Talk:Brigitte Macron
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brigitte Macron article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
Surname
editIn France and Spain, the law does not provide for women taking their husband's surname when they marry. They legally retain their own family names.
Thus, while Brigitte Trogneux is commonly known as "Madame Macron," she legally remains "Brigitte Trogneux."
2601:645:C300:42D0:D3C:E6B0:3403:6385 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that is true, actually, unless they changed this when they extended marriage rights to same-sex couples. But either way they were married in 2007, so I think you must be wrong, unless you can provide a reliable source.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Here's a source. French women don't change their surname at marriage and that goes back to 1789. SilverCobweb (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- So why isn't Valérie Trierweiler named Valérie Massonneau?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Here's a source. French women don't change their surname at marriage and that goes back to 1789. SilverCobweb (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Possible relative
editCan anyone find an RS to confirm or deny if she is related to historian Alain Trogneux, who is also from Amiens please?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would think your question is more likely to get a usable answer if you ask a reader of French wikipedia. So I copied it over to the talk page accompanying Alain Trogneux's entry there. Intriguing question .... or am I just being gratuitously and distastefully prurient?
- Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The Macrons have made a statement that this relation is incorrect as of July 2025
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/26/emmanuel-brigitte-macron-candace-owens-conspiracy-theory-jean-michel-trogneux
- Admins may find this August 2 2025 interview useful, it appears to be the source of some of the recent disputed information floating around in regards to this entry including alleged relatives with the surname Trogneux specifically @ 20:29
- https://www.youtube/gTz51gPkG4Q?si=6gx_8ZxA0VnSOWpu&t=1222
- Other pages may be affected as the words ‘you could look this up, on wikipedia no less’ appear at 29:31, and many claims are made between those time codes.
- It is also worth noting that the reporting from The Guardian claims the sources of the rumour are “far-right and anti-vaccine”, a topic that was disputed on this page as to Brigitte’s Covid symptoms in 2023 and 2024, though they were reverted. RIPHouse (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Covid
editWhy are her mild Covid symptoms discussed in the article? So many people were infected with Covid and had similar symptoms. I don't think this fact is relevant for this article and suggest to remove it. 80.71.142.166 (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I removed this entirely. If someone disagrees, it should get at most one brief mention. A mild infection getting a large paragraph constituting half of the material in "Personal life" is absurd. Even if it was newsworthy at the time, does that automatically make it encyclopedic? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 18:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Precise dates of birth and death of Brigitte's first husband
editBased on French Social Security Death Index, it appears that Brigitte's first husband André Louis Auzière was born on 28 Feb 1951 in Eseka, Cameroun, and died on 24 Dec 2019 in the 15th arrondissement in Paris. I have no idea whether there are citeable sources for this information (can the SS index be cited directly?). But oddly, the specific dates (rather than simply the years) do not appear to be shown even on the French Wikipedia. One source for this info (requiring free registration to view) is: "France, Index des décès enregistrés par l'Insee, 1970-2022", FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:CP3W-TYN2 : 13 November 2022), Andre Louis Auziere, 2019.
I am leaving this information here in case others wish to follow up, and perhaps integrate it into the page.--Presearch (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Sources
editWhy are there no citations/sources for anything in this entire article? Mtedwar3 (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Mass revert
editApologies but I've just reverted the article to the state it was in the 16th of June. On the 17th it was completely replaced with an version containing no sources in this edit[1]. I'm guessing it was an attempt to translate the french article, but translating the text without any of the references isn't helpful especially in a BLP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Tone of article
editWhy does this article drip with negativity? It reeks of anti-French bias.. AnitaLaFrancaise (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- It would be helpful to other users to say exactly what you find to be biased about the article. It is long and you haven't specified. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is getting Trumpified
editI couldn't help but notice Trump being present in two out of three pictures of Brigitte Trogneux in this article. This is not the first time I've noticed Wikipedia doing things like this, putting slight and subtle American-republican propaganda everywhere. Another place where this has come to my attention is the section "History on this day". Unfortunately I do not have a tangible example of this right now, but I will drop it here whenever I get one. Marpismus (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion about ‘Trumpification’ is probably one for somewhere else (he loves a photo opportunity so it might just be that there are a lot of pictures of him with other leaders). However I think one of the two pictures in this article should go. The two are effectively identical as they show the same four people. Neiltonks (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I completely agree. Can one of these photos be removed. There must be other photos available. Blackballnz (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Candace Owens
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why is something so notable missing? I mean it is even in the BBC yet missing from here, but the slap got in. BBC is notable Hausa warrior (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- I believe this was removed seven months ago due to WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE concerns. Admin @ToBeFree: you wanna take over? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oh. :) Thanks. Doesn't have to be me but why not. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- You were one of the admins who revdeled related content back then; I suppose I could have pinged any of them. :) –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Ah well, now I remember. I had oversighted material that was found by a court to be defamatory and lacked an editorial need to keep the revision (WP:OSPOL#2). The topic is an extremely hot potato and not something a relatively new editor should jump into. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- You were one of the admins who revdeled related content back then; I suppose I could have pinged any of them. :) –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oh. :) Thanks. Doesn't have to be me but why not. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Hausa warrior, this is a bit tricky. The biographies of living persons policy applies to all pages including this one here. So if there is derogatory nonsense about a living person being spread around by unreliable sources or sources distancing themselves from the content, many ways of talking about the content would be incompatible with that policy. If you have a look at the revision history of this talk page, you'll see various attempts that failed.
