Wikipedia

Talk:Brigitte Macron

Candace Owens Law suit hits all news

[edit]

I can see a consorted attempt to keep headline news out of this article. Using every Wikipedia tool to do so. It is now news in CNN, BBC, Variety, and across all major outlets. People suggesting its inclusion are now called Trolls. How could it fit WP:FRINGE I hope I do not have to start a request for comments on this one. Inayity (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is often confusion about the purpose of Wikipedia but it is clear that amplifying troll attacks on living people is not a suitable purpose. I am not suggesting that editors here are trolls but people may not have thought through how WP:BLP should work. The general procedure is that news about Candace Owens belongs in an article about them. If necessary, I will use all administrative tools available to apply BLP and will ask for review at WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The law suit is news all around the world, the most relevant issue regarding Brigitte Macron. It is wrong that it isn't even mentioned here. It's hiding what the entire world is talking about. 2A02:3100:2FDA:C100:3908:9E9:9B3D:8950 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, the entire world is not talking about this. They are talking about Gaza, and Ukraine, and Ozzy Osbourne, and Hulk Hogan, and whether South Africa will rename itself.... so many things that are not bullshit troll rumours. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a relatively long section about these accusations - not only by Candace Owens but also by French women - in the French Wikipedia article and mentioning in the Spanish and Portuguese articles, which in my view is an argument to include it also in the English article. Tuncker (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the French wikipedia there is a long section about these accusations. I just saw that you are correct as you stated that the Spanish and Portuguese wikipedias speak about this issue as well. I don't understand why the English wikipedia should be different than these mentioned big wikipedias and not speak about the issue as well. 2A02:3100:188F:C400:3DF5:3BD0:8C1C:58FD (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The communists that run wikipedia dont speak those other languages 172.254.44.186 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't resort to attaching labels such as communists to people that you disagree with. That hardly helps with advancing your argument. That being said, on July 10 and before Macron suing Owens had become news I added a paragraph covering these developments in a neutral tone but my edit was reverted by Johnuniq who politely asked me to perhaps take the issue to WP:AN if I wished to do so. I really don't think this is something that should be discussed at administrators' noticeboard but I also find it bizarre that we have just decided to completely ignore the fact that the subject of this biography has been engaged in multiple legal battles. That naturally would be considered a major development in any person's life. And it's not like we are siding with the people whom she's suing; after all it is not our job to say who's right. I think what everyone is trying to do is bring the article up to date with the recent developments in her life. Just as pushing a certain narrative would be unacceptable, withholding information that has been reported and covered in multiple major reliable secondary sources would be a disservice to our readers IMO. Keivan.fTalk 03:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am an uninvolved administrator who believes that WP:BLP requires that Wikipedia should not be used to amplify trolling against living people. I feel obliged to use administrative tools to ensure that WP:BLP is followed. My mention of a review at WP:AN was a suggestion that a review of any administrative action that I took could occur there. You are probably aware that the attacks made by Candace Owens are covered in her article and in other articles such as Transvestigation. Regarding the issue, I hope it is clear to editors that the stories are trolling attacks. Given that, editors wanting to add the attacks here need to provide more justification than the fact that the attacks have made the news. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, yes, I can see that going into details and discussing Owens's conspiracy theories point by point at this article would definitely tantamount to trolling. However, saying that she has sued a bunch of people for defamation does not mean that we have sided with people who are trolling or defaming her. It's a simple statement of fact not an 'attack'. On the other hand, if we are looking at the matter's durability in the long run, given how she has responded to these attacks it is likely that any future biographies of her will cover this topic and her response to the conspiracy theories. Keivan.fTalk 05:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add comment, I also understand the want to not amplify "trolls" on living people and essentially give an outlet to conspiracy theories, but not even mentioning a simple "In 2025, Macron and her legal team filed a defamation suit against American conservative political commentator Candace Owens." seems unreasonably strict.
And as for the global aspect, I think it's not unreasonable to say that it has received global attention, even reaching as far as BBC Chinese and QQ News. EytanMelech (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That pretty much sums up what I have been trying to say. Yes, we should not give a platform to unproven allegations and theories in any WP:BLP, but we should also not censor information on her litigation history which is available on literally every major source at this point. Keivan.fTalk 00:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnuniq here. We do not necessarily have to cover every lawsuit a notable individual has been involved with, especially those mainly feeding tabloid "journalism". That transvestigation hysteria is gripping certain sections of the U.S. should have no effect on we approach this from encyclopedic viewpoint. We don't for instance cover birtherism conspiracies at the Barack Obama article and so on for other WP:FRINGE material. Gotitbro (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did Obama sue anyone because of those conspiracies? Not as far as I can remember to be honest. If the subject feels the need to file two lawsuits within the span of two years against three reporters that means that her life is absolutely affected by their actions and this is information that is not withheld from a neutral biography that discusses her background, career, actions, etc. Keivan.fTalk 14:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lawsuits come a dime and a dozen. If this does indeed turn into a media circus, in so far as it leads to a standalone enwiki article, a brief mention here with a link to it could indeed follow. For now, I see no merit for inclusion of a conspiracy theory largely brewed recently by a single actor. As for biographies, I doubt, with what we have now, any biography of either of the Macrons would cover this.
This is simply more of the 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States and Trumpism, specifically the far-right anti-trans currents within these that are driving this nonsense. We need the strictest application of our policies when dealing with such stuff. Gotitbro (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if this continues to create chaff in the media, we might need to apply Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality sanctions here as well. Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a rumor saying that... and there are some other people saying otherwise. What can be said about such a rumor ? (1) first thing: the rumor exists. (2) second thing: the rumor propagates. About (1), can we ask if the rumor is true ? The standard answer is that Wikipedia was not build to decide about the truthiness of anything. And this standard answer is absolutely true !!! About (2), we have to deal with the people's long range memory. The forgery about the "mass destruction weapons" during the Irak war has massively destroyed the confidence onto the "official stories". Most of the French people have some memory about Mazarine Mitterrand. Etc. One can analyze the circulation of the "Brigitte rumor" as mostly a method to avenge such a lot of forgeries from the past. This is described at will in the most trustworthy mainstream media: Le Monde, Le Figaro, etc. And the fact that this rumor is used as a revenge method belongs to the Wikipedia's article. Moreover, quite all comments (and topmost from the mainstream medias) are saying that the best proving proof of "person A is not person B" would be the simultaneous public presence of the two people. The Brigitte side has never tried to organize such an event during the four years of the controversy. This is well documented by the mainstream media. They aren't discussing about the why, they are only discussing about the probable result of such a behavior. This can be reported without moral failure ! Pldx1 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been added again. I still don't feel we should be including so much reference to what is, fundamentally, an obvious lie. But is there consensus to include it? GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it and will take administrative action if necessary to ensure that WP:BLP is respected. To repeat a key point in my edit summary, if someone else does things such as promoting clickbait lies attacking Macron, material can be added to an article about that other person, if WP:DUE etc. Adding it here to amplify the attack would violate WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 M.Bitton (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Add parental reaction detail to Personal life section

