Jump to content

Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GegenIsrael (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 18 May 2011 (→‎Religion II (please see live discussion above)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Political position

In the first few lines there is written "he belongs to the center-left wing of the PS". This seems at least very misleading : truth is he belongs to the right wing of the PS, or the center-left wing of French politics. I hope I'm making myself clear, and that someone edits this sentence (I'm French so I don't feel comfortable editing an English phrase). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.160.112.174 (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition in the 2. Personal life

this is added some mintues ago :
On May 14th, 2011, Strauss-Kahn was arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport, in New York City, for allegedly sodomizing a Manhattan hotel maid.

i'd say verified sources strongly needed for this. highly suspicious as sole apparent source, nypost, titles on sodomy and only speaks of oral sex in the article BituurEsztreym (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, it's been confirmed by nytimes and others. sorry for my ignorance oral sex *is* form of sodomy... yet the place of the unsourced sentence in the page remains suspicious BituurEsztreym (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NY arrest

Could this "He had previously been accused of aggressively seeking sexual gratification in 2007 by a French journalist and writer, Tristane Banon", be changed to make it clearer that Tristane is the victim who made the accusation of an attempted rape? Also, is there some reason to leave out the name of his subordinate Piroska Nagy with whom he had the affair?

Is the sentence: "Whether the arrest, coupled with his past sexual improprieties, will have any impact on his legitimacy with French voters and role in the Socialist Party is not known." encyclopaedic? It strikes me as essentially meaningless.FightingMac (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not encyclopaedic. It's speculation and I have removed it. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Supported. Thanks. FightingMac (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can include the Piroska Nagy name without any problems, I assume it's already in one of the sources. Hobartimus (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The European press is covering disruptions to his planned activities of the next days and months and can be used as sources (e.g. Le Monde) agree the pointless speculation by wiki is unnecessary. Lycurgus (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sex-crime arrest in the lede?

I don't think it should be in the lede as yet. It's Recentism, a "he said/she said" and these charges of something "attempted" could be dropped. Lets stay off the front of(by putting it in the Lede) that bandwagon at least until/unless it goes to court. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the "current" template doesn't make much sense. I suppose another article could be created about the media circus, but instead of that I hope a brief mention is put back in the lede. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a rare moment of agreement, I think Mr G has it (almost) right - this should not go into the lede yet, until it is seen if the story sticks and what happens. Not sure I'd wait until trial, but it is too soon for the lede. As for the template - easy enough to fix, as I will momentarily, moving it to the affected section. Tvoz/talk 17:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's too late for "it is too soon." It currently leads In The News on the Main_Page. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it is covered in the article as it should be. Being on the Main Page doesn't mean it should be in the lede of this article at this point. See WP:MOSBIO for what is supposed to be covered in the lead section - this event, at the present time, is not why he is significant. And we need to be mindful of WP:BLP concerns.Tvoz/talk 18:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I moved the tag back up to the top, as a nod to the Main Page article. Tvoz/talk 18:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reconsidering. I was surprised that the article isn't semi-protected. If it were, folks like 196.44.240.61 couldn't alter the lede without discussion. OBTW, DSK may be in Harlem at the moment. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. It's curious how one gets carried away by these things. I made a factual edit of the allegation when it was in the lede but nevertheless didn't consider whether it should be there at all whereas on reflection I'm sure it shouldn't be until such time (or so I suggest) as it's clear it represents a defining moment in his life. FightingMac (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "if it sticks" is a valid standard. Certainly the arrest is the most important thing going on in his life right now. Most English speaking readers will likely only heard of him due to the arrest. Regardless of whether the charges prove substantiated or not it will significantly damage, if not derail, his political career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.17.96 (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may not like that standard, but it is what we try to follow here - this is a biography of the man's whole life and career. Although your opinion is that this will change his life - and I might agree with you - it is too soon for this article to make that judgment, based on just an arrest. We're not a newspaper - we do not have to report everything as it happens, and in fact are discouraged from doing so. This case will sort itself out, and there will be reliable sources analyzing it and reporting on its salient points. Until that happens, we should mention this with sourcing in the body of the article, but not overly highlight it out of proportion. For all we know tomorrow the case will be dropped for lack of evidence. Or a hidden camera will be uncovered providing compelling evidence. Or anything. We can't see into the future and say what impact this will have on his life - not yet. Tvoz/talk 06:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, disagree, as obviously others did too. The arrest is certainly the most important thing going on in his life right now and presumably why most people would be looking him up. Whether he's acquitted or convicted this is certainly going to be one of the most significant events in his life. Since this IS a survey of his entire career it makes sense to mention it. Indeed, omitting it would seem to serve no purpose other than to try and sanitize DSK's wikipedia profile of the damaging news. The whole "debate" about inclusions strikes me as more about sexual politics than about editorial policy.

I think it is too early to talk about charges. As far as i understand from the media reports this incident is still at questioning and interrogations stage and at this stage these are not official charges but suspicions. there still hasn't been an arraignment. Adom2000 (talk)

No, it has gone well beyond questioning - he is in court today being arraigned and apparently the judge has denied bail, which could mean he is held in jail until formal indictment by a grand jury. An indictment on charges of sexual assault is no longer a "sex scandal" - that would be accurate for his affair with Nagy, and possibly for other accusations, but a criminal indictment is not a scandal, it is much more serious. That is what I meant above about whether this "sticks" - criminal charges, facing trial, possibly even remandment to jail before trial - we shall see - are much more significant to his life than the accusation and even arrest. We need to wait until qwe have reliable sourcing for any of this, but I do think we need to rethink the section header and talk about the intro section some more. Tvoz/talk 16:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree a small comment in the lede is not undue. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The actual full criminal complaint(thanks Rob) is out via ABCnews etc. and it graphically describes the charges as being extremely serious, I think. I think we may now even consider putting a link to the complaint in the Lede? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

I've removed the aleguations of a plot against DSK: actually the young guy made a mistake when he wrote the time of the arrest: he obviously didn't wrote it before it happened. It is absurd to pretend that a young guy on tweeter is a part of huge plot involving the IMF president. Puark (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The tweet the theory is referring to is the following: http://twitter.com/#!/j_pinet/status/69507272040136704 which was tweeted around 6pm NY time. Loads of time between the event (1pm) and the apprehension in the plane (4:40pm). The formal arrest might have happened at 2am on Sunday, but I don't think that's of any significance. I'm suprised something like this took so long to be "leaked".

Geemc911 (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with taking it out for now, as it's another example of "too soon". But not because we're second-guessing the source and making our own determination of the facts. Business Insider is a reliable source suitable for citation - we don't decide if what they are reporting is true or not. The idea that this could be a political dirty trick is not something we would ignore, but we need more sourcing, and there is no rush to add the first thing we see on this. Tvoz/talk 17:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Business insider may be a reliable source usually, but in this case they refer to Le Post, which is quoted as a "tabloid website". Actually, "Le Post" is a User-generated content media, thus the content is written by anonymous nobodies under pseudonym who are not professional journalists (the referred article is written by "provence117"!). Puark (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that and I'll be more comfortable with RS reporting based on RS too. We have to see where it goes - but we agree that we need something more. Tvoz/talk 19:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Race of the woman please

This discussion is not appropriate for an article talk page. Monty845
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Does anybody know if the woman that Strauss-Kahn is accused of sodomizing is black or hispanic? That is usually who the hotel maids are in New York City —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.8.48 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teach me please how to "sodomize" a woman!!! Do you know what does "sodomize" mean? 95.26.176.4 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Sodomy. Our article explains how the term is used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the explanation of the accusations in this DSK article. However, I don't see the explanation for the use of "sodomizing" term. It says in Sodomy: "depending on jurisdiction can consist of oral sex, anal sex, or any non-genital to genital congress". Was he accused in any of these? Not in traditional sex? 95.25.90.66 (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See below - "sodomy" is presently out of our article apparently because of lack of reliable sourcing, so this is moot. If reliable sources are found, we'll see what they say and go by that. Tvoz/talk 00:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is only for discussing improvements to the article, not for random questions about the facts surrounding an incident described in it. Go to a newspaper website and ask your question there - this is not the place. And I'm not even going to speculate about what possible reason you might have in asking about the ethnicity of the complainant, as I suspect I wouldn't like it. Tvoz/talk 22:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Maybe user 109.154.8.48 has asked his question not in the best appropriate way for this discussion page, but his question is very relevant here, because it promotes installing crucial information into the article. 95.25.90.66 (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the way it works. If you have a question about something notable regarding the subject - and by the way, I'm not at all convinced that the complainant's race is the least bit notable - go out and look for reliable sources that answer the question, then either post it here on Talk if you're not sure how to incorporate it into the article, or take a shot at adding it yourself. If you have reliable sourcing for a data point that you're not sure is notable or appropriate for inclusion, post that here with a question. But we don't post questions here and expect others to do the research. Tvoz/talk 00:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ethnicity of the alleged victim is in no way 'crucial information'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Tvoz/talk 00:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant given the context of critiques of IMF neo-imperialism. The context is about ethnicity, racism, and the power dynamic. The alleged victim is "black," according to an article in SMH.com.au, which quotes AFP and a police spokesman.[1] FatTrebla (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to article "French people"

WP:BLP applies to talkpages; borderline antisemitism inappropriate Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Article "French people" is about an ethnicity.

