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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Please go ahead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

Please note that I have blocked JonQalg from editing the article for 72 hours following blatant edit-warring against consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:38, 12 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)

BLP issue
This is an unusual one. Last week, I was at a European leaders lunch with a number of people, including Christine Lagarde. After the lunch, we chatted and she told me that there's an error in her Wikipedia entry relating to her marriages. In fact, she married Wilfred Lagarde, as we say, but was never married to Eachran Gilmour, and is now married to Xavier Giocanti. I went back to my hotel room and studied the issue and found that there are loads of ordinarily reliable sources for what we've done - so the error isn't ours. Later at the conference I went over to her to make sure I had heard her correctly, and I mentioned the sources. She says, and I'm quite sure she's right, that there was an error in the New York Times in 1999, and since then various other sources have repeated the claim. I would imagine that Wikipedia has assisted in an unfortunate way through "citogenesis" as lazy journalists going to write a profile of her rely on what is stated in Wikipedia.

I do not think we should continue reporting something that isn't true - and saying that someone is married and divorced when they weren't makes it a BLP issue. As a first attempt to resolve it, I have moved all 3 men into "Domestic partners" and propose that we look harder for sources to confirm her marriage to Xavier. Unfortunately I didn't think to ask her for those.

I should add that I have no COI of any kind here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Your personal anecdotes don't trump our WP:V policies, as seen in the past. You have tried "correcting" BLPs in the past based on what some celebrity told you, only to beshown that either you or they were wrong in those claims. Now, it may well be that this time you are right, but your say-so (nor that of anyone else) has in the end no weight. No original research. Fram (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * But WP:BLP trumps everything, and this is a BLP issue. I'm reverting back to my version, and bringing this to wider attention.  There is a clean solution here that resolves the question completely - decide that the exact marital status isn't encyclopedic or is in question, keep it out of the body, take note in a footnote.  Deliberately and obstinately keeping incorrect information in an article is basically never the right asnwer on BLP questions.  Remember: Ignore all rules is policy, there specifically to deal with weird edge cases like this.  "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."  --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * See e.g. the Guardian from 2011. Our article at that time did not even mention Gilmour, so they didn't seem to have gotten that info from us. As the Guardian info in that section is clearly from post-1999, it isn't just a copy of the NYtimes article either. So that's at least two independent, good, WP:RS. Fram (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also found CNN, and Irish Examiner. Our article cites the Telegraph. With the NYT and Guardian, that gives us five total RS. If sources existed that say she was NOT married to Gilmour I think we would have already turned them up. It was correct to revert Jimbo's edit. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 15:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A different kind of reliable source, confirming a marriage to Gilmour, is the Lagarde biography in The Europa Directory of International Organizations 2022 (Apologies if not everyone can see this page), I quote, "m. 2nd Eachran Gilmour (divorced)". This bio is not based on Wikipedia, as shown by a following sentence "started career as lecturer at Univ. Paris X" which we don't happen to say.
 * There are signs that someone wants to adjust the Wikipedia record right now. On the French wiki, user fr:Utilisateur:Xavier Giocanti has been editing the page fr:Xavier Giocanti and also made a hamfisted edit to fr:Christine Lagarde; user User:Agiocanti has made a comment above. Andrew Dalby 13:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea at all whether those editors are who they say they are, but I see no particular reason to doubt it. If they had asked me, I would have said definitely don't edit this yourself.  But we all know that people who have false negative things said about them in Wikipedia have a right under BLP policy to edit it - they aren't required to learn all our rules.  The important thing for us is the ethics and morality of speaking the truth.  Here we have an unusual situation to be sure, in which the reliable sources are wrong.  This is why I am advocating for a middle ground answer where we simply don't address the specific question of marital status at all.  Nothing in her biography hinges on it one way or the other. Remember IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * For the moment I have rolled back to my version. Let's go with that for now as the least controversial (side-stepping the issue of exact marital status) way to handle an unusual BLP issue.  Before editing back to the (factually wrong but well-sourced) version, let's have a proper discussion, bringing in more voices to seek consensus on the best way to handle this.  Remember, this is an unusual situation, about a detail that isn't particularly important or controversial but may have great personal impact on the subject(s) of the article.  It is crucial that we strive not to blindly follow rules when there is a better way to improve Wikipedia: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This is a perfect application of that policy, and a good example of why it exists. