Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn

Character Assassination of Strauss-Kahn Accuser

Would a section devoted to this help to throw the light of truth on the subject. I mean she either is a prostitute involved in money laundering or she isn't. Who are we to believe? Some anonymous quote in the New York Times or the assistant DA who says there is no evidence of such. Which begs the question as to where the NYT got its quotes from. emacsuser (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Spanish article

The Spanish article worth a browse I think :} — Preceding unsigned comment added by FightingMac (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC) (added: sorry forgot to sign) FightingMac (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Putin translation

Bbb23 raises the interesting question whether a Google translation is preferable to a RS translation (however questionable) and I don't have an opinion and I'm happy to defer.

I would have thought WP:Verify is in favour of quoting the source and there's certainly WP:Translate consensus that a Google translation (as an article) is worse than useless, while on the other hand asserting, as I did in the edit history, that published translations were 'creative' is WP:OR

As I mentioned in the Edit history the story was originally sourced by Western press to the Kremlin but in fact they were merely more or less off-the-cuff remarks at a press confernce answering journalists' question about the IMF candidate he supported.

There are numerous Russian sources for the story, some of them presenting slightly different versions of what was said. As far as I can see полит.ру ("polit.ru", just a Russian news and commentary site) is the originating source and that has Мне трудно оценить политические подоплеки, я даже не хочу затрагивать эту тему. Но не могу поверить, что это все так выглядит, как представлено было изначально. which I would do much as Andrew Osborne has it as "It is hard for me to evaluate the real political underlying reasons and I do not even want to get into that subject, but I cannot believe that everything is as it seems and how it was initially presented." The Google translation is "I find it difficult to assess the political background, I do not even want to touch this topic. But I can not believe that it all looks so, as presented originally". Incidentally I think it was me that actually contributed that :-) (Google translate offers users the facility of providing better translations and I routinely do when I use it).

But this source, for example, adds В голове не укладываетс (literally "It doesn't lie [i.e. in the sense of lay] in the head" but colloquial simply for "It's beyond me"), supporting Andrew Osborne's translation "It does not sit right in my head" in the DT source cited.

If Putin really did make the latter comment "it's beyond me" then that does rather change the whole tenure of his remarks. On the whole I would prefer to see it reverted to quoting the DT source.

However the main thing is to avoid overly emphasising Putin's remarks as raising suspicions of a plot as a previous user Bbb23 had edited was attempting to do. FightingMac (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Did agree completely with your other edit this afternoon. FightingMac (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler to have someone who speaks English and Russian fluenty look at it? I can probably find ten if I walked for that many minutes, but surely a bilingual user could tackle this. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

But that would be OR wouldn't it? I do think going with the English language RS is safest. Doesn't have to be bilingual BTW and one has to be very careful about that incidentally. It often happens that bilingual speakers are illiterate (i.e. uneducated) in both their languages, a notable example being Arab/English bilingualism in the Gulf States. FightingMac (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm having trouble following this. Originally, I edited the article to avoid the translation issue altogether and only include the quote cited in the Telegraph (in English). Then, when that seemed to be rejected, I used the Google translation. The longer quote isn't in the Telegraph. If we want to use the MailOnline quote, then we need to restore the cite to it (I didn't look back at the edit history to see if it was originally cited, but I don't see the problem citing it now). As for having a user do it, I don't really care how proficient user says he is or may in fact be, it's simply OR in my view and should be avoided. Clearly, when we interpret foreign-language articles, we are doing some sort of translation (and it's never clear to me in each individual case how it's being done), but that's different from a quote, which is supposed to be precise. Finally, WP:Translation is about translating entire articles, not about translating cited sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Having now read Mac's latest post, I have a feeling (Mac can correct me if I'm wrong) that he and I agree. We can decide what comments of Putin's we want to quote, cite to the English pubs that support those quotes, and cite to the Russian source as a backup.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I think we agree. I suggest quoting the DT source because that's what cited. But I'll leave it to you to do what you think best. The main point is we agree on OR, I'm sure that must be right on reflection. I certainly didn't ever revert the Telegraph quote. As I say all I'm really concerned here is to avoid giving undue weight to the idea that Putin was proposing a plot theory. If that's my Russian you're referring to, it's terrible I readily concede. But it's good enough to know that Putin was just basically saying there was something fishy about the case given details known at the time. The whole thing was really always about the next IMF chief (my off-topic guess is he'll go for Agustin Carstens). FightingMac (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

One small point. I see you've cited "The Daily Mail" and I'm certainly more supportive of the Mail than the comfy liberal left who absolutely revile this fine organ of the Brit hard-working mortgaged-to-their-bulging-eyeballs conservative middle-class. But I do have to agree that it's not a very reliable source for BLP issues and in this case there are two issues 1 'jumping to the defense ... '2 'official Kremlin site ... Regarding 2 I did search kremlin.ru and came up, as I did expect (it's a desperately tedious site), with nothing while regarding 1 everything I've seen suggests they were merely off-the-cuff remarks prior to a press confernce on the IMF successor. However WP:VERIFY covers it I suppose, but I'm afraid I do rather feel in this case it's ammunition for critics of the Mail. FightingMac (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you've changed the Russian cite, so I'm assuming with that change you're okay (even if not perfectly happy) with the way it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's fine, bar the the 'Daily Mail' cite, which I don't feel as stronlgy about as others.

Lead image rationale

The lead image was replaced with a photo of the front of the hotel, with the explanation,

Replacing image of Strauss-Kahn with Sofitel hotel following French article. Just a suggestion. By all means revert if not liked.

The original image was then restored. However, the hotel image was again added by the same user stating: Reverting Wikiwatcher1, Faulty rationale and personal attack.

The use of the hotel image seems to have multiple defects on its face:

• The image itself is only tangential to the subject of the article, and nowhere near as relevant than a photo of the accused;
• As an alleged crime, the image is defamatory to the hotel's image, which, whether it happened or not, can only put the hotel in a bad light;
• The image was added with the comment, "By all means revert if not liked." It was reverted thinking that the editor would remember his comment and understand it was not liked, without more details. However, now claiming that it was a "faulty rationale" and a "personal attack" doesn't sit right. If the editor, or any other editor, can present common sense rationales why the hotel image is more relevant that the person's photo, feel free to comment. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't defame a hotel, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. I don't like the current image, particularly the caption. Although it's a picture of the accused, it's not the best one to use given the content of the article. In my view, the best image that already exists in the article is the so-called perp walk image lower down. That's far more relevant to the article than any other image. I would, of course, change the caption to be more faithful to the actual caption included with the picture.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A business can be defamed. The perp walk image, despite its lack of sensitivity to French opinion, where it is "illegal to publish" them, would be a poor second choice. The fact that an editor had once "begged" on his knees to have someone find and include one, would likewise not justify using it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, a business can be libeled, but for all practical purposes, it almost never happens and even more rarely succeeds, and certainly a suit challenging the publication of the hotel's picture in a Wikipedia article about an incident that happened at the hotel would be laughed out of court. French opinion is irrelevant to the issue. I don't know what you're referring to with the "begged" sentence or what your point is.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A little background: And please pretty pretty please beg on my knees please and basically do whatever it takes here please (within limits come on) can someone load an image of the DSK perp walk . . ., wrote an editor. Also, French opinion is very relevant - that's why it and other nation's opinions, are given so much weight in the article. In fact, there used to be an entire "French reaction" section loaded with filler trivia, until it finally got deflated.

Your personal legal opinions are nice, but irrelevant: "Mayflower Hotel sues UK's The Independent for libel" or "Top hotel sues council chiefs for defamation" or "Ballymascanlon Hotel Sues Google for Defamation" were not laughed out of court. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are non-U.S. cases. I don't think the hotel would sue Wikipedia in the UK. Thanks for the "beg" background (Mac's amusingly florid style), but I still don't understand its relevance to whether to use the image at the top of the article. Anyway, I've said enough on this issue. I'll let others contribute if they wish. If not, the current image will remain until someone replaces it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'm not bothered too much here and if Wikiwatcher1 really can't live without cuddly DSK in the lede then better let him have. Regarding Bbb23's suggestion for the perp walk that would be the most logical, but regardless of French opinion (indeed irrelevant) I myself shouldn't care for it because it is such a desperately unhappy image and I do think there would a POV issue involved placing it in the lede ('false light'?)

In fact when this article was first being built there was an equally unhappy (and from the point of view of French reaction equally illegal) lede image of a tired and unshaven DSK at his bail proceedings for a while and it was me in fact who replaced it with the cuddly official WW1 fan site image we presently have. However ErrantX did comment at the time it seemed pointless to him and now the French and the Spanish site site have led with the Sofitel I thought it time to suggest a change. If I see support here I'll have another go.