I cannot understand why is it stated in the article that this person is "French" (whatever that means here), instead of stating clearly that he is a "citizen of France". Moreover, I cannot understand why the claim that he is "French" leads to the article "French people", which is about an ethnicity, not citizenship.

There is a lot of info in the article that this person is Jewish and has no connection whatsoever to the French ethnicity.

When it is written in the first paragraph that he is "French" (with a link to "French people" article), it looks as if he is "French" by ethnicity (which is totally wrong).

I changed it to "France's", but that was immediately reverted by "Betathetapi545", the only mention on whose page is that he is a "Serial vandal". 95.26.176.4 (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From French people: "French people refers to people born in France and the legal residents and citizens of France, regardless of ancestry." He can be ethnically Jewish and still a French person. There is no contradiction. Dragons flight (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The citation you provided is very questionable. The fashion of calling "French people" anyone "born in France and the legal residents and citizens of France, regardless of ancestry" is very new and highly speculative. Such questionable practice should be avoided in an encyclopedia. 95.25.90.66 (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is standard Wikipedia practice. If you think it is 'questionable', find another online encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic immunity

Can anyone explain to me: doesn't he have diplomatic immunity? 95.26.176.4 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't a diplomat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Employees of the IMF (and similar international organizations) are granted immunity only for actions taken in an official capacity. This is in contrast with foreign diplomats representing sovereign nations which have unqualified immunity for all of their actions. Dragons flight (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was not in official capacity? 95.25.90.66 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It means he only has immunity for actions that are reasonably related to his job. Sexual assault (or bank robbery, or murder, etc.) would generally not qualify as related to his job. Dragons flight (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently IMF officials do have criminal and civil immunity for work related activities, even though they are not diplomats. Some of the tv "experts" are speculating that his defense might try to say he was en-route between Washington and Europe for IMF business purposes and thereby should have immunity; they(tv pundits) also reference a sexual "groping" event at the UN awhile back where the alleged Gropers were given immunity because it happened at UN Headquarters, but the unanimous opinion so far seems to be that his activities at the hotel would not be covered by any immunity protections. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

On what grounds is Strauss-Kahn's religion listed as Judaism? He is ethnically Jewish but what evidence is there that he is a practising Jew? There is no mention of this on the French page, and in view of his former position in a secular party, it would seem likely that he is not active as a religious Jew. I will edit to amend unless somebody can provide evidence to the contrary. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Indeed as a member of the Grand Orient de France it's very likely he's not religious. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I see no reason to include either his religion or his ethnicity in the article, as neither is in any way relevant to his notability. Certainly, neither should be without adequate sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on this point as well, and already removed the religion field as it is not supported by the article. Further, the source cited in the article for his ethnicity is rather weak. I suspect we'll be seeing more shortly however. Tvoz/talk 00:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NO! His religion was listed as Jew on this page for years. He is a Jew born and bred. All of sudden he is in the news for Rape and you are using your Jew POV to change the article. It is all sourced. He is a member of the category French Jews. If you don't like it then change the religion of every single living and dead person listed under French Jew. It's directly relevant. The infobox has a Religion and Ethnicity field available automatically for a reason. 64.136.197.17 (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is his religion 'directly relevant'? Given that we don't seem to have a source that states that he is Jewish by faith, it is difficult to see how it can be. Personally, I've always argued that we shouldn't include ethnicity or faith of people in articles about people unless it is relevant to their notability. Others think differently, but it is always open to discussion, and the mere fact that an infobox has fields for such content has never been grounds for automatic inclusion. Incidentally, I find your use of the term 'Jew POV' offensive (and incorrect in my case). Do you have an 'anti-Jew POV'? If not, I suggest you reword your comments, and if you do, I suggest you take a hike. AndyTheGrump (talk)
Here is a source from the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13405268 64.136.197.17 (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source you link says that he was "Born in 1949 to left-wing Jewish parents". It says nothing whatsoever about his religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This source does. He was born Jewish. His wife is Jewish. His new criminal defense lawyer for the rape charge is Jewish. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/europe/18france.html
If you don't like it then go ahead and change then talk to the administrators about removing all the Jew by Country categories and then change every single biographic article for yourself. There is only a few thousand. 64.136.197.17 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being 'born Jewish' doesn't make you Jewish by religion - and again, the source you cite doesn't state that he is. Neither does having a Jewish wife, or a Jewish defence lawyer. The fact that you seem so obsessed by this suggests to me that you are only here to push an agenda. Push it elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing that ethnicity and religion shouldn't be included in biographies is ridiculous. A biography is an account of a person's life, not only about his notability. That's why biographies include info such as education and family, which are not usually connected to the subject's notability. Ethnicity and religion are obviously relevant to a person's life, and as such they are routinely stated when known. 188.29.217.115 (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current article identifies him (and his parents) as ethnically Jewish. Several sources support that, and though ethnicity is of rather dubious utility, it is the sort of factoid appropriate for inclusion in a biography. Hence I support keeping that information. As far as I've seen, no sources have discussed whether he is religious. Unless/until there are sources discussing his religion, there is no basis for identifying his religion as Jewish (or anything else). Dragons flight (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some excerpts from the book: « Roman vrai de Dominique Strauss-Kahn » (Editions du Moment, 310 pages,) - in French can be found at: http://libertesinternets.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/qui-est-vraiment-dominique-strauss-kahn/
This source indicates that with his last marriage, at least in part for pleasing his wife, D.S.Kahn started observing religion practices more closely. For example: the third (current) marriage included a religious ceremony, in recent years he is observing the Kippour (practice which he started even before meeting his third wife).
I would consider that for a top personality in the world of finance, it is relevant to list his religion (if properly sourced and acknowledged). This is relevant because certain religions have significant different views with respect to finances: for instance, in certain religions it may be "illegal" to have interest on loans. Gigi marga (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At present we have no idea if he was / is religious - the wordpress citation presented above is not a WP:RS - Who is his Rabbi? Does he attend a synagogue? Has he spoken in reliable sources about how his belief in the Jewish faith affects his life? Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wordpress citation does not express an opinion, it merely presents excerpts from the book written by Michel Taubmann. It is a book 310 pages long which appears to have been written based including on interviews with the family. I indicated the wordpress citation because I do not have access to the book. I assume other editors here do have access to it. There are certainly degrees of religious observance, from someone only born into a religious family but no longer a believer to extremists. I would consider that someone who is married with a religious ceremony and is observing the most important Holiday of his religion should be considered a religious person. I don't think one needs to demonstrate publicly that his faith has affected his life in any particular way. However, the book goes on to cover even this aspect by indicating that D.S. Kahn appreciates the return to origins - the book acknowledges that in his early life the religion was relegated to antiquities in his family but that later in life (prior to meeting his third wife), the return to origins and traditions (with respect to religion) had a beneficial influence on him. Gigi marga (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to be an official biography but investigative journalism from Michel Taubmann. So as a minimum any comment included would need clearly attributing and would not be enough to classify/categorize him as religious/religion - Judaism. Does it quote the subject (D Strauss-Kahn)? In England its normal to get married in a religious ceremony without that reflecting or asserting any religiousness in the subjects getting married. Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the book above is both written by the official biographer of Dominique Strauss Kahn and approved by him. Several sources support this including The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/15/dominique-strauss-kahn-imf-sex-charges) Gigi marga (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well found - the Guardian says - Michel Taubmann, author of a new official and approved biography of Strauss-Kahn... so that book seems a useful resource for additions to this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed but not surprised that the usual suspects aren't here supporting ethnic tagging. Does religion ethnicity play apart in his notability or a major part in his life story. If NO then it shouldn't be here. John lilburne (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@John lilburne: I hope I am not accused of suspicious ethnic tagging here. I only noticed an official biography that might be of use to improve the article. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the book to allow me to further comment.Gigi marga (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the 'religion' entry from the infobox: I fail to see its relevance, and without a source for this cited in the article, it cannot be justified. I'd also point out that per WP:BLPCAT, such matters require self-identification. Unless Strauss-Kahn has explicitly stated that he is Jewish by faith, this entry is unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that they weren't here (at the time), you were already here - OK? That said what ever this guy's ethnicity, or religion is, as far as I'm concerned it has no business in the article UNLESS it is relevant to his notability or plays a major part in his life story. I see that ATG has removed the stuff, so I'm good with that. John lilburne (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DSK is Jewish. Here French Jews who are his friends state so. http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/05/17/3087740/arrest-of-top-presidential-contender-shakes-frances-jews

