Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn

Perp walk photo

As stated earlier, an editor "begged" for and found an image of the DSK perp walk and included it as 1 of only 3 images. Is it valuable or detrimental to the article? The Media coverage section has numerous citations and quotes indicating that the "perp walk" image is contentious, as well as illegal in France. It has possibly fostered negative feelings towards the U.S. legal system by many of the French.

The section, which includes the photo, has nothing positive to say about it but plenty of negative statements. The image was apparently not placed, or sourced, from a U.S. publication and was not added by a U.S. editor. In addition, the editor indicated that posting the image was for personal satisfaction, and apparently intended to insult the French. And as mentioned, the image was requested by a notice from the editor and was "begged" for. Does it belong here? If so, why? Is there consensus to remove it?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1, please stop being so ridiculous. The photo was sourced from Perp walk and that article is maintained by Daniel Case whom I expect you can contact about it. As far as I know he's American (though what the relevance of that might be evades me). If you had bothered to check its source in WikiCommons you would have found it was nominated for deletion here. The universal consensus was to keep. I contributed myself. No doubt you would dismiss my contribution as verbose and trivial. Notice that it was administrator Fastily who arbitrated, the same who declined your ANI about me you keep referring to as some kind of major triumph for yourself.

Whoopee for noticing the French are not very keen on the American judicial system. Probably explains why they don't have an extradition treaty with America as I dare say you fathomed from your experience at Roman Polanski and no I've never edited that as a sock, as you came on to my Talk page the other week and demanded to know for reasons unfathomable, indeed slightly creepy, to me.

As you know I asked for your comments on a couple of issues and you have in fact effectively responded to both now. If you have any revisions to make, please make sure that they are recorded here before Monday evening to satisfy me. FightingMac (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say the referred-to photo should be removed from this article. Are there any editors who have any reason why it should stay? Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Only as a visual reminder of the mediaevalism of American culture. Otherwise it should go, so long as the discussion and perp walk link remain. John lilburne (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well indeed, but that implicitly is its function as an example of the kind of image that outraged French opinion. The caption could be revised to indicate not only French opinion. Why no link to Perp walk? FightingMac (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't about French opinion to the extent that it requires an image to illustrate what upsets the French. By all means put it in the perp walk article as an example. It just doesn't belong here. John lilburne (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this article being maintained by Strauss-Kahn's PR agents?

And apparently mentioning the names of the two PR agencies involved Euro RSCG and TD International (TDI) is a violation of per WP:NOTNEWS trivia .. ?

emacsuser (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously. PR agents have a financial incentive to spend time editing, an incentive which most volunteer Wikipedia editors do not have. How will Wikipedia handle this, if it were the case? (Here and in other articles.) E.g., the "Support and Opposition" section as currently written in this article is a joke: it is virtually all support, and no opposition -- despite the repeated examples given by Wikipedia editors over the past two months, which drew on reliable sources and in accordance with WP:BLP guidelines. As one editor bitterly noted a few weeks ago, as written this section appears to portray DSK as an avuncular oversexed teddy-bear, based on selective quotes -- exactly what his PR machine wants. (No-one expects that he tried to rape every woman he was alone with. But the number of public accusations against him, versus a normal man of his position, is rather staggering. See: Camille Gutt, Ivar Rooth, Per Jacobsson, Pierre-Paul Schweitzer, Johan Witteveen, Jacques de Larosière, Michel Camdessus, Horst Köhler and Rodrigo Rato, among others.) It's also amazing that this article has been completely wiped clean of any mention or reference to Tristane Banon, Piroska Nagy, etc. I'm sure his PR team would offer all kinds of good WP rationales for this, they're not stupid and WP isn't that hard to figure out, nor to abuse. Benefac (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Pitching this comment the way you have is not going to help make your case. At all. However.. the point you raise is partially legitimate. The problem we had was that the Opposition/Support section was turning into a quote fest of quite epic proportions - some of which were highly selective and of dubious importance. It has, I agree, ended up a little imbalanced. What I've been looking out for is a source that gives a run down of the support/oppose so that we can do the same without a) resorting to WP:OR on summarising the details and b) quoting random people without a higher level context. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, please remember, Wikipedia is NOT a news outlet. This article, while notable and potentially encyclopedic, is not required to be a part of Wikipedia. It could just as easily not be here at all, and in fact, if editors here cannot agree on its current form, it might need to be removed from Mainspace until such time as agreement can be reached for it to be again present in Mainspace.

