Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

And apparently mentioning the names of the two PR agencies involved Euro RSCG and TD International (TDI)[1] is a violation of per WP:NOTNEWS trivia .. ?

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

Page Watchers New York v. Strauss-Kahn 70 .. and apparently you've really earned your salaries ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.35.85 (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Benefac. The thought had crossed my mind :-) But regarding Banon etc, there's a more innocent explanation and that is that she is genuinely not relevant to the case ("a subject of interest"). Her lawyer has said they want to keep the two cases separate. The French article mentions her on the very dubious ground that she was described as a subject of interest at the first bail application (she wasn't really although it was widely reported that she was what the prosecutor had in mind). As for "Support and Opposition" that was gien a thorough going-over at the time. FightingMac (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The lawyer of Banon came to New York on July 19 to meet with the lawyers of the housekeeper and the prosecutor's team. So why are you considering both cases separate now ? Hektor (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no connection at all. Please do not attempt to add such leading content to any of the connected articles. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes that's right, there was a a singularly unexpected meeting but it's entirely speculative as to what its purpose was. My own reading of the birdies flitting the sky would be that any attempt to join the cases is simply out of the question, French public opinion simply wouldn't stand for it and indeed I can see where they would be coming from on that. Much more likely I should think is they were discussing the possibility of the housekeeper launching a civil action in France, technically possible and more likely, if found for her of course, of extracting cash from DSK. In any case the two cases remain separate, whatever the French article is doing. Please don't try to introduce Banon here. It would just make the article more contentious and we do have real consensus here not to, on both 'saint' and 'sinner' sides. FightingMac (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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

It's interesting that your tag-team editor list didn't include the editor who contributed many times more than most others. Should we assume that his edits were among the neutral ones you approve of? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The section on "Support and Opposition" should include (brace yourself) reliably sourced support and opposition. It should include Tristane Banon's accusation, and (as Wikiwatcher1 unintentionally suggests) it should include Anne Mansouret's description of her encounter with DSK: "consensual but clearly brutal sex," and she "describes DSK as a predator who isn't looking to please but to take, and behaves like an obscene boor."[1][2][3] Benefac (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

About time that I replied too, I think you should be very careful when accusing others of tag-teaming, all the while encouraging other editors to "gang up" on the perceived tag-team. As Andy points out below, this can be construed as a personal attack and is totally without foundation. For the record, I have edited the article 5 times in the space of two months (yes there were over a 1000 edits to go through), although I may have contributed more on the talkpage.

As pointed out in a similar discussion on the BLPN board or somewhere, maybe the people you cite are a bunch of like-minded editors who have taken an interest in the article, watch it and interpret WP policy concerning BLPs in roughly the same way. As this is a high-profile affair, with every twist and turn, new editors show up wishing to add that latest titbit to the article and need to be pointed to NOTNEWS, NPOV, RECENTISM, BLP, BLPN, BLP1E, UNDUE and so on. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@Wikiwatcher: I'm not sure who you are referring to, above. About 1/4 of the edits seemed to come from FightingMac, who above opposes including Banon in the Opposition section. Roughly 1/5 of the edits were from you (Wikiwatcher, who started this article) and ErrantX, each, with more recent ones from OfftorioRob. The others weigh in more on the Talk page than in edits. The overall effort seems to be one of protecting the reputation of DSK, not protecting the reputation of Diallo, Banon, Mansouret, Nagy, etc. Benefac (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been a month and the "Support and Opposition" section continues to read like whitewash PR for DSK, and ignores and insults the reputation of the women who have accused him. This article is not a bio of DSK. It touches on many different facets as raised by RS. Benefac (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Strauss-Kahn's PR agents? They are absolutely on this page. What a joke, 'building an encyclopedia' under such conditions.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Three months later, and the 'article' still reads like a whitewash. The article has been narrowed down to the very narrow legal case, rather than the much broader issues which made it of interest to so many WP readers. The ongoing civil suit is not mentioned in the introduction, which is phrased entirely in the past tense (as if the whole thing were finished). Having narrowed it down and redirected to this single legal case, despite the attempts of many editors to keep the article broader, now the tag-team can insist that mention of the prostitution-ring that DSK allegedly participated in is irrelevant (both here and on the article about him), even though it is widely reported in reliable sources.[4][5][6] etc. This article is an example of Wikipedia failing to accurately depict biographies of living people. Benefac (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not a PR agent for DSK, I have never met him, and I am not French. In my opinion, this article should be deleted because it is not encylopedic. DSK's relations with women may or may not be an appropriate topic to include in the article about him. But I don't think that a complaint which was judged to be unfounded deserves a separate article in Wikipedia. You use the term "whitewash", but all the charges were dropped for lack of evidence, so I don't know what there is to "wash". The criminal case is indeed finished, so the article should use the past tense for that. If you think the article should be broader, then you should propose to rename it "Allegations regarding DSK's sexual life" or whatever. But (1) I don't see why that deserves a Wikipedia article and (2) much of the material would border on defamation until an actual court case against DSK succeeds. You are correct that reliable sources report various allegations about DSK's sexual life, but so far there hasn't been any proof that the allegations are correct, and DSK denies them. Many people might believe the allegations, but that is quite different from having a reliable source to the effect that they are true.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
So, you're saying that any court case in the history of the legal court system that ended in a not guilty result cannot be encyclopedic because there weren't charges given out? That's not how notability works or what encyclopedias do. SilverserenC 14:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that, in this particular case, given that the charges were dismissed by the prosecutor due to lack of evidence, and the case never went to trial, it would be sufficient to have a one-paragraph summary in biography page of DSK. For this particular case, a separate article is, in my view, not justified.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
This case had world attention and impact. Regardless of the outcome, it is now fully a part of court history and is notable and independent because of that. SilverserenC 16:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. OK. I've proposed deletion several times before, and it has always been rejected. But I haven't seen any evidence of hordes of DSK supporters chiming in on the issue, so I really wonder why anybody thinks that DSK's PR agents are active on this article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nafissatou Diallo has disclosed her identity[edit]