Needs to be added back in. 64.136.197.17 (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Article from the Paper of Record, the New York Times. He is a Jew. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/europe/18france.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.197.17 (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A person's religion is something personal and private. It is Never - and I mean N-E-V-E-R - relevant unless the person is a known activist, or a priest, or such things. -Period-.
Imho, there should not even be a "jewish people", or "muslim people", or "christian people", or "whattheheck-ist people" article or category.
Faith (or no-faith) is private, and should Never interfere or have any weight in our judgement of someone.
For example, and because we are here talking about a french man : In France, there is a bunch of laws that prevent people for wearing religious distinctive signs, there are laws that prevent us to compile religious and political, and sexual, and racial informations about people. There are laws that prevent anyone to simply want to know your religion !
As I will never grow tired to say, and write, and even shout if I need to, religion, and faith is P-R-I-V-A-TE.
I cannot even begin to understand how in this world someone could ever imagine that it be relevant to an encyclopaedic article...
Arktor (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that 64.136.197.17 has deleted a comment I made in this discussion page. I assume the deletion occurred by mistake. Gigi marga (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, came here as 64.136.197.17 has also been doing the same thing over at Anne Sinclair adding both religion and ethnicity to the infoboxes and reverting the undo. So just checking their contribs before they get twinkled to admin.
As for the debate, I have lived in France for 19 years and there is nothing notable at all about his Jewishness, either in terms of religion or ethnicity. I had no idea until all this broke out. There is no mention of it in the infobox over on WP:FR either, and some people seem to obsess about placing anybody with Jewish ancestry into Jew boxes or categories (IP guy you come across as most offensive in the way you use this term.)
This from a debate we are having over on Talk:Anne Sinclair about whether US-born is notable or not in her life, added by another editor after my comments (not notable):
    1. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)
    1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.
    2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. --Garik 11 (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the information is going to be removed as consensus is clearly against having it due to its non-notable nature in the person's life or career. CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sodomy

The article re the New York sexual assult used the term sodomy, and had three refs at the end from WP:RS. Yet on reading the three refs, not one of them mentioned sodomy, just sexual assult. This is too serious an accusation to place a fact tag next to until someone finds a ref, so have removed until a ref is found which supports the claim. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I too looked at the references, and at the time, at least one of the mentioned sodomy explicitly. It's still mentioned in the New York Post article here [2] (at least as of the time of this post), although I don't know about citing it with only that reference. Fox News seems to have changed the title of one of their articles from "Paul: IMF Implicated After Chief Arrested on Sodomy Charge" to "Paul: IMF Implicated After Chief Arrested on Attempted Rape Charge". You can see the article at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/15/paul-imf-implicated-chief-arrested-sodomy-charge/ (note the URL versus article name). Until some other sources stick with reporting it, it does sound a little unclear currently. -- Natalya 00:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to The New York Times, Strauss-Kahn tried to force the maid to perform oral sex on him. That would be a form of sodomy, legally, but it would not amount to "sodomizing" her, which usually is understood to refer specifically to anal sex. John M Baker (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing it away from "sodomizing" doesn't hold up - it keeps getting changed back - without discussion. Although I think that's a bit much, I'm not willing to edit war over it. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it again as a matter of WP:BLP. That policy is very clear: we may not write that he is accused of sodomy unless reliable sources say exactly that.  Sandstein  05:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The act involved is oral sex not sodomy, which is what was reported by the New York City deputy Police Commissioner, quoted in the Los Angeles Times (which I have tried to cite in the main article, but idiots keep deleting. I give up!!!): « According to a statement by Paul Browne, deputy New York City police commissioner, "A 32-year-old chambermaid at a Sofitel on 44th Street said that at about 1 p.m., she entered Mr. Strauss-Kahn's room to clean when he came out of the bathroom naked, pushed her onto the bed and assaulted her," Browne said. The maid told police that before she could escape, Strauss-Kahn forced her to perform oral sex, Browne said. » Charvex (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC) [1] [reply]
  1. ^ Baum, Geraldine (15 May 2011). "IMF's Dominique Strauss-Kahn's arraignment postponed". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 15 May 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
I just went back to that Los Angeles Times article now. I copied and pasted that quote (above, in bold letters) three hours ago into the Wikipedia article. Now, the final part of the quote about "oral sex" is gone, edited out by the newspaper itself !!! I can't believe it! Obviously, they can't even quote a police commissioner correctly, or they edited it out because it was "too lurid"! Charvex (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a revert war going on about using the word "sodomy". Well, I just went to The New York Post's front page, and "sodomy" is being used there once again, so I am putting it in again (somebody had previously vandalised the page by removing not just the word "sodomy" but the link as well) so I am putting the link in as well. Regarding "oral sex" versus "sodomy" - well, I didn't even know that it might mean anal sex (I always that was being "buggered), but the Google dictionary says it can mean both. In any event, The New York Post and other well known publications are using the word "sodomy".

By the way, here is Google's defintion of sodomy: "Sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation", and here is the link: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=definition+sodomy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=rmc&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=sodomy&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=HRPRTezSOdGLhQe0-9mDDQ&ved=0CBsQkQ4&biw=1920&bih=934&fp=ba67f0d5f6cca76c

The New York Post is not WP:RS for WP:BLP. Do not use the word vandalism; read WP:NOTVAND. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, to the google searcher above, well I was most surprised, this appears to be a very specific to the US definition of the word sodomy as it is generally accepted to correspond to anal intercourse or buggery if you prefer (not implying that ...)
Hope this clears things up. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity, race

The inclusion of race in an alleged incident of sexual violence is relevant and standard. Please see projects on WP:Racism and WP:Feminism for further background. This is further relevant in this case, given the context of critiques of IMF neo-imperialism. The context is about the power dynamic. A police spokesman described the alleged victim as 'black,' according to an article in SMH.com.au, which quotes AFP.[3] It is one of the few facts released by the police, and should be included here. This is distinct from the inappropriate prurient comments buried above. But those inappropriate comments are not an excuse to be color blind. Why include her age ("32 year old" has been included many times), but delete her race? The ethnicity of the alleged victim is relevant. FatTrebla (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

totally irrelavent; and your rant about neo-imperialism shows your agenda. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting here, User:Seb az86556. I believe it helps identify and flag your own agenda, which I had not guessed before. All I wrote is: "given the context of critiques of IMF neo-imperialism," and I linked to the relevant Wikipedia pages. This hardly counts as a 'rant'! Yet you failed to reply to any of my points, you warned me on my talk page about edit reverting, you deleted my reply on your own talk page, and here you accuse me of a 'rant' and 'agenda'. All this, simply because I added the word 'black' (and a police reference). I now believe you were projecting your own POV and abusing your editing privileges on Wikipedia. Perhaps it's time to step back a little and relax. FatTrebla (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall Street Journal reports: "The alleged victim, a native of Guinea" [4]. Evidently the police spokesman[5] and the WSJ consider her ethnicity to be relevant. Why wouldn't a Wikipedia editor? FatTrebla (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a) you were edit warring, thus the warning. b) a mere link to "neo-imperialism" does in no way explain your conclusion that Kahn's behavior was part of a neo-imperialist plot; you need to explain this. Until then, it is indeed irrelevant whether the alleged victim was black, white, or green. (would you state "white" if the woman had been Caucasian?) As for the Wall Street Journal, that a newspaper; this is wikipedia >> WP:NOTNEWS Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tendentious, not worthy of a response. FatTrebla (talk)

There is no need for mutual accusations of POV-pushing, etc. We should simply follow the lead of reliable sources. As soon as major (inter)national newspapers begin to cover and discuss the ethnicity (or any other characteristic) of the alleged victim, we should as well. Until then, it is simply a random characteristic, such as her age or hair color, that does not need particular mention per WP:IINFO.  Sandstein  11:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Yes, a police spokesman cited in AFP and Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) is a reliable source, as is (I think most will agree) the Wall Street Journal. "[A] police spokesman told AFP. He described the victim as "female, black, 32 years old" (AFP/SMH). "Police said... The alleged victim, a native of Guinea and mother of two..." (WSJ). These are the sources referenced, as cited above. Do you agree? And so do you now agree we should cover the ethnicity and/or nationality of the alleged victim? Feel free to add it to the article, if so. Thanks! FatTrebla (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are also free not to add this to the article. As there is no evidence whatsoever that the alleged victim's ethnicity or nationality is in any way relevant, we have no reason to do so. This is not a newspaper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, unless reliable sources cover the "neo-imperialism" malarkey, then it isn't really a justification for highlighting the race of the victim. I don't think it is relevant. Monty845 17:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Odd interjection of POV by User:Monty845, opining "'neo-imperialism' malarkey". Fwiw, I don't put much stock in many such critiques, either, but they are an important part of discourse over the IMF. Furthermore, this is hardly the only reason to mention the alleged victim's race, especially since it has been reported in most majour sources. In fact, coverage of most incidents of rape include ethnicity, along with age. This is standard practice. Not to do so smacks of WP:POV at best. FatTrebla (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever that 'discourse over the IMF' is in any way relevant to the allegations. And secondly, this is not a newspaper. We have our own standards and policies regarding what we include in articles, and regardless of what the media (where?) considers standard practice, we have no reason to follow suit. Yes, Wikipedia has a POV regarding the privacy of individuals: see WP:BLPNAME etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same way as religion is irrelevant here (and everywhere, see my other comments), ethnicity or, as you say "race" (I feel ashamed and dizy to simply use this disgusting word. There is only ONE human species, but this is another debate) is totally irrelevant here and anywhere else.
Distinctions about ethnicity or the thing you call "race" (a word that shouln't even exist for the human species) lead only to ONE thing : racism, and that leads only to hate and segregation.
Those concepts were already unacceptable centuries ago. They are still completely unacceptable now.
The alledged or real ethnic origins of the people involved in this are totally irrelevant, and not only to this article, but to everything else too.
Where does it get you to know what color a person is? Where he or she is born, what religion, sexual orientation they have, what they eat for breakfast, how they like to sit when they are taking a dump? How does that concern you? What do you care? Does it modify your judgement about them to know they are black, jewish, heterosexual, vegetarian, that they like to eat fish but only wile listening to Aretha Franklin remixed by a blind taxi driver...?
Arktor (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject himself admits he is a Jew. http://www.businessinsider.com/dominique-strauss-kahn-liberation-interview-woman-raped-parking-lot-set-up-2011-5 It needs to be added back to his Infobox. We always have the religion listed in infoboxes - Just look at the US Politicians. We need to know how many jews on the Supreme Court, US Congress, etc. The head of the IMF being a Jew is directly relevant. He is a Jew international banker. Why else do we have the Category French Jews - So we know who is one of course. Idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.197.17 (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plea for care with sources