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * (ec)"The least controversial version"? We have a long-standing, well-sourced version, discussed above, which multiple people agree with; and we have a WP:OR/hearsay version, pushed for by involved editors, including you (with a clear COI). WP:BRD, WP:V, all are against your version. Having to resort to IAR (when it is obviously disputed whether that version actually improves Wikipedia in any way) is a clear sign of weakness. Before changing the stable, well-sourced version again, perhaps try to convince some editors and get consensus. Fram (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * And with regards to your email, a combination of emotional blackmail and a good insight in why you take this action, because it comes from "a powerful person": we have haf this discussion before, and you were wrong then as well, and in that case the person who got you to change their page either deliberately lied or was mistaken. The same goes for your other recent attempt to change a BLP of a "poweful person" who claimed that our article was wrong, and were you went so far as too claim that the "error" was invented by a Wikipedian while in reality it was first published by a reliable source. Instead of doing the bidding of your powerful friends, just leave it to uninvolved editors, raise the issue on the talk page and let others decide. The repeated occurrences of this issue really reflect badly on you. Fram (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To repeat, Fram, I have no conflict of interest of any kind here. Christine Lagarde is not a friend of mine.  We just happened to meet at an event.  This is not about me, and it is not about your emotions.  It's about improving Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which you aren't doing by disregarding all rules to please powerful people you know again and again. Fram (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I will just remind you of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. This is not about me, it is not about your anger at me for whatever reason, it is about improving Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You mailed me that "If a powerful person says "Wikipedia deliberately publishes false information that they know to be false, because their rules on sourcing drive them in that direction" that's very bad for us - and should never be true." You have tried in the distant and recent past to change articles based on what such "powerful people" told you, even in cases where their claims weren't true, and even going so far as to claim that some disputed fact originated on enwiki, when that was very easily shown to be false. This is about you and your mistaken belief that our most basic policies don't apply to you are your powerful friends. You may repeat "it is about improvng Wikipedia" a thousand times, but that is the same "but the truth" mantra repeated by every editor who believes that the sourcing rules don't apply to their special, obvious, important, ... case and that they have personal knowledge that X or Y isn't like we describe it. We don't even waive these policies for actual experts on certain topics, why should we do it here? For optics? I have defended this very article against actual negative edits multiple times long before you came along, it's not as if I don't care about BLP or improving Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I will just remind you of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Your comments here about me are irrelevant to Christine Lagarde's biography and I think it is time for you to move on from it.  My point is that it is very very common for people to have a problem with their BLPs and a feeling that Wikipedians are more intertested in their own bureaucracy than the simple human dignity of getting it right on BLP issues.  Your insistence here on repeatedly inserting false material based on a very narrow (and incorrect) willingness to ignore the fundamental values of Wikipedia are a pretty good example.  You might think of this as mere "optics" - but it is not.  It is also an issue of optics - when Wikipedia gets a reputation (which it does have) of being incredibly annoying when people seek to correct an error, it is precisely behavior like yours that comes to mind.
 * I am not suggesting that we simply reflect the claims of the subject - that's not necessary in this case. I'm merely recommending that - for now - we edit the article so that it no longer expresses a falsehood - one that doesn't impact the biography in any really material way - by not getting into the specifics of marital status.  It's the right thing to do, and your anger with me about unrelated issues is something you should stop going on about, please!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We only have your claim that it is "false material" (which I'm not "inserting", I'm restoring the status quo), actual reliable sources disagree with this. In such cases we always go with the reliable sources. And no, when an editor makes the same mistake again and again across different articles, then these are not "unrelated issues" and it isn't a personal attack to bring this up. Fram (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For those who may not know what Fram is talking about, may be helpful to read. I was right in that case, but he's unhappy about that including that he's unhappy that a source he found was removed, presumably by the subject trying to make a concerted effort to set the record straight.  Fram insists on framing this (unfairly and in a very much not assuming good faith way) as me helping out "celebrity pals" when that's absolutely an insult to me and false.  People who meet me often know of a real error in their Wikipedia entry.  Sometimes I can help, sometimes I can't.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I was "unhappy" that you made incorrect claims about where the issue originated, which was not on Wikipedia but in an older, reliable source. And when a person you know professionally (like you said there) contacts you to edit their Wikipedia page, then you clearly have a Coi, no matter what you claim. Fram (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that Jimbo Wales raised this issue at the BLPN noticeboard, but forgot to mention that here. Fram (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-read and you'll realise, Fram: there are some phrases there that read a tiny little bit like a personal attack.