I've explained twice to WW1 the point about 'begging on my knees'. No point doing it a third time. His remark about it being defamatory to the hotel is ridiculous of course. FightingMac (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know ... thinking about it. Can I live the rest of my days with Dominique up there winking at me on his page of shame? The answer must be no I can't, of course I can't. No way, and if it's not to be the Sofitel hotel for fear of sullying its good reputation as purveyor of dicrete room attendant services and so on, it will just have to be the perp walk, deeply unhappy image though that may be. So that makes 2 to 1 so far. That's a good enough rhymes with duckbed consensus surely? Might just have a go at it tomorrow. See what appears here. FightingMac (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, leave it then. If the perp walk ever does go into the lede it's important its caption remains somewhat as it is i.e. as an example of the kind of image that provoked protest in France (rather than as an image illustrating the event itself). This is because of the nature of its non-free conent rationale at #7 Non-free content images where press agency photos are permitted only if the photo itself is the subject of commentary in the article. This should do, "Images of Strauss-Kahn doing the perp walk were disseminated around the world, provoking outrage in France where such images are illegal", but this wouldn't, "Strauss Kahn doing the perp walk". FightingMac (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Direct speech quotation is not a copyright violation and neither is indirect speech quotation

@Bbb23: off again I see. From Wikipedia:When to cite

• The English Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for quotations, whether using direct or indirect speech, and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.

(my bold).

What you did with your afternoon's edit of the New York Times reference was to change the sense slightly in your effort to avoid what you consider to be copyright violation and in particular to change the main thrust of the report, which was that the prosecution's case was on the verge of collapse. Your edit in fact amounted to a sanitization of the NYT report.

Will you please stop doing this. It is so naive. FightingMac (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Copy and pasting text from a source without extremely clear attribution to them is definitely a copyright problem. I've told you this before - why are you still doing it :S If you quote verbatim put it in quotes or make it extremely unambiguously clear that all of the content is ripped from the source. WP:PARAPHRASE is clear in noting that only short pieces of indirect speech should be used, in this case you cut up a whole load of the original wording and paraphrased it a little. This is definitely way beyond "discouraged" territory.

Sorry to be so strong about this but I have explained this to you before and you still seem to be doing it. Do not copy sources. Period. If you don't believe me I am happy to ping one of our most experienced copyright specialists who will be able to explain in more detail :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It should go anyway as pointless speculation. Wait till it collapses (if it does or not). This is not a news report :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello ErrantX. Nice to hear from you. First of all I've restored Bbb23's edit. Secondly do ping me one of your experienced copyists (make sure he/she's up to it: I'll fisk him/her to hell and back again before yielding here). My edit follows and after that I'll use direct quoted speech to indicate where it comes from in the source.

Here's my edit and I'll use bold to emphasise where I indicate the use of quoted indirect speech

• On June 30, the New York Times reported that the case against Strauss-Kahn was on the verge of collapse as investigators had uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper. The report said that prosecutors no longer believed much of what the housekeeper had told them about the circumstances or about herself and quoted a law enforcement official as saying she had lied repeatedly.(Jim Dwyer, William K. Rashbaum and John Eligon (30 June 2011). "Strauss-Kahn Case Seen as in Jeopardy". New York Times. Retrieved 1 July 2011. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)) As a result, a special hearing was scheduled for July 1st, the following day, to reconsider Strauss-Kahn's bail conditions.

Here it is as naive quotation as you sometimes see in Wikipedia and I'll use bold to indicate what I'm quoting

• On June 30, the New York Times reported that the case against Strauss-Kahn was "on the verge of collapse" as investigators had "uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper". The report said that prosecutors no longer "believed much of what the housekeeper had told them about the circumstances or about herself" and quoted "a law enforcement official" as saying she had "repeatedly lied". (Jim Dwyer, William K. Rashbaum and John Eligon (30 June 2011). "Strauss-Kahn Case Seen as in Jeopardy". New York Times. Retrieved 1 July 2011. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)) As a result, a special hearing was scheduled for July 1st, the following day, to reconsider Strauss-Kahn's bail conditions.

Please ask your copyright expert to address the following 1 Where is it not clear what the source is? 2 Where is not clear what the content is I am quoting? 3 Regarding WP:PARAPHRASE (an essay "to be viewed with discretion", which is "not Wikipedia policy" nor flagged as likely to become part of Wikipedia policy) where does my edit conflict with it and especially with regard to 3.1 "Judicious quoting of non-free content is appropriate-so long as it is limited and does not breach copyright" 3.2 "Acknowledging the source in such instances may include accompaniment by in-text attribution that makes clear whose words or ideas are being used (e.g. "John Smith wrote that ...")" 3.3 "Depending on the context and extent of the paraphrasing, limited close paraphrase may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use; close paraphrase of a single sentence is not as much of a concern as an entire section or article"?

As for my edit it was simply a copy-edit of this original

• However, on June 30, 2011, there were reports that the case against Strauss-Kahn was in jeopardy due to the prosecution team's having uncovered "major holes in the credibility" of his accuser. According to the New York Times, "prosecutors do not believe much of what the accuser has told them . . . [and she] has repeatedly lied about the circumstances or about herself." (a reference citing the same source above) As a result, a special hearing was scheduled for July 1st, the following day, to reconsider Strauss-Kahn's bail conditions.

where 1 "there were reports" is weasel 2 "in jeopardy" is loaded and appears nowhere in the article (although it is in the URL title) 3 "major holes in the credibility" is sourced in the article to 'investigators' and not the prosecution team 4 "... has repeatedly lied about the circumstances or about herself" is not actually a quote from the article but (if I may so) 4.1 an example of what WP:PARAPHRASE has as "Finally, close paraphrasing can also become problematic when a contributor closely paraphrases a source without understanding it; consequently, the contributor does not possess the ability to assess whether an article conforms to our policies, particularly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, or to repair it if it does not. The result is frequently content that has a bias similar to the bias of the source."

Regarding your 'newsy' criticism, you know perfectly well I am largely in agreement with you about that and indeed would like to see this article go on those grounds alone, but the fact of the matter is that it's here and content such as was added this morning is not going to be allowed to be blanked on 'newsy' grounds, nor perhaps in this case should it be given its obvious crucial importance in the case (to be fair I should add that Wikiwatcher1 did quite rightly delete a newsy and undue weight edit).

So throw me a bone here, ErrantX. I've just spent several hours meticulously translating, by particular request, quite a difficult article from the French Wikipedia, directly bearing on the Strauss-Kahn affair, on the 2011 Socialst Party primary and I really wouldn't have bothered if I didn't think it was important. It's absurd and annoying that when I turn my attention to sorting out a relatively trivial edit like the one here this morning that I have to 'blooming' deconstruct it to satifsy my critics.

All I have ever done in this article is insist on accuracy and neutrality.

BTW how are you getting on with law Guigou?

Outdent: I'll just add, and what will plainly be a relief to all here, that I don't intend to add any more content to the article ( though I will continue to defend it against POV attack). FightingMac (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry., I don't mean to be harsh - but closely paraphrasing content is covered in copyright policy and you had several sentences of extremely similar content. That is my main concern. Fortunately if this new development means the charges are dropped then we have a pretty unassailable argument for merging everything back and reducing to the minimum per our standard approach to concluded allegations. So you might get your wish :) --Errant ^(chat!) 18:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at copyright policy later in the evening / morning and comment but I have to say I'm quite sure you're flat-out wrong about this. Amongst other things it would mean that much of the media repeating the original NYT story would be guilty of copyright violation. I'll compare as well with coverage of other recent topical news items if I have time. I should like to see the article about the ongoing article go but if charges are really are dropped then I suppose it become history and certainly notable enough for its own article (the first thing I'll personally do is put back my very tasteful 'tits and ass' Paris Match content). Curious observation that EX.