I'm struck by how frequently sources cited don't in fact support the content. For example, at time of writing, this in the current 'Sex scandals' section

He was held at a police precinct overnight and charged with "a criminal sexual act, attempted rape, and unlawful imprisonment".

is given two sources of which the second is the New York Post item which mentioned 'sodomy' and doesn't refer to charges at all while the first quotes a police office as saying "he will be charged with ...". FightingMac (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [6] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly the sentence about Lipsky acting as First Manager Director needed a subtantial edit to reflect the source offered and avoid the impression that Strauss-Kahn had in fact been replaced. BTW does this observation belong to the section, indeed belong at all (an example of 'recentism' noted by a contributor in recent discusion)? FightingMac (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another example in the lede today about his court appearance, which said he 'pleaded "not guilty"' when in fact the source cited (New York Times) said he didn't enter a plea (I have corrected it now). FightingMac (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK language

In the sex scandals section there is this sentance "In 2008, an independent investigator was appointed following allegations that Strauss-Kahn had had an affair with a subordinate, whom he later made redundant and assisted in getting a new job." 'Made redundant' is a UK expression for firing someone. Since it doesn't appear to be a direct quote, can we use a more generic term like "fired" instead?--v/r - TP 12:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree. It's an odd read. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, being made redundant is different to being fired. A person is made redundant when the position they are in is no longer required. In most cases, this happens when a company, shop, branch, factory etc. is being closed down or downsized and fewer or no staff are required. Being fired (often referred to as 'being sacked' or 'getting the sack') means that an employee is no longer allowed to continue his job due to his wrongdoing or poor performance / attendance. For example, contrast "The factory closed down, so all the workers were made redundant" with "Our boss caught him stealing goods from the store room, so he was sacked". I don't know what the situation is in this case, but I am clarifying the situation so that there isn't misinterpretation due to mistranslation. 109.249.200.165 (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - made redundant is completely different to fired. I don't think from the reports I have seen that he fired her. This also seems unsupported, as I can see he did nothing legally wrong - what are thee three proven charges? Its unsupported in the citations Three charges were proven over an affair with economist Piroska Nagy, ? Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, you can get fired for cause or you can get fired because your job is eliminated or outsourced; it is a very imprecise term. It is also an informal one. If we want to avoid sounding British in this article (and I am not arguing that we should avoid it) then wording along the lines of "whose job he later eliminated and whom he assisted in finding a new job" might have a more international sound. It is a little clumsy but perhaps it's a place to start. 192.234.148.250 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term is not imprecise, and certainly not too British, in my opinion. We use it in Canada as well. Its simple straight forward english language and in this context is perfectly precise. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In British English both 'fire' and 'sack' are colloquial, even 'slangy', while 'made redundant' on the other hand errs on the side of being rather formal and is often in fact a euphemism for 'dismissed'. Wiktionary here notes 'fire' as especially suggesting 'cause', such as improper conduct or poor performance and which is I think is indeed pretty well always so in British English as the contributor above suggests. Wiktionary uses the phrase 'terminate the employment', which I suggest is the right one to use here. Wikipedia has a useful Style guide but I would like to see it much amplified to cover recommendations in situations like this and especially referencing the problem that we Brits very unfortunately don't know how to write our language right :-) FightingMac (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen various sources which say that Nagy quit. I don't know the facts. If true, it would avoid the confusion here. FatTrebla (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but this [good Financial Times source] says (paraphrasing) 'left with severance pay as part of a restructuring exercise' and perhaps the best thing would be to adopt that citing the source? FightingMac (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - add and use that. Nice one. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just use "dismissed" as someone else has suggested? "made redundant" is not a term used in the US and many folks will not understand what it means.--v/r - TP 15:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read, she received a cash payment because she was made redundant. (for example - because we are moving to a smaller office three staff will not fit in the new office and so will be made redundant and will receive compensation for the loss of their position) One of the claims that they did not prove was that there was some irregularity in this. She was not fired or dismissed. If I can find the quote about the beneficial departure conditions we could add the internal to made redundant. - Off2riorob (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think made redundant is UK either, I've heard it in the US. Its the small scale equivalent of loosing a job through "down sizing". Certainly it is more informative then merely saying fired. Monty845 17:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any consensus here? It's not just a question of terms, but also a question of what actually happened at issue. Was she pressured? Favoured with a payoff? Anyone know what the IMF enquiry into the case actually concluded? A link? FightingMac (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This appears in The New York Times today
Ms. Nagy put an end to the affair after her husband became aware of it. In the spring of 2008, she left the fund, taking advantage of an attractive severance package when the organization cut staff, but also feeling uncomfortable in light of the affair.
After the I.M.F. board heard of the affair, it hired a law firm to investigate it, focusing on whether Ms. Nagy had received any advantages in promotion or pay as a result of her relationship.
which does support FatTrebla above and does suggest 'made redundant' is not at all the right choice of words. Following NYT, perhaps we can replace the existing sentence with something like (revised FightingMac (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)) "Following a brief affair with Strauss-Kahn, Nagy had left her job, taking advantage of an attractive severance package when the IMF cut staff. Strauss-Kahn assisted her in getting a new job". FightingMac (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People who are fired (sacked) do not usually receive a payment (because they have lost their job due to being a bad employee). People who are made redundant typically receive a redundancy payment, providing they have worked for their employer for at least a given length of time, such as a year (although this depends on the employer and the relevant law in the part of the world concerned). The distinction between the two terms is important. 109.249.208.134 (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in this case isn't it clear that Nagy in fact quit? FightingMac (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't laid off the US equivalent of being made redundant? DeCausa (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference between "made redundant" and "dismissed, fired, or sacked". In fact it would be illegal to make someone redundant instead of dismissing them. Some one that is made redundant is entitled to redundancy pay, and they are eligible for unemployment pay, and other welfare payments, whilst someone that is sacked for cause is not eligible. Thus to sack someone for cause and declare that they were made redundant would be fraudulent. John lilburne (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well - going for the pedantry prize - that's not quite right in English law. Redundancy is a form of dismissal, it just carries with it some extra compensatory elements. The same could be said for such terms such as "sacked" and "fired" but as they are not legally used terms, colloquially they do suggest that it's not a redundancy. The normal legal redundancy terminology is either "dismissal" or "termination of employment"... "by reason of redundancy". DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and there's this

I added this about a year ago with cites from very good sources but it has been removed. Ho hum.

In May 2010 a book written by an anonymous IMF employee, "Cassandre", detailed Mr Strauss-Kahn's continuing healthy interest in attractive women.[1] The Times quoted her: "After identifying his prey, he bombards them with text messages, usually with the opening salvo 'I want you', writes Cassandre: “He is direct and makes no concessions.” While the author remains anonymous for the sake of her career, the book is published by the eminent Editions Plon, founded in 1852.Red Hurley (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair there is no doubt he does have a track record as a womanizer, this should be mentioned for NPOV, but maybe we should also include mentions of the sources who admit his track record but also add he wouldnt be the type to force anyone. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you can find them they should be in there. So far as I know he hasn't sued Editions Plon for the 2010 book. In fact being a ladies' man is a plus in French politics; a tightrope or double-edged sword if ever there was one.Red Hurley (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, theyre saying this would be the first time a Frenchman has been brought down for a sex scandal. Starting to look likes theres a fair chance he'll be exonerated in the next few days, it might be his foes who learn the perils of the double-edged balde. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stitched up like a kipper