 * You don't find many sources saying "X didn't marry Y". So, in this case, X denies marrying Y and wants us not to assert it: it is a point of some interest to X: with what reliable source does X persuade us? I can find two right now: a 2019 French biography by Cyrille Lachèvre and Marie Visot, Christine Lagarde - Enquête sur la femme la plus puissante du monde. Via a page search for "Gilmour" this refers to her two great romances, with Wilfried Lagarde, "her husband", and with the Briton Eachran Gilmour: it never even hints that she married the latter and in context this strongly implies she didn't; OK, not good enough? Here's another: Jean-Louis Beaucarnot, Le Tout Politique (2022) which lists all three relationships, with Wilfried Lagarde she was "mariée", with Gilmour she was "unie" (important difference) and with Giocanti she has "refait sa vie". On the question whether she and Giocanti have married, I've easily found contradictory sources saying that they have and that they haven't.
 * You know, I'm inclined to edit the infobox, make them all domestic partners, add footnotes to all three. Does anyone object? Andrew Dalby 18:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Domestic partner is a legal status in some jurisdictions, so we should not say that without documentation of same. I think "Relationships" is a normal category for infoboxes? And where sources disagree, hang a note to that effect next to the citations? Goes without saying the article text should also be updated to note the discrepancies. I'm not saying to do this immediately--there should be further discussion. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I shouldn´t have made personal attacks like "Your insistence here on repeatedly inserting false material". Oh, wait, that wasn´t me but the person concerned about personal attacks and so on... Anyway, what you are doing, raising the issue on the talk page and looking for actual sources is the correct approach to challenge well-sourced claims, not the attempts to change it contrary to WP:V. Fram (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fram, this is incorrect when we are talking about BLP issues. With a BLP issue it's important to remove the offending material first, and then discuss.  Saying that someone was married to and divorced from someone they were not married to and divorced from is a BLP issue, and is not something particularly important or controversial to the biography.  (It isn't some major claim about her career, for example, where there might be an issue with someone wanting to whitewash a problem.). Thank you for your kind and thoughtful treatment of me throughout all this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But we had only your word that this fact, which has been reported by numerous very reliable sources for nearly 25 years, was actually "offending material" (it's not as if we coupled her to someone she didn't know or never had a relation with). Please see WP:V: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (emphasis in original). You are a third party, your comment is self-published. There was no reason at all to rush in like a bull in a china shop to remove this perfectly-sourced claim which isn't "particularly important or controversial" to begin with. The approach by Andrew Dalby is the right one, look for sources and evidence: otherwise ask the person involved to set the record straight in reliable sources or on a verifiable self-published source. Fram (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies. The solution is yours, but adding footnotes, and I intend to make an edit to the text at "Personal life" with footnotes again. I don't usually mess with infoboxes on en:wiki, and I take Xan747's point, but as far as I can see "Relationship(s)" isn't a parameter and "Partner" is the one to choose: to me as an English-speaking punter, "partner" seems to be the polite general term. Dates are recommended in the template documentation, but I will probably leave those to be added later if I don't find them all in the sources I'm citing. Andrew Dalby 08:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Andrew, this is an excellent resolution. I think because she is a central banker and not a celebrity, reporting on her current marriage (I found virtually nothing, but as you can read French you seem to have found more!) is probably uneven.  If there's a source that says they are married, that's great, because that's the fact and it's probably better to source to that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess she and Giocanti married in 2020 without any publicity: I don't think any web source confirms it, though a few sources of various dates describe them as married. I hope you think my edits are reasonable. I know you've been keen to ensure this page is properly sourced, not an easy task. In my last edit, coming right now, I'll remove the footnote references from the infobox, keeping the ones in the text. If you prefer the infobox to be footnoted, feel free to revert! Andrew Dalby 15:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby, this is looking much better, thank you. I saw that wp:dailymail was cited to support 1992 as the year she divorced Wilfred Lagarde. Since it is deprecated, I replaced it with the Fast Facts CNN citation we were already using elsewhere. I would like to discuss some tweaks as follows:

Reasoning for changes: Finally, about the infobox: the template allows to set both the spouse and partner parameters simultaneously. Since there is no dispute she was married to Lagarde, I propose listing him as a spouse, and the others as partners. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) We don't know how many partners she had before or after Lagarde, so we should not describe Gilmour as her second partner.
 * 2) I think it's important to be explicit in the main text about the contested marriage statuses as many (most?) readers probably don't read footnotes.
 * Replacing the Daily Mail citation with another is fine, of course.
 * I've numbered your points (forgive me for doing this) so as not to repeat point 1 verbatim: it sounds potentially intrusive to me, and anyway (you don't need me to tell you this) it isn't about what we know, it's about reliable sources. All relevant reliable sources list three partnerships, so I don't honestly think "second partner" went beyond the sources. "Sometime later" seems worse to me. I'll maybe try another rewording: please comment in return, as freely as I have done here.