And I still would like to be pinged. FightingMac (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Outdent: "... but closely paraphrasing content is covered in copyright policy". No it's not. The long and the short of it here is that there is no Wikipedia copyright policy on close paraphrase. WP:PARAPHRASE is not Wikipedia policy. I challenge you to provide me with the relevant policy. In any case of course my use was fair use. Bring on your pinger ErrantX. I'll compare with a topical article later on if I have time. I'm quite annoyed about this. Ping or desist and forever hold your piece. FightingMac (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you;ve brought it in the firing line of WP:NFCC - a strict piece of policy which says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" (emphasis mine) I don't mean to ball break over it - any raising copyright concerns should not be seen as telling you you are breaking the law or anything (99% certainty every editor does it at some point), but I do honestly think this is outside of policy - and as you are disputing that I am disagreeing. I asked MoonRiddenGirl to comment - she is one of the top copyright "specialists" and will know the answer --Errant ^(chat!) 20:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ErrantX. I might be being a bit (senior moment on word - 'vexatious' sort thing) about this. Will study in morning. Long day even outside Wikipedia today. For your attention here by way of comparision is a passage from Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Legality with direct or indirect quotes from sources in bold:

Under U.S. law

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. That resolution authorizes the U.S. President to use "necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines were involved in the 9/11 attacks."[133] The Obama administration justified its use of force by relying on that resolution, as well as international law set forth in treaties and customary laws of war.'[134]

John Bellinger III, who served as the U.S. State Department's senior lawyer during President George Bush's second term, said the strike was a legitimate military action and did not run counter to the U.S.'s self-imposed prohibition on assassinations:

:The killing is not prohibited by the long-standing assassination prohibition in executive order 12333 [signed in 1981], because the action was a military action in the ongoing U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda, and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force. The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defense.[135]

Similarly, Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser of the U.S. State Department, said in 2010 that "under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems—consistent with the applicable laws of war—for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute 'assassination'."[135]

David Scheffer, director of the Northwestern University School of Law Center for International Human Rights, said the fact that bin Laden had previously been indicted in 1998 in a U.S. District Court for conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations was a complicating factor. "Normally when an individual is under indictment the purpose is to capture that person in order to bring him to court to try him ... The object is not to literally summarily execute him if he's under indictment."[136] Scheffer and another expert opined that it was important to determine whether the mission was to capture bin Laden or to kill him. If the Navy SEALs were instructed to kill bin Laden without trying first to capture him, it "may have violated American ideals if not international law."[136]

You can see the whole thing is a very close aparaphrase of the sources. I can give numerous examples of this sort of thing because I habitually check (of course) the sources cited when I prepare notes. The fact is, whatever the copyright situation may be, close paraphrase is the established model for building articles in Wikipedia based on current events and it does seem the natural thing to do. If you look back on the talk page for the Osama death article you should find me taking editors to task on the issue (although I never added any content to the aticle).

I'll look back tomorrow. Thank you for your time. FightingMac (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I was asked to weigh in here. First, let me note that close paraphrasing is addressed in copyright policy in the following passage (emphasis added):

Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.)

(The FAQ addresses it without much detail (that FAQ really needs some work); Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is an essay created to help people understand what it means to "not follow the source too closely".) Policy used to say "so long as you do not paraphrase the source too closely", but the language was simplified here.

In terms of copyrighted content, WP:C is the top policy, and it says:

If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license.

To meet non-free content policy, text must be handled as follows (again, adding emphasis for clarity):

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method.

There have been suggestions in the past that policy should be reworded to explicitly permit indirect speech with copyrighted content, but these have never met consensus. (One of the reasons I myself support caution in this department is that we are collecting content for redistribution everywhere (one of the reasons we require CC-By-SA is to encourage reusers), and fair use/fair dealing allowances vary. Making clear when content is not under our license but is being used under fair use via explicit quotation can help reusers modify if necessary to meet stricter requirements in their own region.)

Stepping outside of a literal reading of policy (all non-free text incorporated into Wikipedia must be marked as a quotation) and into my off-Wikipedia background, convention generally supports following a source more closely when it is explicitly denoted as indirect speech. The Close paraphrasing essay guardedly acknowledges this:

If a non-free copyrighted source is being used, it is recommended to use original language and direct quotations, to clearly separate source material from original material. Nevertheless, limited close paraphrasing may be acceptable under fair use in some cases. Brief instances of indirect quotation are generally acceptable without quotation marks; see WP:INTEXT for Wikipedia's handling of this. Extensive indirect quotation is not recommended; even if content is attributed, it can still create copyright problems if the taking is too substantial. To avoid this risk, Wikipedia keeps this—like other non-free content—minimal.

I have not looked at the source being used here, so I do not know if the passages are being closely paraphrased or if there is original language being incorporated under the umbrella of indirect speech. Leading off with "The report said that" is certainly a good beginning there. In my own personal application of policy on Wikipedia, I am careful when using indirect speech about doing too much of it from a single source, and I still formulate striking phrases as direct quotation to make sure that I am within policy. It's a judgment call, obviously, but the more creative the content and the more extensive the taking, the more important it is to formulate it to comply with non-free content policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very nuch for this MRG. Appreciated and I've copy-pasted (ooh ... :-)) to a file on my computer for future reference.

Your policy about directly quoting striking phrases is exactly mine and what I do routinely, especially when translating.

What this concerned was a copy-edit I made of an edit which did have issues, including 'direct' quoting material that in fact wasn't in the source but was misunderstood by the editor. Another editor then churned my edit on the grounds it was copy vio, but he subtly changed the empahasis of the content with his edit and in any case the content was only a few phrases in a couple of sentences. I should have thought that was fair use and, as I tooks pains to show above, I made it quite clear with leads like 'the report said' that I was indirect quoting. Any reasonably sophisticated reader would have known exactly what was being quoted.

I would support explicitly permitting indirect speech with copyrighted content subject to some restraints of a fair-use nature. The plain factof the matter is that is how 'breaking news' articles (which I don't however support in general), such as the Osama death, the DSK affair or the Mladic arrest, inevitably get built.

Thank you again for your time. FightingMac (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

DA's July 1 letter

This is one case where a primary document is fine to link to: the DA's letter acknowledging doubts about the witness' credibility.[1] She <redacted - ATG> about her actions immediately after, and <redacted - ATG> on her asylum application to the US. One the other hand, her attorney (not surprisingly?) stands by her charges:[2] "DSK then grabbed her vagina with so much force that he ... bruised her vagina. When she went to the hospital later that day the nurses saw the bruises that were caused by DSK's hands and the DA has those pictures... After he'd finished she got up and ran for the door and started spitting DSK's semen out all over that hotel room. She spit it on the wall and the floor. The hotel staff and police saw that she had done that. The medical and forensic evidence supports her account, he says. [...] She was raped in Africa by soldiers, he says. She was afraid to tell the prosecutors that the rape did not occur in connection with the asylum application, he says, but she was raped in Africa. [...] She was very concerned that her young daughter would also have to endure female genital mutilation. She was desperate to prevent that from happening to her baby girl and so she came to America." Ugh. This sounds messy. Btw, her attorney also says she will soon waive her right to anonymity. More messiness, for WP. Bon chance! Trestres (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't post possibly libellous allegations as facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Trestres. Thanks for this.Interesting primary source there. I'll leave it to a less controversial editor than copy violating old me to add it in :-) but I would support it going in. Can you justify your assertion 'it's fine to link to'? Primary sources are discouraged I think because there may be OR implications but I can't see that in this case.

Yes, messy. Did predict the dirty (bloody?) laundry would get itself thoroughly aired here.

BTW, devils advocate here (*smacks hand but doesn't seem to be able to help himself*), what's with the drug story here? You know about this hotel chamber maid <redacted - ATG> and so on. That seems to have vanished.FightingMac (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Do I have to remind people that allegations of criminality don't belong on talk pages. At least try to sound impartial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Andy. In fact the omision is noticed in some sources I've seen. FightingMac (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@Trestres. I've included your source in the article, It's probably some horrendously partial copyright violation so I don't promise it will last. Thanks for the source. Probably a parting shot from me here. It wasn't fun. FN. FightingMac (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded Mac's addition to the article (nothing major). However, my view is the letter should be included in the body but is unnecessary in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree. That's sound. By all means take it out of the lede. What I did intend was simply to suggest that the 'extraordinary' hearing requested by the prosecution was the result of investigators' discoveries and not the NYT reporting them.

I do really need to stop adding to this article. I shan't join Wikiwatcher1 in his new crusade below and I wish you all well. I'll look back to see any new remarks about copyright above but I really must move on to fresh pasture here. FightingMac (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaah, I understand your point. The problem is it's not clear if the letter directly resulted in the hearing, either, although the judge is copied on it (maybe that's normal in NY). My guess is the hearing was requested in a separate filing, although I know little about NY criminal procedure. In any event, I'm not sure how to word it now (the lead) - I'll probably just leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

By all means do what seems best. But I do think the letter should be mentioned for the historical record. Seem to have difficulty staying way here ... perhaps I need therapy :-). Sorry to have had a go at you earlier. Was tired my other endeavours today. FightingMac (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hd a look back. I thought your edit was fine. FightingMac (talk)

Court appearances

I've removed the word "extraordinary" as a descriptor of the hearing. There was no support for it in the sources - at least I didn't see it. It's also not really clear (legally) what it means, and these kinds of things are legal terms. Second, we shouldn't retain the next court appearance language in the lead or the body. It's old news, and what happened today may very well have changed it. Pretrial hearing dates change all the time. Although it's often true that at each hearing, the next hearing is scheduled, it's an continually changing target. If we want to put in the next hearing date, we should use a more current source. In my view, it's really not necessary to report the next hearing date at all. First, it could change. Many times, they are continued. Second, it's insignificant unless it's connected to something substantive, like "the trial is scheduled to begin on July 25", or something like that.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with extraordinary. Not one of my copyright violations. This looks pretty WP:VERIFY regarding the next court date No Dismissal Of Charges For Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Next Court Date Coming July 18th. That wouldn't be WP:OR around there would it Bbb23? Dread thought! FightingMac (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat yes in the sense I probably know more about the subject than some people. But, at the same time, it's also just a matter of common sense that an intervening event can obsolete an earlier source.

