Talk:Christine Lagarde

Criminal Conviction

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)

Along with my edit to the description, I would like to add the relevant sections for the cutout: Criminal status, Conviction, etc JonQalg (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

See here for an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli JonQalg (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

That edit appears to be the appropriate place for something that merits a three-paragraph subsection. She had become very well known for her recent criminal conviction, likely because of her role as president of the ECB, a role that one imagines requires a lack of negligence in the use of public funds. JonQalg (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we will have another example soon! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristina_Fern%C3%A1ndez_de_Kirchner JonQalg (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The NYT source calls it a “criminal conviction” JonQalg (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Instead of removing my edit, please suggest an alternative edit that will surface this important information. JonQalg (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Your assertions about the sources are incorrect. A I have mentioned, the NYT source linked clearly states it is a “criminal conviction.” What more proof do you need? JonQalg (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is one of many sources that cite a criminal conviction: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/business/imf-trial-christine-lagarde-france-verdict.html?_r=0. Stop removing my edit please. I have met my burden of proof and you are likely to be banned for edit warring, not me. JonQalg (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

More sources : 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/business/lagarde-imf-verdict-france-questions.html

2. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-24/orange-ceo-convicted-in-453-million-arbitration-payout-case JonQalg (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-19/imf-head-lagarde-convicted-in-french-negligence-trial JonQalg (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the second link JonQalg (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Another source in the article with the same language: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/christine-lagarde-convicted-imf-head-found-guilty-of-negligence-in-fraud-trial-a7484586.html JonQalg (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

A French article using similar language: https://www.liberation.fr/france/2016/12/19/christine-lagarde-coupable-sans-peine_1536376/ JonQalg (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

The article you cite is a “primer,” and doesn’t dispute her conviction. The Bloomberg article uses the word “convicted” in the first sentence and the Liberation article uses a translation. JonQalg (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

How is it possible to be convicted without it being a criminal conviction? JonQalg (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

That’s based only on your opinion. I have backed up the due weight of this information with multiple sources. You have cited nothing to back up your assertion that she is not known for being a convicted criminal. JonQalg (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Letter intended for Sarkozy

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)