Its all Im hearing. There are dozens of stories about this from all over the World so Ive added a selection. Including articles from The Telegraph which is one of the UKs leading right wing broadsheets, and the fact that a French minister from DSK rival party is openly saying it’s a stitch up. In the 60s prominent progressives like the Kennedys, King or Hammarskjöld ‎ were simply gunned down. Since then its 'death by mass media' as extensively documented in Boykoff's Beyond Bullets. We must keep it NPOV, so I've also added two of the most credible sources saying the event is in keeping within his past actions as a womanizer. (Even sources totally sympathetic to DSK admit he has been a womaniser there seems to be universal agreement on that so its not a BLP violation for us to say so.) Of course, a strong and healthy sexual nature revolts at the thought of forcing someone; mutual desire is essential to the sweetness of the act. Some of the sources do specifically say that DSK would never force someone, and also that he was concerned about enemies planning to smear him with manufactured sex attacks. I felt it might be undue weight to add that, but no objection if others want to. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your edit a good one and adequately NPOV. I'm not so sure it belongs to the article at all but I'm happy enough to see the article provide a home for it at least temporarily. Presumably an article (I mean a new page) will eventually start on the rape allegation alone. Its obviously set to become a massive news story. FightingMac (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "enemies planning to smear him with manufactured sex attacks", it leads on to the immortal riposte - "he would say that, wouldn't he?"Red Hurley (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FightingMac. Defo we should have a dedicated article on this , but IMO we should wait maybe a week before starting it. If the evidence that the assault was fabricated is accepted, DSK could be exonerated on Friday, and then the article would be about a rather incompetent smear attack. (Unless of course the instigators dont care if it fails as the 2ndary damage is enough for them). Also deletionists might attack the new article with cries of “not news” if its created too soon. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there will be a designated article on this; his main BLP might just need to be adjusted to include more about his sexual predatorial history(of that there seems to be broad agreement, whether he's categorized as The Great Seducer or by a less complimentary phrase), if that is shown by Reliable Sources to be the case; i.e. this may not be an isolated event which should be forked off, we have to wait awhile to see. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the most dammming previous incidents already seem to be well summarised in the Controversies section? If anyone has a reliable source for any we've missed I guess it could be added, though it will be undue weight to make the section too big. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I can see where maybe we'll end up with something like this in this BLP. Perhaps this recent incident will have enough notability to command its own article, but I am not 100% convinced that will be the case. One thing's for sure, the whole process and priority of sexual assault prosecution in some locales (like Sweden(Assange) and New York City) is completely different from how its handled in other locales. DSK is in some really deep legal/criminal shit; imo, in which case this event will, as you predict, command its own article. It all depends on the Complainant now; if she hangs tough, and can't be bought off, he's going to prison. The so-called alibi won't hold water, you can be sure of that, otherwise the case wouldn't have gotten this far. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charged and refused bail

the second link (business insider)includes a link to the full criminal complaint. Looks to be quite serious . 32.60.79.217 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw the link but didn't yet look but they are serious charges. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to the New York Times story on this: Judge Denies Bail to I.M.F. Chief in Sexual Assault Case. Perhaps someone would be willing to update the article? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For an edit request you need to be more specific - exactly what is it that you want adding? The bail and the charged is in the article as I can see. ??? Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add the reference to the nytimes article, please. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 128.63.16.82, 16 May 2011

In the developing story about his arrest in NY: I find "On May 16 Straus-Kahn appeared in court"; there is a trailing "s" missing in "Strauss". A little further up, it says he was held at a police precinct overnight; that wording does not account for him being taken off plane on May 14 and being arraigned TODAY (May 16).

128.63.16.82 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-

Interesting case

The incident already appears in the news on the front page. This is an odd situation in that the incident may result soon in an article of its own but the subject also is fully worthy of an article. At this point the fact that he's been denied bail but not that the alleged victim was an African from Guinea seems to have reached most of the global MSM, the latter fact SFAICT only in the US. Lycurgus (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought she was from Ghana. --Cornince (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, I think it's only confirmed to be an African country and that she has children there at this point. Lycurgus (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ghana was the area of specialty of the European woman involved in the 2008 case in the IMF. Lycurgus (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV presentation of 2011 arrest

It seems to me that the article at present is heavily slanted toward the view that Strauss-Kahn's 2011 arrest is on trumped-up charges and is not particularly important. Consider the following:

  • There is no reference to the arrest in the lede, even though the arrest (and subsequent developments) will dominate public knowledge of Strauss-Kahn for the remainder of his life. One would think that such a central event in his life would deserve prominence, regardless of the outcome.
Suggest you work it out with User_talk:Tvoz, who has objected to this incident being in the lede. 67.224.51.189 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said a few hours earlier than your comment that I thought we now needed to talk about the lede again - I agree with the subsequent addition of a short statement of fact there - always said it was a matter of when rather than if, but that it depended on how things played out. They're playing out in the direction expected. Tvoz/talk 08:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not spell out exactly what Strauss-Kahn is alleged to have done. The District Attorney's press release is clear: He is alleged to have "shut the door [of] his hotel room, thereby preventing the victim, a member of the hotel’s cleaning staff, from leaving. He grabbed the victim’s chest without consent, attempted to remove her pantyhose, and forcibly grabbed the victim’s vaginal area. His penis made contact with the victim’s mouth twice through the use of force."
  • Worst of all, the article is edited to give the clear impression that Strauss-Kahn's arrest is a setup. A number of articles supposedly asserting this are linked; in actuality, most of the articles simply quote European allies of Strauss-Kahn with no knowledge of events or basis for their claims. Minor and supposedly suspicious aspects (e.g., the unsurprising fact that it was his political enemies who were quickest to trumpet the arrest) are presented with prominence. A supposed alibi gets a whole paragraph, even though it is acknowledged to be ultimately unsourced. Meanwhile, there is no reference to the in-court statement that video shows Strauss-Kahn leaving the hotel after the alleged attack, which if true would seem to undercut any possible alibi.

I know no more about the event than anyone else, but I don't like to see Wikipedia fall victim to this kind of bias. John M Baker (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your reading of the text. The presumption of innocence is the standard and required one. The talk of a possible setup is in fact copious in the French media, but pretty much nowhere else which is what's reported here. I would suggest if there's a separate article it be DSK-Sofitel Incident and just put main article inks in the IMF article and here. Lycurgus (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
to: John Baker; Please remember this is not a newspaper so we go a bit slower ( how long has it been since the alleged event?). Just be a bit patient and join in with the editing. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do share your concern somewhat but the fact is (in the absence of other hard news about the case?) that MSM is presently reporting the possibility of a setup. Regarding the alibi paragraph, it was originally sourced from a blog and I deleted it. Radio Monte Carlo (RMC) then led on it and Reuters picked up on it and it was resinserted citing Reuters without remarking that RMC hadn't cited any sources and I subsequently provided that but I'm uneasily aware that RMC's original source might have been Wikipedia ... nevertheless the source is now impeccable and Wikipedia policy is 'verifiability, not truth'. FightingMac (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(added) but your point about the video showing DSK leaving the hotel after the alleged assault cogent indeed and I've included that. Thanks. FightingMac (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FightingMac, I appreciate your efforts, and while some of my concerns remain, I do think that your work has made the article better. John M Baker (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do too, but I toned down the setup section a bit some hours ago - I do think we need to be careful about this, and follow the sources - I am a bit concerned about undue weight being given to the setup concerns which in the US at least do not dominate the news reports at all. So I think we need to watch this, and see the quality and nature of the sources pushing this agenda, and perhaps change the amount of space we give to it - either way. Tvoz/talk 08:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, the article was not edited to create an impression that DSK was set up, it merely reflects the widely held concerns that this may be the case – while also reflecting reasons why others find the charge credible. The point about his political enemies being quickest to broadcast the accusation is that its something of a coincidence that a French right wing activist happened to have a friend working at the US hotel with inside information , which he claims is why he knew about the event before it was reported in the mainstream media. Note that while this aspect has been very widely commented on, our article sources it to the UKs leading right wing broadsheet , not a source likely to be biased in DSKs favour! If the prosecutions case holds up in court we can probably edit out most of the setup concerns on undue weight grounds, but for now DSK is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and as editors we should be fairly reflecting all significant views, regardless of what we personally suspect or hope to be true. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. I just want to say that at the time I am posting this comment, I find the treatment of the 2011 arrest to be very neutral, well balanced, and an excellent summary of the available reports. I wish to commend and to thank all the editors who have contributed to this, and who help to make Wikipedia such an excellent source of reliable and unbiased information.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree. His lawyers tell us that he wasn't even in the room at the time of the alleged assault, but if he was then the sex was consensual. He was leaving in a leisurely manner rather than fleeing, but he misplaced his cell phone and still had his hotel key card when he was arrested on the plane. The woman was a 'honey pot' seductress put up to it by his political enemies, but in a mousy not particularly attractive shy devout muslim mother way. The article doesn't reflect these glaring contradictions and thus the claims of a setup come off way more credibly than they should. --12.42.51.27 (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind of you to say so Gautier. @ x.27 , if we cherry picked the right sources we could make a case for even greater contradictions in the prosecution's case, but thats not how we do things. We reflect major views according to their prominence in the sources. According to Australia's leading broadsheet concerns over a setup have flooded newspapers, radio, TV and online. If we dont fairly reflect this we're not only violating our core editing policy we risk being complicit in a smear. If DSK is found guility then of course we can scale back our coverage of the setup possibility. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to being complicit in a smear against the woman? NPV and BLP cut both ways after all. --12.42.51.27 (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it turns out to be a setup and the woman looses her anonymity in the press we ought not to name her here as she'd only be famous for one event. We do need to avoid unfairly discrediting what may be a legitimate complaint of an extremely serious offence, but again we should do this by neutrally presenting what the sources are saying, not by artificially juxtaposing them to draw attention to apparent contradictions the sources don't even mention. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of the lawyers claims and counter claims for the prosecution should be kept to a complete minimum - we are not here to try the case. We just report the simple incident and allow real life to sort it out and then we add the result. Please remember this is not a chat page to opine about a legal case.Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rob, we're having a policy based conversation about how we achieve NPOV on controversial subjects. Lots of newbie editors will likely be looking at this page over the next few days, some of them may stay to become regular editors, so its well worth the discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, its so easy to get off track into a opinionated discussion - just giving it a nudge to keep it on track. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. I myself drift into opinion stating much too often. Its not usually constructive. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. I fully agree with the comments above by FeydHuxtable and Off2riorob, and I would invite 12.42.51.27 to create an account, just as we have done.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bail hearing video