- You'll probably need to ask yourself why, in all honesty, you're interested in getting that into the article. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and WP:BLPRESTORE also requires people to find a consensus (ideally here on the talk page) before the material can be restored. You'll also need to be careful not to place undue weight on any claims about living persons in their biographies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I aint new (I can promise you that by a long shot), and it smells like something more worrying than WP:FRINGE it is not the "claim" true or false, s that it is WP:NOTABLE notable since it involves letters, BBC found it worthy. I personally think it is a joke. But I am shocked the "slap" got in and not something with so much press around it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hausa warrior (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Notability does not guarantee inclusion on Wikipedia, especially if inclusion would be libel or add undue weight –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I aint new (I can promise you that by a long shot), and it smells like something more worrying than WP:FRINGE it is not the "claim" true or false, s that it is WP:NOTABLE notable since it involves letters, BBC found it worthy. I personally think it is a joke. But I am shocked the "slap" got in and not something with so much press around it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hausa warrior (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
The lede
editShouldn't it say that she is the wife of Macron first and teacher second, per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE? From what I can understand the MOS guideline instructs us to mention what made the person notable first. All of the sources discussing her teaching career were published in the last 8 years, so it seems the interest into her career came after her marriage to Macron, specifically after he became president. TurboSuperA+(connect) 04:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know any guidelines about that but, for example, see Melania Trump and Jill Biden. Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. If she hadn't married Macron, she would not be a notable teacher. Blackballnz (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Debunking
editI came to this page hoping to find info debunking the ridiculous slanderous "scandal," but was very disappointed. I have found other such pages on other topics to be very useful. MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's possible to debunk, for example, creation science because the issue can be scientifically investigated. It is not possible to debunk trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Le Monde article about the gender rumours of Brigitte Macron
editThere is an article in the French newspaper Le Monde about a court ruling in the libel case of two French women who said that the French first lady was a man. The article was published on July 10, 2025. Here ist the link to the article: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2025/07/10/french-court-clears-defendants-in-french-first-lady-brigitte-macron-s-gender-rumours-trial_6743245_7.html#. Tuncker (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- In light of this and the recent lawsuit filed by the Macrons against Candace Owens (https://www.newsweek.com/candace-owens-brigitte-macron-man-defamation-lawsuit-2102975), the admins should reconsider mentioning this.
- The claims are clearly spurious and untrustworthy (and should be presented as such), but the fact that Brigitte is actively involved in multiple legal proceedings about it is noteworthy and newsworthy, and does (unfortunately) form a part of her biography. 108.18.139.89 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- Consensus is to not feed WP:FRINGE trolls. As stated in the above Candace Owens section: "[I]t is not a good idea to amplify trolling against living people." –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, the trolls are already amplified, and I think a mention here could actually have the opposite effect. Like some other commenters, I came here after seeing an article about the recent lawsuits - specifically because I assumed this would be a place for facts, and I *really* didn't want to google and read what Candace Owens had to say. A simple line that she has been subject to spurious claims of being transgender, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and that she has successfully sued people for libel for making the claim would actually help quash rather than amplify. 108.18.139.89 (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- Admins have concerns that including the accusations would also open Wikipedia up to a libel suit. That's part of why they were revision deleted last year. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- poor application of Wikipedia rules. Why are you framing news you do not like as trolling? What is the motivation for arriving at this position? The moment someone files a lawsuit against someone at this level it is no longer about untrustworthy because the lawsuit is real. And as such meets WP:NOTABLITYInayity (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- WP:N concerns which topics warrant an article. Anyone concerned that an admin is making inappropriate comments or actions should ask for a review at WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- poor application of Wikipedia rules. Why are you framing news you do not like as trolling? What is the motivation for arriving at this position? The moment someone files a lawsuit against someone at this level it is no longer about untrustworthy because the lawsuit is real. And as such meets WP:NOTABLITYInayity (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Admins have concerns that including the accusations would also open Wikipedia up to a libel suit. That's part of why they were revision deleted last year. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, the trolls are already amplified, and I think a mention here could actually have the opposite effect. Like some other commenters, I came here after seeing an article about the recent lawsuits - specifically because I assumed this would be a place for facts, and I *really* didn't want to google and read what Candace Owens had to say. A simple line that she has been subject to spurious claims of being transgender, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and that she has successfully sued people for libel for making the claim would actually help quash rather than amplify. 108.18.139.89 (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- Consensus is to not feed WP:FRINGE trolls. As stated in the above Candace Owens section: "[I]t is not a good idea to amplify trolling against living people." –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Candace Owens Law suit hits all news
editI 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The communists that run wikipedia dont speak those other languages 172.254.44.186 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The communists that run wikipedia dont speak those other languages 172.254.44.186 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)