When editing contentious articles that reference real people, we need to be aware of the BLP issues. Although I'm sure its been repeated over and over, the thing often missed is that we don't need to worry about being timely or following 24-hour news cycles in editing here, but being faithful to sources and hopefully being as accurate as possible without violating our policies. -- Avanu (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

@Benefac. The thought had crossed my mind :-) But regarding Banon etc, there's a more innocent explanation and that is that she is genuinely not relevant to the case ("a subject of interest"). Her lawyer has said they want to keep the two cases separate. The French article mentions her on the very dubious ground that she was described as a subject of interest at the first bail application (she wasn't really although it was widely reported that she was what the prosecutor had in mind). As for "Support and Opposition" that was gien a thorough going-over at the time. FightingMac (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• The lawyer of Banon came to New York on July 19 to meet with the lawyers of the housekeeper and the prosecutor's team. So why are you considering both cases separate now ? Hektor (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no connection at all. Please do not attempt to add such leading content to any of the connected articles. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes that's right, there was a a singularly unexpected meeting but it's entirely speculative as to what its purpose was. My own reading of the birdies flitting the sky would be that any attempt to join the cases is simply out of the question, French public opinion simply wouldn't stand for it and indeed I can see where they would be coming from on that. Much more likely I should think is they were discussing the possibility of the housekeeper launching a civil action in France, technically possible and more likely, if found for her of course, of extracting cash from DSK. In any case the two cases remain separate, whatever the French article is doing. Please don't try to introduce Banon here. It would just make the article more contentious and we do have real consensus here not to, on both 'saint' and 'sinner' sides. FightingMac (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've largely avoided working on this article because of the tag-team ownership of various editors here (including AndyTheGrump, Off2riorob, CaptainScreebo, Wikiwatcher1, and ErrantX.). I have observed perhaps a dozen other good editors also leave work on this page, in frustration with this tag-team. What started out as seemingly good-intentions by the tag-team (protecting BLP, focusing on the longer-term encyclopedic aspects, avoiding salaciousness, protecting the privacy of unnamed accusers, etc.) degenerated into an edit-war, team 3R revisions, ego ownership, etc. If any of these editors were in fact receiving compensation on behalf of DSK, this would be a very serious WP issue, indeed. Months have gone by and the article still reads like a defense of DSK, presenting him as a peaceful, debonaire seducer with a high sex-drive who is supported by his wife and previous lovers, against charges that are portrayed as so out-of-character as to be inconceivable. By implication, the reputation of the dozen-or-so women who have leveled public charges against him is therefore impugned and their voice is silenced. (Odly, the one critical quote included is from Marine Le Pen, who Francophile readers know has a political agenda against DSK, hence is less credible.) The article still completely ignores reliably sourced critical observations about DSK from Piroska Nagy, Anne Mansouret, Tristane Banon and many others, despite the efforts of experienced Wikipedia editors who ultimately left in frustration. The article fails to adequately present the side of Nafissatou Diallo, the accuser. It fails to address the broader issues which have made the case of interest to so many people. Instead it continues to treat the case as a subset of DSK. It presents a one-sided view of absurd conspiracy theories. The result is an article that is subtly misogynist. (It appears that all of the tag-team members are male, for what that is worth.) It's both sad and amusing to see such pomposity and self-importance grow among volunteer editors, and to see the abuse of arcana from WP guidelines to rationalize POVs. This article itself is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I do not believe that reasonable collaboration is possible so long as the tag-team is allowed to edit this article. Benefac (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that your tag-team editor list didn't include the editor who contributed many times more than most others. Should we assume that his edits were among the neutral ones you approve of? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

circumstances regarding missing cell phone

Is there any verifiable citation as to his phoning the hotel regarding the cell phone? Else the only pretext for inserting this is to imply that Strauss-Kahn is innocent, else why would he be phoning the hotel. Something relevant to be inserted here would be his exact schedule and itinerary while in New York. Something else easily verified is the Hotel Phone Records.