 * Last point: The problem with the infobox is that people often don't read the text, let alone the footnotes. If we list one relationship as "Spouse" and the others not, we are implying that the others are not: but, in both cases, we don't know that they are not. Our sources are contradictory. Therefore it's better not to let the implication even arise. If others are not happy with listing all three as partners, my alternative, as already suggested by at the BLP noticeboard, is to take the information out of the infobox completely, at least until we have a really reliable source that beats all others.
 * Point 2: I feel uncertain about putting doubts on this subject in the text of the article: aren't they better in the footnotes? The conflict between reliable sources is a problem among Wikipedians, not a real world problem. Is it notable? Barely. Andrew Dalby 12:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Dalby,
 * I would be happier with "2nd known partner". Without the qualifier it sounds like we know she's only had three romantic relationships in her life, whereas all we know is that she's had three partners biographers and the press found worthy of mentioning. Perhaps we could do something like:
 * I think this addresses your "sometime later" concern by removing the question of timing altogether, with which I am happy. Note also that I changed past to present tense since we are referring to people who so far as we know are not dead.
 * I take your point about my previous infobox suggestion. How about listing only Wilfried, as a former spouse? Not only are we most certain about their marital status, that they had children together makes him the most notable and deserving of mention there. It's also customary to give marriage and divorce years using a template:
 * | spouse            = Wilfried Lagarde (m. 1982-1992)
 * I feel pretty strongly about noting that sources disagree in the article text itself, especially when it comes to Gilmour, but not strong enough to belabor the point.
 * I hope these lengthy comments are helpful. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 14:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Very helpful, and thank you. Listing in the infobox just the one spouse for whom we have the exact dates we prefer to have -- that would be acceptable to me. Shall we just wait and see what others say? It would be useful too to have others' comments on where we mention our doubts, text or footnotes ... however, the addition of "but not when" is genius. Exactly true, too. Do it!
 * [I revised this sentence as you suggested. Andrew Dalby 15:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC) ]
 * This may all become unnecessary if some really decisive source turns up, but right now I don't see it on the horizon :) Andrew Dalby 14:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually think that our explicitly calling out in the article (main body or footnote, I don't mind which) makes it much more likely that a definitive source will emerge. Here's how the process of journalism often works - a journalist is assigned to write a profile or do an interview.  They pop to read Wikipedia first, and they largely don't bother asking questions that seem to be settled and not controversial.  If the New York Times said it in 1999, and lots of others have repeated it, why waste someone's time asking about it.  So you do the profile/interview and you round it out with the general background that you got from Wikipedia, the New York Times, and so on.  But if Wikipedia says "oh, some sources say this, some say that" then hey, suddenly that's an interesting enough question to just confirm with the subject. NPOV works well, including factually reporting that we don't know for sure, as opposed to repeating misinformation and appearing to be simply consistent with the most popular sources.  I think we're getting close to a strong outcome here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just believing that she is telling the truth and all other sources (and we) were posting misinformation is one of the reasons why these kind of things need discussion, as happens now, instead of rushing in to "fix" things without regard for policies. As highlighted on the BLPN discussion, the Telegraph had this to say: "Her first marriage, in 1982, to a financial analyst called Wilfred Lagarde, produced two sons, but seems to have ended badly a decade later, for all mention of Wilfred has been expunged from her biographies." (emphasis mine) While obviously exaggerated, it seems to indicate or at least hint at attempts to get history rewritten if she no longer likes it. Whether that would go as far as actually lying about previous marriages is something we don't and can't know, but it at least should give us pause in the "she said it so it must be true" narrative. We don't know, and we should never correct articles against the good sources just because the subject asks for it (or so we are told). Raise the issue on the talk page, let people see for themselves what the problem may be and what sources say, and then try to find a compromise. A fact like this, repeated everywhere for 25 years and included here for many years as well, is not something that needs to be removed ASAP but warrants careful consideration. The BLPN discussion is quite clear that there may be good reasons to avoid the discussions of partners and so on altogether, but is also quite clear that no one should change articles just because the subject claims that the sources are wrong. Fram (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Having heard those views, I no longer hesitate. I would be glad for to change the text as suggested in the box above. Andrew Dalby 17:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection here. Fram (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad we got it sorted. @Andrew Dalby, I was just about to implement the changes when I saw that you had already done, "Some sources say they have married, but not when." I presume you're working on the other ones now unless you say otherwise. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Dalby, scratch that; I just now realized that I was to do the remaining changes. Working on it now ... Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok all done. I fixed the Infobox correctly, but wrongly wrote in the edit summary, rm all but Gilmour as domestic partners, ch Gilmour to spouse
 * Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I spotted that :) Andrew Dalby 21:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I spotted that :) Andrew Dalby 21:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)