Where can we put this? [7] Is it ok for a link in the BLP or just as an external link? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has a bloomberg article with it so I'll just put it in the body of the BLP for now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal complaint

Here is the link to the Criminal Complaint (copy of original court document in PDF format) : http://www.nypost.com/r/nypost/2011/05/16/media/ht_Strauss_Kahn%20Criminal%20Court_Complaint.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.108.223.141 (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting link. Thanks. The charge count is included in the Reuters report cited but I thought the 'DNA eligible MISD' (whatever that is) stuff interesting and also there's a mention of 'anal sexual conduct' (ditto ...). I shan't take it upon myself to include the link in the article but have no objection should someone else. FightingMac (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A DNA-eligible MISD means it's a misdemeanor offense, where a DNA sample can be taken and saved in a DNA database. I believe that all felonies automatically have DNA from the guilty saved, but only some misdemeanors, usually sex-based and violent ones. It's probably overkill in this case, since he's being charged with 3 felonies. Almost should make this a stub article just in case. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this Orangemarlin. I was curious and an internet search wasn't helpful. FightingMac (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure he has nothing to worry about. In the end, the NYPD's sodomy probe will flesh out the whole truth. Kauffner (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How would you conclude he has nothing to worry about from what I wrote? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Details about the case

This is getting bloated - I don't personally support the over reporting of he said she said and so on. If the section gets any larger it will be better to get it out of his BLP and create a separate article for the case. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just cut down on the bloat at this point in time. This event is starting to look more like part of a pattern and it may end up being just a data point in something like this. Once/if it gets to trial then I'd say fork it off. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was going to trim it back but there is a lot of traffic and as you know from Assange its almost impossible to keep it to the noteworthy details. - we really have to stop people attempting to try the case in the article. An example of the bloat is the paragraph that simply boils down to - Strauss-Kahn does not have diplomatic immunity. - that is worthless detail - if he had diplomatic immunity he wouldn't be in jail - he didn't request diplomatic immunity . - what else doesn't he have. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree theres no need to mention diplomatic immunity. Tend to agree wth Rob a dedicated article may soon be in order. There's now such abundant coverage on how this will affect global economic policy in all sorts of ways that probably even deletionists wont mind. Loads of stuff about the impact on the IMFs plans for Europe even in top sources like the FT, and WSJ have even suggested it could be a pivotal moment that causes the unravelling of the post WWII global architecture! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for diplomatic immunity, I think a brief mention is necessary. When I first heard the story on Sunday, my first thought was "don't IMF officials have diplomatic immunity?" I found the explanation in the first news reports, but I think one or two sentences are necessary, just to explain the type of immunity organizations like the IMF have.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did a pretty aggressive trim(got logged out though so edit shows as Anon); not sure if it is suitable or not, but it reads better to me,now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its much better now, focused.Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to an aggressive trim, agree with Rob about the bloat. But we'd need also to take away the Controversary section else there would be a heavy slant towards him being guilty. Its not just media speculation about the setup, at least 8 political heavyweights have suggested it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:FeydHuxtable has stuffed it all back in again. We need to consider a separate article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Id personally prefer a minor trim and a new article but am relaxed about whatever you decide. My only strong concern is NPOV - if we take away the suggestion of a possible setup we also need to remove the controversy section and everything except a very brief mention of the charge and arrest. Otherwise our article will suggest it’s a credible charge in a way that doenst reflect the balance of the sources.
One could list the prominent people that have suggested a set up along with literally hundreds of sources, but its much more concise just to refer to a reliable source that summarises the coverage for us - Australia's leading broadsheet saying concerns over a setup have "flooded newspapers, radio, TV and online." FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If by 'this' you mean the section '2011 arrest and sexual assault charges' I would agree and my own position would be that much of it is 'recentism'. I'd be happy to see it trimmed. FightingMac (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that discusses cultural differences and implications: CNN Wire Staff. "French reaction to IMF chief's arrest ranges from shock to sympathy." CNN. May 17, 2011. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe: I think the cultural information is exceptionally notable to the event, but not to his BLP. If and when the event becomes an article, I definitely think you should add some of that content which provides some much needed educational depth to the story. Its a pleasant surprise to me that CNN staff wrote such an informative article. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Trimming, here is what I came up with before, could we maybe start with this and ionly add what is really necessary?

On May 14, 2011, a 32-year-old female hotel maid at the Sofitel New York Hotel alleged that Strauss-Kahn came out of his bathroom naked, ran after her, attempted to forcibly have sex with her, and forced her to perform oral sex on him.[40][41][42] At 4:40 that afternoon, police officers removed Strauss-Kahn from Air France Flight 23 at New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport, moments before takeoff for Paris.[43] They arrested him for allegedly sexually assaulting the maid.[44][45]

On May 16 Strauss-Kahn appeared in New York City Criminal Court and was charged with two counts of a criminal sexual act in the first degree, first-degree attempted rape, first-degree sexual abuse, second-degree unlawful imprisonment, forcible touching, and third-degree sexual abuse.[46][41][47] A prosecutor stated that the alleged victim has provided a detailed account of the alleged assault that was corroborated by a sexual-assault examination, that the alleged victim picked Strauss-Kahn out of a lineup, and that DNA evidence recovered at the site was being tested. [48] Strauss-Kahn did not enter a plea but his lawyer has said he denies all charges.[6] A defense request for $1 million bail was rejected by the judge due to concerns of his being a flight risk. Strauss-Kahn was remanded to jail until his next court appearance on May 20.[47][6] He is currently being held at Rikers Island.[49]

In the first days after the arrest there was media speculation, especially in France, that Strauss-Kahn might be the victim of a setup.[50][51][52][53][54][55] Other commentators suggested the alleged assault may be in keeping with Strauss-Kahn's past behavior.[56][53]

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be fine with me but do we really need all of [50] through [55]? Main thing I do absolutely agree we don't want this article to degenerate into he said she said of which it does begin to look increasingly likely there is to be plenty to come. FightingMac (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the high level of detailed coverage, and since we follow the RSs, detailed coverage in wp is appropriate. However, to the general point, a summary section on the events can be what we use here, as we (per the below suggestion by another editor) move what we already have, replete with details, to an independent article on this matter.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current event template

I don't see as this template is relevant now or beneficial. Basically nothing is happening until three days from now and only then a minor court appearance. So - apart for general press opinions and speculations its not really requiring a current event template now. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/Off2.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sex - crime acusation -arrest

To my mind, there is a large coverage of the arrest events of the president of the IMF who was accused of sexual abuse. The information is just a few. I think we have to wait a little, in order to have a better view of the event. 688dim (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

$ 3000 a night suite

I find this detail irrelevant, weasel-like and downright misleading because according to some reports DSK paid considerably less: currentnews quote: Stories from the French media have hooked the fare of the lavishness suite where Kahn was staying at $3,000 per night, even as some US statements put the fare at only $525 per night. Sofitel's website brings up its numerous room fares within US$251 to395 per night. I would welcome some more input on this detail from other editors. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC) -[reply]

Mr. K is ignoring the fact that the RSs find it notable. We follow the RSs -- not K's subjective personal POV. This is fact is widely covered in thousands of RS articles, as was already pointed out to K.(see also here) It was even highlighted in RS headlines, such as The Guardian's "Dominique Strauss-Kahn: from $3,000-a-night suite to police cell". Despite this explanation, K has edit-warred deletion of the widely RS-covered fact, based only on his subjective personal-point-of-view "finding" of its relevancy. Rather than objectively assessing relevancy based on RS coverage. It should be restored immediately. K is of course free to, and encouraged to, add further facts regarding it if they are notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all please have the decency to copy my short nickname correctly. It is not Mr. K. nor K. Second according to reliable sources Kahn did not pay 3000 dollars a night but only $525 Described by police as "female, black, 32 years old," the maid says she entered Strauss-Kahn's 525-dollar-a-night suite around midday Saturday, thinking it was empty, before enduring a horrific sexual assault. from ABC/CBS news. So I repeat this irrelevant detail you are adding is also wrong. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly notable for the reasons stated above. You've provided nothing other than your subjective personal POV -- which, weighed against the thousands of RS references that find it notable, including this one now from CNN ("The environs are a sharp contrast to the $3,000-a-night Sofitel luxury suite that Strauss-Kahn, who has a reputation for enjoying a lavish lifestyle, was in Saturday.") Your subjective suggestion that it is not notable is not supported by the RSs. And your personal POV -- even if you choose to refer to yourself as a "Dr." -- does not trump the RSs. WP focuses on verifiability. If you have relevant RS coverage to add to this reference, you are both free and encouraged to do so. But it is not appropriate for "Dr." to delete this, based only on his subjective personal POV, in the face of widespread RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have a problem with my screen name. I find this uncivil. I will not reply to your ridiculous use of scare quotes and your unjustified attacks on my choice of using Dr. as part of my screen name, other than to tell you that I consider this a personal attack and to remind you of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. For the last time I will also repeat my argument which you keep ignoring: Even if the fact you wish to add were notable, the value of the suite is not 3000 dollars a night, it was only 525 dollars. So you want to add something that is wrong. 3000 is not equal to 525. Simple math. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care particularly either way on this but I would make a point about notability. The price of the room may well be notable and adds "spice" to a newspaper story. That doesn't make it notable for an encyclopedia article. That's the problem with the whole section. Recentism makes it difficult to separateout what's encyclopedic and what's journalistically interesting when the media is currently the only source. BLP applies so it should err on the side of caution. PS the 2 of you should cut it out - your spat has got nothing to do with the article.DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take kindly to your demand to cut it out when I defend myself from the unjustified personal attacks of another person. I came here to improve the article but when someone attacks me I have the right to respond. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to your respective talk pages. No one else is interested. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa--First, I agree with your good suggestion that the focus here should be on the article. Second, we measure WP notability by RS coverage; that's embedded quite firmly in the wp definition of what is notable for wp purposes. We don't allow editors to censor articles on the basis of a personal POV view along the lines of: "well, it is widely covered in RSs, in thousands of articles, but that's because 'x'." In addition, I don't see any BLP issue here at all. And "recentism" is no more an issue than it is as to any other fact covered in this article, that has thousands of RS articles reporting it.
@Doctor K: Feel free to add to the widely RS-reported fact that the room is a $3,000 room any verifiable notable fact as to the price of the room, as I've encouraged you above. Your assertion that the widely RS-reported price of the room is "wrong" is addressed in wp's "verifiability" policy. See the first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @DeCausa You don't seem to be getting the point. If in the middle of a discussion about subject X someone starts disassembling your nickname you cannot go to your talkpage and deal with the personal attack, then come back to resume the discussion on subject X. Reality and continuity of a discusion don't work like that. Plus save your warnings for the person who initiated these incivilities. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this $3000/525 detail trivial, weasel-like and unencyclopaedic. But I will withdraw from this debate for now because I have covered my points and I want to see input from other interested editors before (if) I comment again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. From what I heard on CNN this morning, the suite is normally priced at $3000 per day, but DSK only paid $525 per night, presumably because he was a regular customer. He paid the amount out of his own pocket, that is, the IMF did not pay. He was apparently on a private trip, probably to visit his daughter. However, I agree that all of this is trivial (that is, not encyclopedic) and therefore need not be included.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What source supports "Ethnicity: Jewish" as found in infobox?