BTW, at the risk of annoying you, you're doing two things that I find bothersome. First, you're calling me "naive" again. Please don't do that, not just because it's an absurd characterization of who I am, but because it's personal and unnecessary. Second, you have this thing where you start acting put-upon about a particular topic, in this instance the copyright issue, so you keep sticking it in your comments even though, as here, no one is even saying that your edit is a copyright vio.

My better judgment tells me I probably shouldn't have said these things to you, but sometimes my better judgment is overcome by, at the moment, extreme tiredness (not of you, just physical tiredness). Hopefully, you'll see these suggestions as well-intentioned, not an attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. You're quite right and I'm tired too. But I really am annoyed about this copyright thing. Not so much taking a break here as actually departing. Enjoy the rest of the article. FightingMac (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Time to rebalance article?

As the "assault case" news facts have shifted radically, it may be time to rebalance details in the article. As it reads now, compared to most of the recent news stories by numerous reliable sources, the article is behind the curve in explaining the key facts about the case which have been disclosed by the prosecutors.

I would suggest adding subsections to the "Arrest and pre-trial proceedings," and probably renaming it to incorporate a broader time frame. For example, if the details in the first three paragraphs of that section remain, then at least an equal, if not more, detailed presentation of the new findings by the investigators should be included.

The same expansion of details should be added to the the "Reactions" sections, with a probable shortening of some of the minutiae (aka "filler") that is included in the "Media coverage" section. All of these issues, and new ones that will be forthcoming, relate to this case and should be included. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree in principle, though I've not the time to focus on the specifics.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This didn't look like balance to me Wikiwatcher1. Far from it. Will you please get it into your head that this article (as Andy reminds us below) is not about settling the innocence or guilt of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, which is something that neither you, I nor the Wikipedia community in general is involved with, but is rather a matter of an ongoing judicial process? What the article is apparently about (I'm frankly at a loss to understand what it's raison d'être can actually be) is recording encyclopaedically the progress of the case. Do try and concentrate on the difference. It can't be that hard. FightingMac (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

DNA samples and body examinations

What happened to them? They are mentioned at the beginning and so I've heard them at the local press. Don't they have a definitive say? I read (on reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/01/us-strausskahn-idUSTRE7600AC20110701?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=69) that Prosecutor Joan Illuzzi-Orbon told the court "the facts of the sexual encounter was and is corroborated" but some details appear to have changed. I looked up "corroborated" on the dictionary (I'm not a native English speaker) and says something like "confirmed". So they had DID have sex? If so, the question should be if it was consensual or not. Maid's lawyer says alleged victim has bruises. Does anyone know if these showed up in a physical exam?

Finally: Quoting Reuters: Now, prosecutors say, she admits she cleaned a nearby room and then returned to Strauss-Kahn's suite to start cleaning before reporting the incident. Could that be true? Is there any case that she is indeed a rape victim, does anyone knows enough psychology to assess if it would be possible she would just continue cleaning rooms? Or if it is not our authority to judge this?

Galanom (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not our authority to judge this. Or to speculate. This is a talk page for discussions about improvements to the article (which need to be based on reliable sources), not a forum for general debate on the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree w/Andy.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well ... it could form the basis for content in a very detailed account. Regarding Galanom's query, the answer is yes indeed. A very common response to trauma is to carry on as if nothing has happened. There are topical references, here for example.

I notice at this time there is no balancing remarks from Kenneth Thompson in the article to the effect that the housekeeper made mistakes but that still didn't mean she wasn't the victim of a sexual assault and attempted rape. FightingMac (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been wide press reporting that the DNA samples were semen. This should be included onthis page. If it is found to be false, credible evidence against these news agencies should then be posted against this.

Some references for example:

1. WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576341780296769862.html

2. NBC: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/DSKs-DNA-Found-on-Maids-Shirt-Source-122463309.html

3. NYDaily: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-23/news/29597786_1_dominique-strauss-kahn-imf-hotel-room

4. Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8531634/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-DNA-samples-confirm-sperm-traces-on-maids-dress.html

--10Lskil (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Since neither prosecution nor defence lawyers seem to be denying that a sexual encounter took place, the presence of semen is hardly astonishing news. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong position on the DNA issue, but I do think that three sentences about it were unnecessary, so I combined it all into one brief sentence announcing the results. I didn't clean up the cites, but I really wish people wouldn't create cites without templates, it's ugly and uninformative.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree about cites without templates. Plus I don't understand why they go to the bother of creating them without templates when there's a template cite facility in the edit box which is so handy to use. Check Cite extreme right and then use drop-down box extreme left. FightingMac (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A reminder

I think that some contributors may need reminding that this article isn't here to determine DSK's guilt or innocence - and neither is it here to comment on the credibility or otherwise of the alleged assault victim. Please stick to verifiable facts, and leave the spin to the lawyers - if for no other reason than to avoid doing them out of a job ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree FightingMac (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, your comment needs some clarification. DSK was just released from arrest because of the newly disclosed lack of credibility of his accuser. This article is about facts relating to the case. The material you summarily removed did not discuss guilt or innocence, as you claim, only the credibility issue. The DA's letter is about as "verifiable" as one can get, it would seem. Nor is any spin involved in the DA's and NY Times' articles. As for being messy or needing grammatical improvements, I'm sure they could have been improved easily, if you tried or pointed them out. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that for an article about the DSK assault case, anything not directly relevant is 'spin' - including the credibility of the accuser. Yes, we need to indicate that her credibility has been questioned, but we don't need to go into detail about every last thing that might undermine it. This isn't a court of law, we don't need to rule on innocence or guilt - instead we should report the facts, as reported in reliable sources, with due regard to Wikipedia policy. I think the most sensible procedure in circumstances like these, where the situation is rapidly changing, is to avoid rushing into edits, and instead allow a little time for the situation to become clearer - this isn't a news agency. And to answer your specific comment about grammar, I'm not sure mine would necessarily be right either - I should have gone to bed hours ago - and after drinking less beer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• The accuser's credibility is directly relevant, and heavily covered by RSs. It certainly should be properly covered -- we follow the RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I've looked over this --->undo and I have to say its extremely unsound. Wikiwatcher's edit may be ever so slightly ungrammatical, but that is not sufficient reason to undo it. If you think it needs grammar tweaks than make the adjustments don't undo. As for your assertion that the article isn't about determining the alleged victims guilt or innocence I agree, but where your way off is in concluding that as a result that information about the accusers credibility isn't of importance. An article about the "Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case" is supposed to tell the reader everything about the case. To do so the credibility of the accuser becomes of critical importance since this is something that the police investigators are interested in. Also, since it appears now that the investigators are beginning not to believe the accuser, the reader needs to know why that is. And clearly the news articles are showing that one of the reasons is because she has been caught in other lies. The reader therefore needs to know what those other lies are. Without that how would the reader know how the police arrived at their conclusions? Duh.Chhe (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all experienced editors routinely delete when edits are sub-standard. Of course there's no obligation to copy-edit. Secondly we mustn't give undue weight to the housekeeper's credibility. It's adequately sourced, including as primary source the Assistant DA's letter to DSK's defense. I suggest if you would like to help you could contribute by adding a balancing edit pointing the housekeeper's lawyer has said that she just because she made mistakes, that doesn't mean she wasn't raped. FightingMac (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, read

• Collapsing Strauss-Kahn Case Adds to Doubts on Prosecutor, NYT July 2, 2011 Johannjs (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I read it and I reverted its addition to the External links section. As I said in my edit summary, it's too much about problems at the DA's office rather than about the DSK case (which is just used as the latest example). The DSK article already sufficiently covers the housekeeper credibility issues with sources without having to include this NYT piece as an external link.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable deletions

The most recent three edits by User:FightingMac were unwarranted and should immediately be restored.

