:BURDEN is on you, not anyone else, to support the assertion you want to add. Of the 10 sources cited in that paragraph, none of them mention the word "criminal" or "crime" in the context of this conviction of "negligence"; in fact the Bloomberg source says a criminal suit was dropped. I cannot see the NYT source. As far as I can tell, you are committing a violation of WP:BLP by including it, and edit-warring about it without meeting WP:BURDEN will likely lead to a block on your account. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

text: This source says "The court, which noted her national and international stature, spared her a criminal record." And most of those sources you just gave don't say she was criminally convicted. 1. Says she was found guilty of criminal charges, the bloomberg sources don't say that, The independent only says that in the headline (see WP:HEADLINES), and the Liberation article doesn't seem to say that either Tristario (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

text: No one is disputing that she's been convicted, it's whether there's enough sourcing to say she's been "criminally convicted" or to call her a "convicted criminal". And it's still reliable, even though it's described as a "primer". Please take time to read WP:BLP to understand some of the considerations here. Tristario (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

text: I've reverted out criminal from the lead section again. Trying to force you preferred option isn't going to work. You need to follow the WP:BRD process and convince other editors that the addition of criminal is justified. Personally even if the sourcing is good enough I don't believe it would be WP:DUE in the first sentence of the lead. It's simply not the first thing that she is known for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

text: You've been reverted by five different editors, so not just me. And as per WP:ONUS it is up to you to convince us otherwise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other editors making similar changes to mine. I am trying to achieve consensus on this change, but you are not responding to my arguments in good faith. I am opening a dispute resolution request in the hope that less biased editors might intervene. JonQalg (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

text: I guess I should tell you you've added you complaint to a closed section of WP:DRN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal Conviction 

message: Having checked Le Monde, I adjusted the wording. Clarification was needed because at the time when the letter was apparently drafted, Sarkozy was most likely president, not former president. It isn't clear that the document is relevant to the "criminal conviction" under which we mention it, rather than the "ministerial career" which we currently deal with very briefly. Andrew Dalby 15:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter intended for Sarkozy 

message: Remove : Spouse = Eachran Gilmour
She was never married to Eachran Gilmour this is a mistake. She is currently married to Xavier Giocanti and was married to 	Wilfred Lagarde. Agiocanti (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: In addition to the Telegraph citation already used in the article, New York Times, CNN, and Irish Examiner all say she was married to Gilmour. Xan747 (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023