Resolved

Do we have a source supporting that Dominique Strauss-Kahn's ethnicity is Jewish? If not then why are we making that assertion in the Infobox? I've looked and I can't find any such source. If anyone has found a source asserting that, could they please point that source out? Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 7, How Jewish is Dominique Strauss-Kahn?, which is at the end of the first paragraph of the Early life section. Jim Michael (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It says nothing of the sort. Please quote the relevant wording. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this was changed because someone complained that he cannot be "French" because he is "Jewish", and describing him as "French" would be an insult to France or some such. Until a few dyas ago it said "religion" in stead of "ethnicity". Go figure... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been changed back. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the link cited (TheJC.com) "according to our team of halachic researchers, Strauss-Kahn is half-Ashkenazi, half-Sephardi, but completely Jewish by birth". Or is the Jewish Chronicle not WP:RS? For what it is worth, I deleted the 'ethnicity' statement from the infobox, as irrelevant, but evidently others think differently.
I hope this isn't going to degenerate into a dispute about whether someone's ethnicity is only relevant if they are a 'good' example of the group (or a bad one). We need to be consistent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's right: consistent. And it says "religion" for others as well, not ethnicity. I'm Ok with leaving it out altogether, but the earlier edit of changing "French" to "Jewish" has historic precedent (not that wikipedia existed back then...). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have the man himself quoted in very many RSs as recently joking (?) off the record at a Libération lunch that the three main obstacles to his presidential aspirations were "money, woman and my Jewishness". FightingMac (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also the 'Religion' section above. It looks like the consensus is that, as neither Strauss-Kahn's ethnicity nor his faith (if any) is relevant to his notability, they need not be noted in the infobox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. FightingMac (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victim's name

The name of Strauss-Kahn's alleged victim is public information. It's on every French news source, and in the headline of the front page of Slate.fr. We should include it in the article at this point.—Chowbok ☠ 02:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No we shouldn't, see WP:BLP1E. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, and the article is about Strauss-Kahn, not the alleged victim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E is irrelevant to this, nobody's talking about giving her an article. Maybe you meant WP:BLPNAME, which I have to admit makes including her name problematic. But even under those terms, we still should mention her religion, ethnicity, etc.—Chowbok ☠ 02:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are correct, I meant WP:BLPNAME. But why is her "religion, ethnicity, etc" the slightest bit relevant? Again, this is not a newspaper, and the article isn't about her. As a general principle, victims (and alleged victims) of crimes are private persons, not seeking publicity, and that the press shows little concern for such matters is no justification for us to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with AndyTheGrump all issues here. FightingMac (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While we are limited to what has been reported in reliable sources, we are not bound to include every detail they do. Unless the identity of the victim becomes very important to the story, there is no reason she needs to be named in the article. Monty845 03:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is noteworthy that the French version of this page does not name the victim.
This is because of french laws that protect identities of people involved in a criminal investigation. Arktor (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It also doesn't include the excessive and biased presentation about this being a likely setup. This article should be trimmed down to the bare facts rather than including various unsubstantiated claims and speculation. The fact that these claims have been reported in the media does not change that they are unfounded, and the exclusion of equally reported counter information (e.g. forensic findings and testimonials supporting the victim's story, the defense lawyers switching to a claim of consensual sex, et cetera) makes this page a badly biased BLP violation. --68.196.4.94 (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the name and will happily get into a revert war with anyone who puts it back. There is simply no justifaction for it being there at the present time. Perhaps when more facts come out there will be... at present basic decency says we don't need it on a high traffic website. Egg Centric 12:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the identity of the alleged victim must be protected. However, I think there are some well-reported aspects of her background that may be germane. In particular, that she is a devout Muslim and mother makes less likely any claim that the encounter may have been "consensual". Also, her humble circumstances also amplify the sense of powerlessness she must have felt in that situation. Ronnotel (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, the allegations are unproven, so speculation about 'powerlessness' is even more inappropriate than it might otherwise be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also strongly agree with AndyTheGrump on all issues regarding Victim's background etc; and I have changed my mind completely on this issue over time. As with Assange's Accusers, I think we should withhold virtually all personal information including her name. There is a lot of personal stuff about the Accuser/victim coming in already and none of this stuff should be included in the BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow, not lead, the mainstream press. In cases such as this, Wikipedia should only report the alleged victim's name after it is "out there" in the other mainstream media, and I do not include reports in the French press as satisfying that for the English Wikipedia. On the other hand, if the time comes that the victim is appearing, identified, on TV and is giving interviews, etc, we should certainly include the name. An adult rape victim's name is usually reported by the time of the trial. Her religion, age, and national origin are already widely reported in mainstream US media. Wikipedia cannot "unring the bell" by withholding that information, and it is indeed relevant to the charges, so I have no objection to including it at this time. Edison (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split : need an article about the trial

All in the title. We urgently need a split, so the content about the trial may be reported day after day, and expand freely. Yug (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it is likely that a split will be necessary if things move to the trial stage, I don't think a split is warranted yet. Any trial is likely a year or more away, lets see how things develop for a few more days or weeks before moving to split. Monty845 06:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this article, how about consolidation like this:
Allegations of sexual misconduct
  • diffuse - the rep
  • 2002 - Tristane Banon
  • 2008 - Piroska Nagy
  • 2011 - Sofitel Housekeeper
If more specific incidents emerge, add; for the really messy (like Sofitel) subarticles? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Personally, I think the suggestion that we need a split now so "content about the trial may be reported day after day, and expand freely" is somewhat premature. There may not even be a trial, and should the need for a split arise, it can be dealt with at the time. As of now, if one excludes the speculation and trivia, there is insufficient real sourced content to justify a new article, and splitting will only make maintaining proper standards regarding content which has already attracted a significant amount of vandalism etc much more difficult. Also, this is not a newspaper, and we have no requirement to include every event that the media deems 'news' - they have deadlines, and slots to fill, we don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A split at this stage is usually a bad idea. This is a current event and things can change quickly. For the time being - keep the content cut to a minimum. And then write it up in a few months when the matter is historical. If you have an interest in writing up-to-the-minute information Wikinews is the place ot be :) --Errant (chat!) 12:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree (split). Do agree with ErrantX's views above. Also the section reads rather well at present I think. Nothing to fix here. FightingMac (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with split at present - per Andy (who is not so grumpy)'s argument. There is no trial yet, and we try to keep the minute-by-minute reportage to a minimum anyway. Let's see how this develops - the speculation and theories also should be kept to a bare minimum if at all. Tvoz/talk 18:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trial? What trial? We don't create articles about something nonexistent.TMCk (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree as per WP:NOTNEWS and I actually think the whole "2011 arrest and charges" goes into far more detail than necessary for something that is breaking news and of which the facts have not been established, like detailing the maid's accusations and so on. Wouldn't it be sufficient to say "was arrested for an alleged sexual assault on a 32-year old hotel maid" in that part, for example? Oh and the maid entered his room at about 12 p.m. as DSK checked out between 12.28 and 12.38 so in their/our rush for seedy details people are getting it wrong!CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGSK

Dominique Gaston is referred to as DGSK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.88.128.138 (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lawyer, politician, accused serial attempted rapist?