• The first edit was done without any rationale. In addition, it deleted fully relevant "impact" material and added back essentially pointless IMF election contenders;
• The next mass deletion was done against consensus and under a ridiculous pretext of "bad grammar," which has already been shown to be false. In addition, the new subsections were removed without any attempt to justify;
• The third deletion was again done under the infantile and desperate pretext of bad grammar.

The editor is familiar with Talk pages but chose to bypass any discussion with their edits. I do not feel like edit warring so any other editors wishing to restore the material should do so. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Wiki here. Unwarranted. Suggest reversion, and that Fighting turns to Talking.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

My god, Eppeefleche, I do enough Talking here. Don't Encourage me!

Regarding Wikiwatcher1's edits their merits as copy vary very widely from literate to frankly not at all. I have no idea why that should be but I and other editors often do him the courtesy of copy-editing his material to an acceptable standard and do we not behave like dicks pointing this out. When I do it I meticulously preserve his content. I'll copy below an example of mine discussed above, where the defects went beyond just issues of copy. First Wikiwatcher1's copy:

• However, on June 30, 2011, there were reports that the case against Strauss-Kahn was in jeopardy due to the prosecution team's having uncovered "major holes in the credibility" of his accuser. According to the New York Times, "prosecutors do not believe much of what the accuser has told them . . . [and she] has repeatedly lied about the circumstances or about herself." (a reference here) As a result, a special hearing was scheduled for July 1st, the following day, to reconsider Strauss-Kahn's bail conditions.

where 1 "there were reports" is weasel 2 "in jeopardy" is loaded and appears nowhere in the article (although it is in the URL title) 3 "major holes in the credibility" is sourced in the article to 'investigators' and not the prosecution team 4 "... has repeatedly lied about the circumstances or about herself" is not actually a quote from the article ...

and then my edit of it (in turn churned by BBb23 because it was too close a paraphrase of the sources)

• On June 30, the New York Times reported that the case against Strauss-Kahn was on the verge of collapse as investigators had uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper. The report said that prosecutors no longer believed much of what the housekeeper had told them about the circumstances or about herself and quoted a law enforcement official as saying she had lied repeatedly.(a corrected reference here) As a result, a special hearing was scheduled for July 1st, the following day, to reconsider Strauss-Kahn's bail conditions.

Note that there were significant issues, as there often are with Wikiwatcher1 (he hardly ever bothers to conform to the requirements of WP:QUOTE) and that my edit meticuluosly preserved his content.

Regarding his efforts yesterday he was trying to restore an ancient edit of his valorising DSK's performance as IMF which had long been replaced by brief content noting the new IMF manager. The other edits were undue weight remarks about the housekeeper's credibility and reverted first by AtG and then me. Certainly the content would required copy-editing for grammar but as it happened it didn't need it as it simply was undue weight.

I can't speak for AtG, who indeed is often impatient with me, but you can safely assume my remarks about grammar were an irony from someone who has had to waste a great deal of time on WW1's naive advocacy of DSK.

Indeed I don't expect to be here for much longer. I shall be curious to see how you cope with it (because of course he won't relent).

AS for WW1's principled asservations about edit warring, I find that droll. His talk page is a catalogue of warnings about edit-warring and he knows his fellow editors will not long tolerate repeats. FightingMac (talk)

I agree with Wikiwatcher as well. It is quite bizarre that both editors are undoing based on "bad grammar" when even a cursory look shows that its minimal or non-existent.Chhe (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1 took it to ANI here. I defended in detail. The result was declined. FightingMac (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

The three deleted sections listed above are totally relevant to this "sexual assault case." A small consensus agreed. Now the news is making even those deleted details more "common knowledge" than news, and more details outlining the perversity of the case will keep coming out, and they will all become part of this case. An example this morning indicates the DA knew the maid was probably lying, but chose to ignore it for political reasons. And of course, the DA has already stated categorically that the woman committed federal perjury, which is a felony, and according to The Telegraph, could lead to serious actions. Add implied money laundering, tax fraud, and other things, the case will grow and should include those topics.

When the article began, there were already many off-shoot subjects being added. There were the French and American "reaction" sections; there was, until undermined, the "economic" and "political" impact; there were details, translated by FM, about French feminists and philosopher opinions; there are French "conspiracy" assertions; and we shouldn't forget FM's "begging on his knees" to find the most degrading "perp walk" photo available, or his fighting to keep a French tabloid's "tits and ass" quote by a French taxi driver!

This "case" will potentially evolve into becoming a central hub with related effects and more impacts on politics and law, all of which should at least be included in a paragraph or section, and some of which may become full separate articles. To start with getting this article back to the real world, I think the deletions listed should be restored, and if necessary, later updated, rephrased or expanded. I would also revise the pathetic nursery-school phrasing used in the lead: a letter from the district attorney's office was sent to the defense lawyers disclosing information and raising question about the housekeeper's version of events.

• Support: --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm glad you agree with yourself. :-) I don't want to participate in a straw poll about this. However, because the article has changed since the edits you're complaining about, it would help if you would set forth (above in your little intro) exactly what you want to add to the article. Even if I were to vote, I'm not 100% sure what I'd be voting for.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I rephrased a bit to clarify that the poll is to simply restore the 3 deletions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - for the simple reason that we shouldn't be basing our judgements on what we think the case will "potentially evolve into", per WP:CRYSTALBALL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, yes restore the deletions.Chhe (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; we are a summary source, the case may yet collapse leading to a merge of the article, detail is hard to pin down when it is largely speculative have some blooming patience. etc. Content r.e. IMF is more related to IMF article, less so here (which is about the case). Details on the housekeeper are way to in depth and tremendously sketchy, a lot is generally unrelated (i.e. assylum stuff) and potentially a BLP violation that needs extremely good sourcing (in fact; do not under any circumstances add that bit back). Content was poorly worded and badly expressed and seemed somewhat POV. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I still don't understand precisely what would happen if the "deletions" were restored (for the reasons I stated above). However, I oppose more detail about the IMF, more detail (at this point) about the housekeeper, and more inflammatory rhetoric. I also oppose the straw poll.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Title is inappropriate

This needs to be renamed something like 'DSK alleged sexual assault case' or perhaps 'DSK bogus sexual assault case' or even 'Attempted sting of DSK'. It seems likely there was no sexual assault, after all.180.130.212.58 (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• The case is not alleged, only his guilt in sexually assaulting may or may not be. Nevertheless, even if he is found innocent the case will always be known as a sexual assault case. -- Mecanismo | Talk 12:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. See for example O. J. Simpson murder case (yes I know he did it, but he was still not guilty). Egg Centric 14:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Time to consider naming the maid?

I was one of the first people to insist on keeping the name of the maid out of this... however, now it seems like she is no victim, should we consider naming her? I appreciate that this is effectively causing us to act as a judge - but that is not necessarily criticism... it was always a judgement call anyway and there is precedent on the 'pedia, e.g. Crystal Magnum. Egg Centric 14:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd point out that the policy suggesting not naming her does not specify she has to be a victim :) so I don't see how being the victim or the aggressor changes anything. With that said at the moment I argue this is speculation based on LE comments and the case is as yet neither closed or collapsed. I do still suggest waiting until either of those two things happens before judging the matter - although if it collapses I think the pertinent issue is how soon we can merge this back into the Bio. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Her name should definitely be included irregardless of whether or not she was telling the truth or making the whole thing up. Wikipedia shouldn't censor information. Also errantx, where is wikipedia's policy against naming this person?Chhe (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed ad-infinitum. It is our standard approach for private individuals. Start with WP:BLPNAME and work out from there. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Errant. At this point, DSK is still charged with attempted rape and the housekeeper is still a possible victim. As for Chhe's comments, that has been argued endlessly before, and there's no need to resurrect that discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah I was under the impression (for some reason) that the case was as good as dismissed. The situation is somewhat more nuanced than that and so I agree we ought to wait before we do name her - but I do think that it may be worth considering at this point whether we ought to if it does collapse (and we can consider several values of "collapse" as well if need be) but what do others think? Egg Centric 16:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Errant and Bbb23 and I did revert a naming of names because that's what she's called last night. @Egg Centric: anyone who knows anything about the legal process will have understood the situation was 'nuanced' as you put it weeks ago when Shapiro, a distinguished civil rights lawyer, left the housekeeper's defense team without explanation: I certainly understood the implication then. But nuanced or no the fact is the trial looks set to go ahead. We did know that there would be mud-slinging and I have said several times in these pages that some of that slinging will take place in the article. Let's try and maintain our principles meanwhile. FightingMac (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just reverted another editor's reinsertion of the housekeeper's name. At least he said what he was doing in the edit summary, unlike yet another editor who did it earlier without any edit summary. This all feels like deja vu and is tiresome.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is almost a joke (if it weren't so tragic) that wikipedia, which claims to be non-censored, censors itself through outdated policies about victims of crimes, particularly alleged sexual crimes, where the assailant gets no anonymisation at all. Even when everyone knows the maids name, and knows which country she came from before she applied for assylum in the US and basically her entire background (including links to drug dealers and prostitution), if you read reliable secondary sources. How on earth can you support graphic pictures to illustrate articles about taboo subjects alongside this policy. Something has to change. At least you could get the courage to delete graphic photos before caring so much about peoples names. 118.208.30.43 (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A person's privacy and an image you might find offensive are two wholly different things. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer or the New York Post. Also please remember that the accused is a public figure, whereas the maid was basically nobody (no offence intended toward her) until this happened. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Flinder's reply a good one I think. I'm not sure what IP's point is about graphic pictures. If he's talking in general then indeed that's what Wikipedia is not censored is about and it's IP's call about whether IP joins our club or not, but that's one of our rules and we member are comfortable with it. If on the other hand IP is a Frenchy, grouching about the 'perp walk' image in the article, main point there is that this is the English wikipedia (imaginez!). Adding to Flinders, one can remark that this is still a rape case and the tradition in the US (as well as the law in the UK) is to extend privacy to rape accusers, precisely because, for the IP's information, in the real world people with unblemished sexual histories just don't exist. Cast the first stone yourself IP and consider getting yourself a Wikipedia account and making a nuisance of yourself pissing inside the tent rather than cocking your leg at it outside. FightingMac (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