"After calling the hotel and asking them to bring his missing cell phone to the airport, he was met by police and taken from his Paris-bound flight at New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport minutes before takeoff" ..

emacsuser (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Details are included in many of the sources given describing events before his arrest.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In the article pretty well from the beginning and never challenged and it does seem notable to me, explaining why the police found him on the plane. Detaled time-lines have been published but I don't myself feel they are relevant to the article and move towards the article trying to help the reader make up their mind, which is something it basically shouldn't be doing. I don't see any problem with citing a newspaper giving a schedule, say at the content about the cell-phone, but not in the content itself. FightingMac (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Naming the accuser?

The English Wikipedia article does not give her name. The French article does. I suspect that it is because in the US, journalist generally refrain from naming them while it is not the case in France. However, it seems that now she is going public [1]. What to do? What's the honest, respectful, and informative way to go? I don't know. What do you think? Tony (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you think that having the link in the discussion page is inappropriate, please remove it but summarize the content of the article here. Tony (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't rely on other sources to determine content, but to provide it, and on that basis, neither what the French-language Wikipedia, nor US media sources do is directly relevant. As you note however, the alleged victim has now chosen to go public, which may be grounds for revising the decision arrived at earlier, though given the extensive debate I think it would be unwise to revise the article without waiting for a response from a significant number of contributors. We need to bear in mind that WP:BLP policy has a presumption in favor of privacy for non-notable individuals, and states the following:

Avoid victimization

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

A decision to name the alleged victim (if we decide to do so), should in particular not be taken as a green light to introduce dubiously-sourced material that may be tainted by partisan spin, as has previously been attempted by some contributors. I suggest that anyone new to this debate should first read the archived discussions, to avoid unnecessary repetition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to the original discussion? I couldn't find it (I am not used to this auto-archival bot). Tony (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I hesitate to see WP used as a possible PR tool. Her attorney recently granted an interview with her and a Newsweek reporter in his law office. The questions for the interview were required to be submitted by Newsweek before the interview. It's possible that her attorney wants her name, and her story, to become public. But it would seem that someone's attorney wanting a client to become a public figure should not automatically make them a WP "notable" person, with their 15 minutes of fame, and certainly not for an encyclopedia. Caution is warranted, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Previously there was consensus not to name her so as to not invade her privacy. Fair enough. (Though I wish we'd show similar respect to the accused.) However, now that has gone public and been interviewed on ABC news[2] we are no longer protecting her privacy. She has chosen to make her name extremely public, and so there is absolutely no need for us to hide it. At this point, it's time to simply use her name in the article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm neutral about her name - don't care either way, and don't see it making any difference to the article. However, as an alleged crime victim only, I wonder if her, and obviously her attorney's, desires to "make her name extremely public" should dictate what is put in WP. If they likewise decide to pose her in front of the always-available media circus photographers, should WP jump on the bandwagon and upload a photo if found? This photo issue is speculative, of course, but from the Newsweek interview, which described her looks and personality in detail, it's worth considering along with the name issue. Giving publicity to her name, interviews, and potentially photos, speculatively turns her into a mini-celebrity, ready to join the talk-show circuit and tabloids. Personally, I'd vote to not include her name until it becomes notable of its own right. Just because her attorney is apparently willing, if not wanting, to make his formerly "unknown" client into a public figure, should WP? I don't think it meets a baseline standard for notability. Unjustified publicity of any sort can undermine the neutrality of the case, much like the perp walk did, and we've already had maid's unions demonstrating in public to protect her. Maintaining the privacy of any alleged crime victim should be key, regardless of that "alleged" crime victim's desire to become a public figure.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that Nafissatou Diallo has given a interview BBC News report and Newsweek interview; suppression of her name seems pointless and just an attempt at censorship. It also smacks of differing standards for the US vs other countries. VERTott 03:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If she has given a direct media interview and the BBC are now naming her, yes, my objection to naming her are removed. --Errant ^(chat!) 06:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree with ErrantX. Plainly she can be named now. FightingMac (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally (a very rare and unlikely to be repeated consensus :-)) I do rather agree with Wikiwatcher1's take on this, at any rate it's certainly a sensible position and very defensible position it seems to me. In general I don't think there are NPOV issues involved in naming her or not but I'm not sure at all the article necessarily needs to allude to her TV article. It is I believe a unique situation here and I wouldn't presume to judge the issues. I'm not planning to make any edits here myself. FightingMac (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

the maid has given an interview

• Nafissatou Diallo has disclosed her identity

For the record, the accuser went public with her name and it has been reported throughout American media on July 24, 2011:

• "Hotel Housekeeper Tells Magazine of Her Encounter With Strauss-Kahn". New York Times.
• "Maid Speaks To Good Morning America About Alleged Strauss-Kahn Attack". Wall Street Journal.
• "IN AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH ABC NEWS' ROBIN ROBERTS, HOTEL EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGES SHE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KAHN SPEAKS OUT". ABC News.
• "Hotel maid goes public with allegations against ex-IMF chief". CNN. patsw (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This kind of PR blitz by a crime accuser, and bypassing the legal system, can do nothing but harm the neutrality of the case preemptively. Typically, trial by media is instigated by the media, who's only goal is selling ads and generating revenue. When an alleged crime victim goes public with her story pending trial, the case is damaged. I'd be surprised if presenting statement evidence to the media by one party to a crime, before a trial, is not a crime in itself.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Except the accusers name was already all over the media prior to that. Makes you wonder who originally leaked it in the first place and what their motivation was.

emacsuser (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Did some quick research and found out that I was both right and wrong. It is a crime, but not in the U.S. One example is that British judges under a 1981 Contempt of Court Act, can issue gag orders to the media along with postponing cases. Violations are "media contempt" and a serious offense - in the U.K.

In the U.S., however, even when media publicity has generated a risk of prejudice against or for any party to a criminal case, the judge has to modify the jury selection process and make sure jurors disregard anything they may have read or seen on TV. Good luck! They often have to move the case to other states at great cost to witnesses and tax-paid public prosecutors, except of course privately paid attorneys add it to the tab. In extreme situations, the judge will delay the trial indefinitely until publicity has died down. In effect, all those interview links above have already undermined the neutrality of the case and bypassed the legal system. Not good. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

@WW: Thanks for sharing your point of view, regarding plaintiffs speaking to the media. However, Wikipedia prefers an objective approach to editing. Benefac (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability

• The word notability is Wikipedia's term of art to describe if a topic should have its own stand-alone article. It's an article-level guideline. No one has suggested that Nafissatou Diallo merits a stand-alone article. As I write this, it's a blue link since there already is an article for a similarly named individual.

• There are content policies and guidelines, but none of them would exclude adding Diallo's name to the article. patsw (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Lawyers Decry Public Comments From DSK's Accuser was carried by over a thousand news outlets. The Associated Press is no longer hiding her name. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no benefit to the understanding of this article in giving the name. The person is a non-public figure that should not be named on the article, per presumption in favour of privacy - WP:BLPNAME / WP:NPF.  Chzz  ►  10:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no presumption of privacy when she is named in every media outlet in the United States. She is by any definition now a public figure patsw (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not really a presumption of privacy , more that she is still basically a private person/alleged victim - we are not a media outlet we are an encyclopedia - adding her name gives the reader nothing additional in the way of encyclopedic value about the alleged crime/trial. We can and do regularly err on the side of caution in regard to living one event alleged victims of crimes. If as you say her name is one thousand newspapers that is fine and all readers will know her name anyway - that doesn't mean we have to add it here - where it will sit for all of eternity. (or at least a very long time) - The only situation imo where we would want to add her was if criminal charges are lodged against her. It seems she feels she has been forced to give an interview to present her side of the story as she feels allegations in the press misrepresented/defame or libel her in some ways - all of which we have already kept out of the article for BLP concerns, so it would not seem to make sense to want to name her because she has felt the need to give an interview to defend herself against allegations that we have kept out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

^That's pretty much what I think, too. We're not actively suppressing it; it's just that it doesn't help make the article better, 'coz she is not notable.  Chzz  ►  13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In a case such as this, WP policy is to grant a presumption of privacy to the accuser and avoid use of her name. However, her recent actions, any such presumption is now moot and the balance of identifying her is determined by whether it will improve the article. I would argue that she has become part of the story and it would absolutely benefit the article to identify her by name and discuss the issues of her credibility and the impact it has had on the prosecution of the rape charge. I was initially against any mention of her name at all, but have changed my view as the circumstances have evolved. Ronnotel (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)