The start of the article currently reads

Dominique Gaston André Strauss-Kahn (French pronunciation: [dɔminik stʁos kan]; born 25 April 1949), often referred to in the media as DSK,[2][3] is a French economist, lawyer, politician, accused serial attempted rapist, and a member of the Socialist Party of France (PS).

This seems like vandalism to me. Can someone fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.47.71 (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)  Done. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of "Proceedings"

Section 5.2 reads "Procedings". It should be "Proceedings". Could someone please edit this?

Clidiere (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of anal rape reported by ABC News

ABC news reports, ""He is accused of forcing the housekeeper to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex " .... 76.239.20.96 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The report is confused it says he is accused of sexual assault and and attempted rape, it was attempted rape he didn't force her to submit to, as that would be rape. John lilburne (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're confused. You seem to conflate the sex act with the criminal act. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

Why have the previous marriages and who each daughter is by been removed? They are without doubt relevant to his life and therefore to his biography. When the info is reliably sourced, we don't leave out relevant info and merely put 'on third marriage, 4 daughters'. Marlon Brando, Dennis Hopper, Martin Scorsese, among others, state which children are by which woman. Where does it state that only the current / most recent spouse should be mentioned? Why should this article be an exception to what is normally done on Wikipedia bios for people with children by more than one person? Jim Michael (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLPNAME: "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject".
I'm not convinced that the names of his ex-wives and daughters are "relevant to a reader's complete understanding" of DSK, and the section I deleted went into a great deal of detail beyond names. There is a difference between being relevant to him, and being relevant to our article, which is (or should be) about the things he is notable for. It is true that Wikipedia biographies usually include a certain amount of background, but this needs to be balanced against not including too much information on non-notable individuals. This is clearly of greater significance when the article concerns an individual being seen in a negative light, and arguably more so still when the individual concerned has not yet faced trial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If something is of major relevance to his life, then it is relevant to his biography. A biography is an account of a person's life, not merely an account of what makes him notable. It it were the latter, the article's title would be Career of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Tony Curtis isn't notable for his brother being killed when a truck hit him. However, it is in his bio because it was relevant to his life. Info about close family is usually included because it is of major relevance to a person's life. It is relevant to DSK when he was married to each wife. Who the mothers of his daughters are is of course relevant to his life. The personal life section makes the reader think 'why is only the most recent wife mentioned, not the previous two, and why doesn't it say who each daughter is by?'. I don't see any guideline saying not to include such info if the subject is under investigation for a crime. Jim Michael (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction

The French are shocked that DSK was forced to suffer a barbaric perp walk. Could reaction in France and American response to that (e.g. Droit du Dirty Old Men) be properly included? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Months on, when (hopefully) this is all history, I should think a comment about the perp walk a very likely candidate for inclusion in an 'Aftermath' section, but not right now (Wikipedia is not a newsapaper and see also Recentism on the importance of balance and historical perspective). But yes, indeed, noted for the future. FightingMac (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communist?

Currently the lede includes

A former Communist,[4][not in citation given]Strauss-Kahn became the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

and indeed the citation doesn't support the 'communist' tag.

French BLP has "Il est d'abord proche du Parti communiste français (PCF), avant de s'en éloigner « en apprenant l'économie »" which I deciper as (but definitely don't take my word for it) as 'he had Communist leanings before embarking on a study of Economics'.

Apart from what I judge to be spiteful blogs, I can't find a good source for the Communist tag on the internet.

Shoudn't it be deleted? FightingMac (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No question - I don't have time to confirm this right now, but if you can't find reliable sourcing absolutely should remove it. Thanks for your hard work on this article, by the way. Tvoz/talk 17:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I had a look and I do not see any english language Reliable Sources which say he was a communist. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion II (please see live discussion above)

see #Religion above

That Dominique Strauss-Kahn is Jewish is well established in reliable third-party sources and has been included in this article for a considerable period of time. It is very standard for the infoboxes of politicans to state the individual's religion. I see no justification for the censorship of this information in this case and have reverted the attempted deletions of this information. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a section on religion on this talk page, and the issue has been discussed at length. I suggest you read that first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, yes I did notice that section after posting this and have now read it, I see no clear consensus there for the censorship of long standing information but will of course continue the discussion there. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCAT is the relevant policy, his religion is not related to his notable work/life and so is not a useful piece of information to list in the infobox. This is not censorship, it is a long standing consensus that is generally upheld. --Errant (chat!) 20:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited didn't state that DSK was Jewish by faith in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity, instead of religion, might be a reasonable alternative since it's sourced.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, for the Infobox it also needs to be self-identified and I can't see that in the source either (it alludes to it, but nothing concrete) --Errant (chat!) 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Strauss-Kahn has been outspoken about his Jewish identity in a country where politicians typically are mum about their religion." is in fact the opening paragraph of the source in question. The whole article concerns the impact of his arrest on the French Jewish community (link here as it has been removed from the article: [8])
Just taking a quick look at the WP articles of other politicians it is clear that religion is very commonly - in fact usually - included, here are a few examples: Nicolas_Sarkozy, François Fillon, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Lionel Jospin, Édith Cresson, Pierre Bérégovoy, Édouard Balladur, Alain Juppé and Gérard Larcher.
Please can someone explain why Dominique Strauss-Kahn should be treated differently. To me this appears nothing less than censorship.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to have some food. Can you remove those too please. John lilburne (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Because you have BLP editors coming in here due to him being high profile and the article needing attention; please note that in the past raising other examples like you have done almost always just results in the information being removed from the infoboxes of linked articles too. In terms of the source... I was cautious of it - it alludes to self-identity, but usually we prefer something more direct, like a quotation. Nothing seems to have established how him being Jewish is of particular relevance to his career, although the article has the basis of an argument to pass BLPCAT I'd personally look for a deeper analysis (i.e. how he has used his identity, and how it is of relevance to the French political landscape). --Errant (chat!) 21:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rangoon11, see WP:BLPCAT and Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. The source cited doesn't actually state that DSK is Jewish by religion, does it? 'identity' isn't 'religion'. To assert that DSK is Jewish by faith we need a clear statement to that effect, though since it has nothing to do with his notability, this would still not necessarily justify putting it in the infobox. And cut out the crap about censorship. If other articles aren't following policy, that is no reason to do so here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a ton of stuff that can be put in an infobox for politicians. But most of the extraneous details, especially for personal life matters, are somewhat optional. The religion labels require extra caution, since "religion" implies to many readers that the person practices his religion, while to others it implies family heritage only. "Ethnicity" is more general, but in any case the template doesn't allow for that category. But it's in the article body. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no support in reliable sources for ethnicity being Jewish for Strauss-Kahn. We addressed this at What source supports "Ethnicity: Jewish" as found in infobox? Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "Strauss-Kahn has been outspoken about his Jewish identity in a country where politicians typically are mum about their religion." is a clear statement that his religion is Jewish. No doubt many other sources could be found to support this, particularly in French, but I have to say, on this particular issue, I don't care enough to engage in what I know will be a long and painful process to get re-included information which has been in this article for a long time, and which is - rightly - in the articles of the majority of high-profile politicians. And yes, this is censorship, and it is concerning. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, what are you doing here? Would it not be better to leave this to those that have a consistent approach to religious and ethnic tagging. John lilburne (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not censorship, and casting it as such is unfair. The content exists in the articles, and no one is questioning that. The problem is that it is a problem to categorize people by things which are not relevant to their career. --Errant (chat!) 22:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the bullies come out whenever Judaism is brought up and ascribed to non positive events or people. First, like others have said. This page for the longest time listed his Ethnicity as Jewish. Second, to directly answer the point that some people, most likely Jewish, keep getting fixated over is that his Jew is irrelevant to his career. This Kahn aka Cohen (in English) once stated that one of the hardest things for him getting elected is that he IS JEWISH. It therefore affects his career-SIGNIFICANTLY. Whether I agree that having an effect on his career life is THE standard, does not have to be argued since your point is CLEARLY wrong (I'll try to get the quote link; I'm at work but when I see that bullies removed his Jew from the page I had to stand up). Third, and which I'm going to fix right now if I'm allowed is that, fine you removed his ethnicity because it hurts peoples feelings (really only Jewish people) since it was in a very prominantly displayed box. But, I didn't see anyone of you anti-inclusionists include it in the Category box which is free game. This tells me that you aren't truly interested in the "truth" of the issue but, frankly, are playing politics. Wikipedia is not a place for politics.GegenIsrael (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Court Website

The charges information is primary sourced... it might just be how it is presented but it reads a little like OR? My preference would be just to cut it for the moment, but I feel it is borderline. Can it be re-written to simply be primary sourced material? --Errant (chat!) 21:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's been cut and I think that's right. As far as I can see there isn't a source now detailing the charges. A contributor above provided this PDF link to the charge sheet but I'm loathe to link it myself (I suggest after '... he denied all charges') because I'm not sure what the copyright issues might be here. FightingMac (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of undue weight?

If we total all the text devoted to both his 30-year career (in "Political career" section) with the next two sections, "Allegations of sexual misconduct" and "2011 arrest . . .", it turns out that about 40% is devoted to the sexual current event stories. Since the sex stories have clearly passed the "undue barrier," it should be moved to a separate article. The event is still current and like other celeb sex-stories, it will no doubt grow and become much larger than the bio itself. It might even spin off into best-sellers or a major motion picture! ;) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Times On-line, 9 May 2010
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn&oldid=429794678"