New material by 10Lskil

This newly registered editor, so far a single purpose account, has been adding lots of material to the article. I've left some of it in (not always happy about it, though), but I've also been reverting much of it as inappropriate. I could use a little help here in deciding whether this material belongs in the article. In my view, the editor is adding too much detail, often irrelevant detail, sometimes POV (albeit sourced) detail, and doing it at a rapid clip.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your recent revert [3].

1. Are CNN and Al Jazeera blogs acceptable sources? Per WP:BLOGS, for this article, I don't think so.
2. Regardless, the addition seems WP:UNDUE.

Agree. FightingMac (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've only looked at a few of the other additions. Some are OK; I'll look at more. WP:SPA's do raise an eyebrow, but we do want new editors, and I'd think new editors are drawn by big stories. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted not based on the reliable source issue. Blogs that permit just about anyone to post are clearly unreliable sources. However, blogs of legitimate third-party publications are harder to evaluate. Sometimes, they are almost like editorials from the publication rather than true blogs. I think that's the case here. Other times, they are outlets for publishing information more quickly, and it's not clear whether they receive the same fact-checking as non-blog pages from the same publication. Either way, I steer clear of the reliable source issue because I find it murky.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I look forward to discussion here with User:10Lskil. He has found some sources of materiel; I am concerned that we not add WP:UNDUE weight of some issues to the topic. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit his of was factually very poor 1 Tristane Banonn is not the daughter of the French vice-president 2 there isn't such a thing in the French system anyway 3 if there was he wouldn't be a socialist in the current administration 4 Tristane Banon's lawyer, David Koubbi, has said Banon will not pursue her case while the American process is underway. FightingMac (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fighting mac your first 3 points rest on a false premise, as I didn't say she was the daughter of the "French" vice president. In fact, she is the daughter of Anne Mansouret, Socialist vice-president of the general council of Eure (Upper Normandy), which is in France. And your fourth point is only a small update to the conclusion I wrote which was based on her previous media statement to Le Figaro.--10Lskil (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, 10Lskil, all I can decently say is that your memory of your own edit is challenged. This is what you wrote (my emphasis)

• It was also reported by several media outlets that the Daughter of Socialist vice President Tristane Banon would renew her legal complaint against Strauss-Kahn for an alleged rape in 2002 ...

while 'the small update' you mention was the subject of discussion right across French media and over smart salon dinner tables weeks ago (as well as widely reported in anglophone media at the time).

It's not me who is dealing with your edits but on the basis of the above I'm not surprised they don't last long. FightingMac (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am most happy to take constructive feedback from any editor, besides those who want to "fight", mac. This is my last comment on the issue, so if you want the last word its all yours......

Any ambiguity my comment entailed as to the exact domain of the Socialist Vice President being from Eure, or the whole of France (which I didn't specify - only for the brevity of the artlcle), seems comparatively insignificant to the 'factually poor' judgement above: 1) she IS the daughter of a socialist vice president, 2) sexual assault is a crime in France (Law Article 222-28, 222-29) and 3) there is, and well.....I guess he is still a socialist. --10Lskil (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I will. Thanks. 1 she is not the daughter of THE socialist vice president which is what you said (though indeed it is often difficult to construe what you mean from what you say) 2 (strictly rhetorical) what does sexual assault being a crime in France has to do with the factual basis of your edit? 3 likewise no idea WTF you're on about him being a socialist past, present or future, has to do with the factual content of your edit. Hope that really is it. FightingMac (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Selective use of tabloids as RS

There are a number of tabloid references used in the article, many in French, and sometimes translated by an editor. Guess !. The use of those tabloids, like the Daily Mail, was discussed and their use was rejected numerous times by others. Are U.S. tabloids such as the New York Post equally valid as a source? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Externals in such a pre trial article related to living people WP:BLP should be as high quality as possible, avoid adding any tabloid style content at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If that's me {{who}} ( a rare example of humour from you but you didn't use wiki - nowiki tabs so you're causing a problem with that template) you're wrong. I haven't added any tabloid citations and in #Putin_translation I raise reservations (at the end) about the 'Daily Mail' cite.

But it's comical coming from you with your Conti cite which was as senastionalist a red-top story as you can imagine repeated only by the UK Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph (the latter a quality which nevertheless has an accepted tradition of picking on sensational material concerning on-going stories it's running). Not only did you add the content but you didn;t repect the source 1 she wasn't French 2 she wasn't being interviewed in Paris 3 you omitted the interesting fact she nicknamed DSK Genghis Khan.

Moreover when taken to task (by Off2riorob above amongst others) at a BLP noticeboard you tried to reintroduce it later hoping no-one would noticeand that despite being given a strong warning on your talk page only a couple of weeks before about that kind of behaviour.

The New York Post hasn't got anything on the housekeeper The New York Times hasn't (trust me). Relax. Go for a walk on Bodega. Breathe in. Breathe out. Yup, there's a whole world out there. FightingMac (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's because of this from the UK Daily Mirror quoting The New York Post (which I don't think has gone to press yet). I'll do the the edit for you:

As a result of the extensive publicity the housekeeper's credibility has received in the world, including the UK, some newspaper have begun publishing stories "branding her a prostitute offering extra services to guests". Acording to the popular UK newspaper The Daily Mirror, the housekeeper "wasn't just working at the hotel - she was a working girl". One source said, "She was getting tips ... and it wasn't for fucking towels." Police said she had "serious credibility issues". (Rockett, Karen (3 July 2011). "Strauss-Kahn chambermaid accused of being a prostitute". The Daily Mirror. Retrieved 3 July 2011. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help))

I'll do one for you from The New year Post when it appears. Just striving to be helpful as ever. FightingMac (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

New York Post article is here. I'll let you do the honours ;) [[4]] Egg Centric 00:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

(Although as a note of caution, it's from "sources close to the defence team") Egg Centric 00:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I think I will pass on my offer. I'm sure I woudn't be adequate to the task. Didn't see the bit about the defense team and in fact I thought all this was coming from prosecution unless this is the material the defense team have claimed they had all along. If the story is repeated in an RS, such as say, for the sake of argument, New York Times, Le Monde, The Times (I would personally not say "The Telegraph" because of its well known prurience about this sort of case), that sort of quality, then I would say include it. But right, not the New York Post, eminently readable though that may be :-)

Still needs a balancing edit there from someone to add content about Kenneth Thompson pointing out she might be guilty as sin of all these things (actually he just said she had made mistakes) and still have been assaulted. Why not have a go yourself, Egg Centric? Your good deed for the day, you will feel so pure and just like a lawywer in fact who has to do that sort of thing for a living. Recommended. FightingMac (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And there's certainly no reason to leave out that prison phone call, which could have been a misdialed number, another simple "mistake" we all make. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions of undue weight might arise. Bbb23 has already made clucking noises. I've already strenghtened the DA letter content just a few minutes ago. The phone call is not sourced from the letter. You could always do the Thompson edit I mention above if you would like to contribute. FightingMac (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. You can contribute to the well sourced phone call details, and then I'll work on the Thompson quote. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh-uh. You owe me. You do Thompson and then I'll do the phone call when the source is clearer. FightingMac (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Interlanguage links

I'm having some problems with user Off2riorob deleting interlanguage links such as that I made to the article for Michèle Sabban.

