Talk:List of most expensive divorces

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

George Lucas[edit]

The divorce settlement is sealed but most sources put it at $50 million. Some say $35-$50 million. It was a lot because he had to sell off Pixar to keep going. JettaMann (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this list going[edit]

Hey, Wikipedians, this is a dynamic list; let's keep it up-to-date and accurate. Thank you. ProfessorPaul 01:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another source[edit]

The London Times on-line has a top 20 list of the most expensive divorces in history (linked here [1]). Problem is, their list is denominated in the British Pound (rather than the American dollar). If this list can be properly converted, taking the year of the divorce (and the THEN-exchange rate for the Pound to the Dollar), it could be useful. God save the Queen. ProfessorPaul 02:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated for August 2010[edit]

Wow! A $750 million divorce! Take care. ProfessorPaul (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Murdoch[edit]

Rupert Murdoch's divorce from Anna Mann was formerly listed here as costing him $1.7bn, sourced only to a newspaper column listing it as one of the 'ten most expensive divorces'. An article I just came across questions this valuation, saying he only(!) had to pay around $100m, and specifically claims that our list is inaccurate:[2] Based on that, I've moved it down the list, until we have some better sources that can clear this one up one way or the other. Robofish (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EveryList.xyz[edit]

Does not look like a reliable source to me but is used to support four entries in the list. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remove entries with this non RS and others sourced only to showbiz gossip sites. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering needed[edit]

Those ought to be numbered, like a league-table. Valetude (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to tabelize it, but numbered ranking is not a good idea, as there is no uniform methodology.--Jklamo (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

about sources warning[edit]

Any thoughts on the sources warning? It looks like the sources have been pruned if disreputable sources. Any objections to removing that warning? UVemNJvA (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

descending order?[edit]

Agree with previous discussion about no natural sort order. Does anyone agree that a roughly descending ordering might help guide the reader to the information of interest expeditiously? UVemNJvA (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]