Talk:Christine Lagarde

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JonQalg (talk | contribs) at 04:59, 8 December 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]