Michèle Sabban is notable in France as an outspoken advocate of gender equality and as a close personal friend of Mr. Struss-Khan who has supported him unstintingly in his current predicament, describing the whole business as [5] an international plot. Following his release from custody she has asked that the ongoing primary to select the Socialist candidate to contest the French presidency in 2012 be suspended, so as to give him the opportunity to participate.

From the outset of my involvement with this article I have taken pains to see to it that her opinion was represented. But she is unlikely ever to receive an English BLP, so rather than redlink her I gave an interlanguage link as per the recommendation at Help:Interlanguage_links#Purpose. This and another for the French sociologist Irène Théry stood for some weeks until Off2riorob appeared on the scene and removed the links, replacing them with redlinks. He messaged me on my talk page thus:

• Please stop doing this, external wikis are not reliable sources and should not be inline linked like that, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

but he did not respond to my request for clarification (the links were not cited as sources)

• Don't understand this Off2riorob. Do you mean interlanguage links? I thought that was policy if there was no likelihood of an English wiki as is the case with some of the minor personailities in the SDK article. FightingMac (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I let the redlinks stand for a while and then replaced them a few days ago with interlanguage links again and they stood until this evening when he deleted again (that was the Irène Théry link, the Michèle Sabban link has earlier been interfered with by 10Lskil and was eventually lost).

I reverted, asking he take the issue to the Talk page. He restored and said he had discussed the issue at Talk:Tristane_Banon#External_links (I am a translator at Tristane Banon) as he also has on my Talk page at User_talk:FightingMac#noindex.

I gather he accepts that interlanguage links are not against Wikipedia policy and that he is no longer concerned that I am linking to an unreliable source (i.e. the French wikipedia) but that he neverthless has multiple concerns described thus at Banon

• Please stop replacing these inline links to external wikis - french wiki or any other wiki are nothing to do with us and people do not expect to be taken to an external website that is not reliable and in another language when the click on inline links - write the article here at this wikipedia. If you want to add them - add them to the external link section and clearly explain what they are, personally I wouldn't add them at all. If I was as interested as you I would create stubs for these people in the correct location - this wiki.

I responded to the issue of expectation by restoring the Michèle Sabban interlanguage as suggested at Help:Interlanguage_links#Purpose in the following format Michèle Sabban (see French Wikipedia article).

He immediately reverted and sent me a 3R warning. On my talk page I responded thus

• Not edit warring. One restore to suggest and establish dialogue on Talk page. One fresh approach documented above to address the issue of expectation you raised and which you immediately reverted. Will you please now address 1 why you are deleting these links when you agree they are not against policy 2 when they are not being used as RS as was your original concern 3 why my fresh approach recommended by Help:Interlanguage_links#Purpose was immediately reverted by you without explanantion and a 3R edit-warring warning released instead.

I shall probably elevate this if I cannot get an agreement. It seems to me that the second format I suggest should settle the issues he claims now concerns him, the RS issue obviously being not tenable.

I'm recording this here on this talk page because resolution processes require that the issue is discussed on the relevant talk page.

Input welcome. FightingMac (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• - In line linking to external foreign language wikis is undesirable - write a stub here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not write a quick English language BLP? She certainly sounds notable! Egg Centric 01:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have suggested this to the user but they seem to have a desire to add inline french interwiki links to our articles and they have edit history at the french wiki. Some of the articles they have been inline wiki linking to have been so low standard as they would have been speedy deleted here and imo some of them would also fail WP:EL. Off2riorob (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that a stub is preferable.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the point about that, Egg Centric (nice name :-)) is that quick translated BLPs aren't in fact 'quick'. I have done a few, presently Banon I'm assisting with now. They are quickly deleted if an adminstrator finds them non-notable and the catch is to show them notable you have to find English language citations. Well no doubt I could find a few obscure book and journal references to Michèle Sabban if I scoured a library all afternoon but apart from this CV at the AER there are no English sources for Sabban. She is genuinely not notable for English letters and athat's all there is to it. No point in a stub. It will never be expanded. And it *will* be deleted. As for what I could understand about off2riorob's edit above he is simply repeating his contempt for the French wiki.FightingMac (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you'd be alright using a French language source but agree that you may have trouble getting it past some of our more ardent deletionists. If you do make a stub let me know and I'll !vote keep (subject to the usual caveats :D) Egg Centric 07:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Egg Centric. I did consider doing a stub but it really would be a problem given there are no English language sources. I grant Bobrayner's point about WP:PEOPLE notability below, but the fact is all the multiple sources there are French. As it is presently the English wiki has articles for each French member of parliament, most of which are single sentence stubs. I'm not sure we should wish to treat French politicans in general with the same reverence we afford Canadian ice hockey players (no, no, I didn't say that, really, honest ...) celebrity Hollywood personalities. FightingMac (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

In principle, I think this is exactly the purpose that interlanguage links were intended for, and I'm happy to see their use continue, although we should always use caution in a controversial BLP. Different wikipedias may have different notability requirements, but I think that both Michèle Sabban and Irène Théry look adequate. In principle, it would be nice to write an article on Sabban here on enwiki (passes WP:PEOPLE easily), but that takes a lot of time & effort, and lacking any big flaws in the fr article, it would be silly to delete an interlanguage link on the premise that "somebody ought to write an article at this wiki instead of that one...". bobrayner (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)—bobrayner (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this opinion, Bobrayner. I'm editing further later on this evening and will run it past Off2riorob for his reaction. Your point about time and effort in writing stubs exactly mine. Appreciated. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

TEB728 (talk) has very kindly provided a translation for Michèle Sabban and I'm grateful.

Unless I hear contest from Off2riorob I shall restore other interlanguage links of a similar nature on a good faith basis here and in Banon tomorrow evening. It would be a pleasant gesture if Off2riorob were to take on this duty himself. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Section for 'housekeeper credibility'?

I created a new section for the housekeeper's credibility using existing information on the page. ErrantX reverted my change, asking why the section was created. I restored my change.

It's my opinion that the housekeeper's credibility is definitely notable enough to merit it's own section. Beyond that, it's only tangentially related to Kahn's "arrest and indictment", so it doesn't really belong as a major piece of that section. The section is necessary.-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't need a separate section, at this time. John lilburne (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as John says, this is unnecessary. The article is about DSK, and not the housekeeper, so anything "tangential" shouldn't be included. If the case collapses due to questions of her credibility before coming to trial, it is quite likely that this article will be deleted, and the main DSK article section on the case reduced to the bare facts - which may need to say little. We need to bear in mind that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and we don't need to include everything the newspapers do - and still less should we be editorialising on the credibility of involved persons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have mixed views on this issue. The inherent problem with the Arrest and indictment section and the entire article is the Arrest and indictment section, strictly speaking, is really the only section about the case. The rest of the article is about reaction to the case. I agree with Bob that the housekeeper's credibility is not part of DSK's arrest or indictment. Perhaps we ought to rename the section and even consider subsectioning it after renaming it, although subsectioning can be dicey and distracting, particularly if there are too many subsections. For example, an overall heading could be something innocuous like "Legal proceedings". As I recall, it used to say "Pretrial proceedings" or something like that, but I'm not keen on that because it implies there will be a trial and because an arrest is not really a pretrial proceeding (of course, an arrest is not really a "proceeding" either but I can live with that as it is a legal action). Even if we renamed the section, though, and even if we subsectioned it, I would be against having a separate section or subsection for the housekeeper's credibility as being unwarranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a legal contest. No one forced the housekeeper to press legal charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. And having brought legal charges against DSK, no one forced her to veer from the truth in her account of what transpired. That her credibility is now undermined is crucial to the topic of the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A court should decide that hearing the evidence and giving due weight to the testimony, not newspapers, not public opinion, not TV pundits, and not wikipedia. John lilburne (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, Wikiwatcher1 and I have argued these common sense points to no avail so far. You might want to read Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case#A reminder and Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case#Unacceptable deletions to understand the arguments we have presented. The more I read through their responses and shuffling through their history pages I'm beginning to believe that this irrational decision is somehow politically or racially motivated.Chhe (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. DA's letter has made it totally clear that essentially all of the woman's story was "false," "fabricated," and lies. They only thing they implied was probably correct was her name. The DA's original charges, after DSK's arrest, were the primary source for this article, and subsequent news stories. I don't find it that amusing that none of the above experienced editors saw any problems with the addition of an inflammatory, libelous and insulting comment by a French cab driver quoted in a French tabloid which was added to this article. Nor did any of them mind seeing the equally insulting and illegal (in France) "perp walk" photo, gratuitously added, and which is still posted. In fact, the key sentence of the last paragraph of the lead is ridiculous on it's face, since no one claims that the DA's letter has raised any "questions." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh you go on and on like this Wikiwatcher1, enough already. Your obstinate 'not seeing the point' is just tiresome and ridiculous and your constant resort to provocative vocabulary ultimately worse than the eforts of FASCIST screamers. Give it a rest. Take a walk on Bodega. Breathe in, on the ingoing breath meditate on the impermanence of all things expressed as form, breathe out, on the outgoing breath meditate on the impermanence of all things expressed as void. GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SOHA . Consider doing a retreat (pleeease, on bended knees pretty, pretty, pleease) and don't you go redacting any dharma teachingsd here (I pay my guru serious money for teachings the way I like them). FightingMac (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a fine idea, especially on a major U.S. holiday, one I'm beginning to value more every day. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