[edit]

I propose adding the following text under the *Personal life* section, after the mention of Brigitte Macron meeting Emmanuel Macron at La Providence:

"When Emmanuel Macron’s parents learned of his attachment to Brigitte Trogneux, they tried to separate the couple by asking Brigitte to stay away from their underage son until he reached 18; she reportedly replied, 'I cannot promise you anything.' His parents then sent Emmanuel to Paris to complete his final year of lycée, believing his youth made the relationship inappropriate. The couple remained in contact, later reunited after he graduated, and married in 2007."[1]

This is consistent with content already included in the Emmanuel Macron article and is supported by a high-quality reliable source (Reuters). RiverEditor25 (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to execute this edit request, but will leave the template unanswered for other editors to look at.
I will explain why:
1 I do not think this is Wikipedia:Notable for this specific article. I understand that it is mentioned for the President's page, but in my opinion, the parents' behaviour belongs there and not here. (although I do not feel very strongly about it, so regard this statement and the following statements as without prejudice)
2 I am also generally more hesistant with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and specifically sensitive topics.
3 This definitely qualifies as that, considering it is a controversy with global attention, and which may also become part of a pending lawsuit.
While the preceding was without prejudice, the following is NOT:
It is my opinion that this edit is controversial, and therefore does not qualify for an edit request. If other editors disagree, they may, but I want to have noted this for the purpose of consensus.
Slomo666 (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response and for raising the BLP concerns. I suggested this mainly for consistency, since the same point is already included in the Emmanuel Macron article with a reliable source (Reuters).
To address the sensitivity, perhaps a more concise version like the following would work:
"Reliable sources such as Reuters have reported that Emmanuel Macron’s parents initially opposed the relationship due to his young age, and sent him to Paris for his final year of lycée. The couple remained in contact and later married in 2007."[1]
Happy to leave this here for others to weigh in. RiverEditor25 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss and get consensus before requesting an edit. Such requests are for agreed changes. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Carrel, Paul (12 April 2017). "France's Macron defied parental veto on schoolboy love affair with teacher". Reuters. Retrieved 18 September 2025.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2026

[edit]

Change "[...] who has served as President of France." to "[...] who has served as President of France since 14 May 2017.".

When I first saw the page I was confused because the wording makes it seems Emmanuel Macron is no longer president of France. This edit brings it in line with the corresponding French article. Mihasi (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Favonian (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]