However, I'd suggest passing your philosophy buck elsewhere: Dharma requires that one tries to create a world of "justice, social harmony and human happiness." Your contributions represent anything but those, sorry to observe. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Religious buck though of course I'm a distinguished metaphysician (I've been single-handedly contemplating the undifferentiated void all my life: no firm conclusions yet but I do have a stong grip to show for it all, in the right hand anyway). It's you who quote the 14th Dalai Lama on your talk page. I thought it might create some sympathetic bonding. You're talking Hindu caste-based ideas of dharma there BTW and the emphasis is very far from creating it but rather to understand it is the natural order of things and your duty to live by it, whether Brahmin or Dalit. The Buddhist dharma I expect you subscribe to is a much more liberating sort thing of course. If championing human rights is to champion the creation of "justice, social harmony and human happiness" then I've done my bit I should like to think. Your fishing my edit history you indulged recently my Talk page not so welcome in that respect. Might get me lowered slowly into a blazing blast furnace or something awful like that. Perhaps that what you anyway. FightingMac (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Respect all views expressed here but tend mostly to those of John and Andy. I see the housekeeper's credibility relevant only insofar it changed the ongoing process. Focussing beyond that would be undue in an ongoing article I think. When it's all over bar the injection (whatever), then we indeed can start to get down to the evidential details Bob would quite rightly like to see in an encyclopaedic article.

Regarding Bbb23's point, I repeat that the article is about the 'case', thought of generically as 'affair', and not just about the trial (look at O. J. Simpson murder case for example, at sections Media coverage onwards). Thus in the case of Tristane Banon's announcement that she plans now to file against DSK (and his lawyers' response that they will countersue) one can say that so long as she is not named as a subject of interest by either party, then she's not relevant to the legal process. But the moment political commentators and others signal, as the DT's Henry Samuel already has (although he's wrong to ascribe, today at any rate, as he does, the same view to the French Socialist party spokesperson's Benoît Hamon), that this second file of a rape complaint puts paid to any chance of an imminent political comeback by DSK, which would seem to be plausibe, then it does become relevant in Political.

Incidentally I'm now happily released from some conflict of interests concerns I mentioned had lately developed for me and can now return to joyously unrestrained editing of this article, to which I've become frankly addicted... so sorry :-{ .

I just want to clarify my view. I'd be fine with the section being renamed. But, the difficulties that have arisen regarding the prosecution of the case are of immense significance. Whether it's called "housekeeper credibility" or something else, it merits it's own section.

And to John's reasons for reverting. This isn't simply "newsy"; It is already an "issue". The problems with her credibility are the reason that Kahn has gone from millions in bail and a 24 hour armed guard watching him, to him being free to travel the country. This is critical to this case. And again, it merits it's own section. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In an historical article certainly. But this an ongoing process and Wikipdia simply isn't a newspaper. John's revert was good in my view for that reason alone. You have to understand, Bob, that an ongoing article changes everything. FightingMac (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The section heading deleted was "Falsified testimony by accuser," which is more accurate than "Housekeeper credibility," of which there is little left. What is relevant is which of the many falsifications (the DA letter states she "lied" BTW), have undermined the original allegations. This is still an ongoing case and new facts have been uncovered. They are not speculations or "news" items. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I did strengthen the DA letter content yesterday 1 to reflect accurately what was actually said but also 2 to include a reference to the last paragraph which referred to untruthful accounts of a number of additional topics. I thought the latter was important to summarize the content of the letter adequately. But I see that bit hs been removed. I'll investigate and probably restore unless the editor was compelling in his explanation for deleting. Of course you won't see the point about 'ongoing' and 'newsiness' so I shan't waste time repeating wearily. As for 'new facts' I suppose you refer to stories about drugs, prostitution, etc. but we don't have RS for that. End of discussion. Even if we did we there might still be issues about including. FightingMac (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

One "new fact" still removed from this article may become the most important of all, her phone call the day after the accusations:

When the conversation was translated — a job completed only this Wednesday — investigators were alarmed: “She says words to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing,’ ” the official said. Source: New York Times, 7/1/11, footnote #32. You cherry-picked a quote by the accuser's attorney, the most biased source imaginable, and ignored the rest of this story. And no one else noticed? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The content was cut out of chronology, expanded and given a top-level highly non-neutral heading, hmmmm. The woman's credibility is significant only in the context of DSK's arrest and indictment - without that event it is of zero significance or notablilty. A full section for it does not seem worthwhile or a logical way to organise the article. Just to note I did not revert the addition, zero content was deleted - I simply moved the expanded material into the correct part of the chronology and got ride of the heading --Errant ^(chat!) 09:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Tristane Banon case

Now that Tristane Banon is pressing charges in France in relation to an earlier alleged incident to we deal with it here, or do we give it its own article, or what? PatGallacher (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pat. Just made a remark on Banon in section above. Not quite yet I think (soon though, I don't doubt), but best done in Political my view (but don't let that personal opinion constrain you). I'm happy to defer to you if you would like to have a go (I much prefer to follow other's leads, the more the merrier I say). I did add some content at Tristane Banon where I am assisting. Banon will be absolutely fascinating! This one will run and run.

Wikiwatcher1 will fork it in due course I expect ... bring it on WW1 :-} FightingMac (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This article has 58 active watchers. I hope I'm not the only one you think has common sense. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to be bold and create the article now. This would mean moving this article to something like DSK New York sexual assault case, to distinguish the 2 cases. PatGallacher (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider. Her allegations have already received RS statements finding them to be questionable. The only 3rd person evidence came from her mother, who came to pick her up and found her sitting in her car looking very upset. Adding another article about a suit against a rich DSK, at this particular time, will only serve to make another attorney wealthy and the media circus suspicious at the timing. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No Pat, really. No more forks, But do add some content if you can see a place for it. Probably not yet. @Wikiwatcher1. You're remarkably well informed it would seem. A big difference here, a very big difference, is that the investigating magistrate will have to investigate DSK's background and whereas no woman of any spirit was ever going to come forward to testify against DSK in America, France in the current circumstances is a very different matter altogether. The only real issue presently is whether Banon's allegations are strong enough for a 'attempted rape' charge, rather than just 'sexual assault' charges which can't be pressed this long after the events. My guess is that the magistrate won't be too keen on being overly punctiluous on that matter, not in the present climate. Off-topic of course but always a pleasure to debate with someone as informed and penetrating as yourself. FightingMac (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

True, France has different attitudes about sexual relations and how others might define "spirited women." Before the U.S, had a formal constitution and before our independence, Napoleon was still trying to make France a "model for the regulatory approach to prostitution," a way of life for the previous 1,000 years. As of today, 70% of the French population wants to legalize brothels, including half of the female population, to help keep sex workers off the street.

And the judges will have no problem finding character witnesses:

• Italian actress Michelle Conti, who already spoke out to The Telegraph in his defense because he was being treated "worse than an assassin" over the allegations. She said he "attracted me because he behaved like a gentleman in spite of being turned down [by others]... He was very kind and polite, not like a slobbering dog as often happens. He treated us kindly, gave me cuddles ... Dominique doesn't need to rape a woman because if he wants it, he can afford an escort or, as he did in Paris, go to a private club for a little fun. He's just a libertine."
• Strauss-Kahn's biographer, Michel Taubmann, who has interviewed many women that have known him, said "these women described him as a sweet and charming man, sometimes engaging, but completely incapable of any violence." Nevertheless, the author admitted that while later claims of a sexual assault by French journalist Tristane Banon had tormented him, he concluded after interviewing several people, including Banon herself, that there was no proof of her accusation. "Strauss-Kahn is a great seducer? Of course! But he's not a raper." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Banon thing is unrelated to this case (apart from the fact of dragging it up again) so please deal with it in the main bio. I do not think a fork would be appropriate at this time. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)