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

This kind of PR blitz by a crime accuser, and bypassing the legal system, can do nothing but harm the neutrality of the case preemptively. Typically, trial by media is instigated by the media, who's only goal is selling ads and generating revenue. When an alleged crime victim goes public with her story pending trial, the case is damaged. I'd be surprised if presenting statement evidence to the media by one party to a crime, before a trial, is not a crime in itself.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Except the accusers name was already all over the media prior to that. Makes you wonder who originally leaked it in the first place and what their motivation was.

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

Did some quick research and found out that I was both right and wrong. It is a crime, but not in the U.S. One example is that British judges under a 1981 Contempt of Court Act, can issue gag orders to the media along with postponing cases. Violations are "media contempt" and a serious offense - in the U.K.
In the U.S., however, even when media publicity has generated a risk of prejudice against or for any party to a criminal case, the judge has to modify the jury selection process and make sure jurors disregard anything they may have read or seen on TV. Good luck! They often have to move the case to other states at great cost to witnesses and tax-paid public prosecutors, except of course privately paid attorneys add it to the tab. In extreme situations, the judge will delay the trial indefinitely until publicity has died down. In effect, all those interview links above have already undermined the neutrality of the case and bypassed the legal system. Not good. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
@WW: Thanks for sharing your point of view, regarding plaintiffs speaking to the media. However, Wikipedia prefers an objective approach to editing. Benefac (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

  • The word notability is Wikipedia's term of art to describe if a topic should have its own stand-alone article. It's an article-level guideline. No one has suggested that Nafissatou Diallo merits a stand-alone article. As I write this, it's a blue link since there already is an article for a similarly named individual.
  • There are content policies and guidelines, but none of them would exclude adding Diallo's name to the article. patsw (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Lawyers Decry Public Comments From DSK's Accuser was carried by over a thousand news outlets. The Associated Press is no longer hiding her name. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

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

There's no presumption of privacy when she is named in every media outlet in the United States. She is by any definition now a public figure patsw (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Its not really a presumption of privacy , more that she is still basically a private person/alleged victim - we are not a media outlet we are an encyclopedia - adding her name gives the reader nothing additional in the way of encyclopedic value about the alleged crime/trial. We can and do regularly err on the side of caution in regard to living one event alleged victims of crimes. If as you say her name is one thousand newspapers that is fine and all readers will know her name anyway - that doesn't mean we have to add it here - where it will sit for all of eternity. (or at least a very long time) - The only situation imo where we would want to add her was if criminal charges are lodged against her. It seems she feels she has been forced to give an interview to present her side of the story as she feels allegations in the press misrepresented/defame or libel her in some ways - all of which we have already kept out of the article for BLP concerns, so it would not seem to make sense to want to name her because she has felt the need to give an interview to defend herself against allegations that we have kept out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
^That's pretty much what I think, too. We're not actively suppressing it; it's just that it doesn't help make the article better, 'coz she is not notable.  Chzz  ►  13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Chzz, we have been a _actively_ suppressing her name. It wasn't by chance that we wrote "housekeeper". And it wasn't by chance that previous additions of her name were reverted. We can no longer justify that. Here's what WP:BLP actually says:
"When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it"
Her name has now been widely disseminated. So that restriction doesn't apply.
" … Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value."
As for arguing that adding her name doesn't "add value" BLP policy says that we should consider not adding a name if it doesn't add significant value and if the individual is "not directly involved". She's clearly directly involved, so that restriction doesn't apply either.
There remains no valid argument based on any wikipedia policy to continue suppressing her name. We need to add it. And, it's always better to speak in specifics rather than generalities. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Bob drobbs on this. Up til now, I think the approach taken on this article (not giving her name) has been right. But now she has voluntarily disclosed her identity and been interviewed by the press, and that her name has been widely disseminated, I don't think BLP policy should stop us adding it to the article. The only reason not to would be 'it's not relevant' - but it does add some content, however little, to the article. By way of comparison, we do name the accusers in the articles Duke lacrosse case and Tawana Brawley rape allegations (not that this event is necessarily similar to those, but they are articles concerning allegations of rape). Robofish (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Bob. There is no valid policy reason to not list her name. Majoreditor (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no policy reason to include her name. - clearly as a one event alleged victim of crime there are more reasons to not add her name to the the article than there are benefits to the reader through adding it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Are people reading what they write before they post it ? How can Nafissatou Diallo have any expectation of privacy when she is the one that has gone out and given the interview and decided to have her name published? The claim that she still is a "non-public figure" also fails to stand up, the fact that an interview she gave for Newsweek in the US was reported by the BBC in England is testament to that. The claim that "no benefit to the understanding of this article in giving the name" also fails as how can it be beneficial to withhold the name of one side of this case but openly discuss the other, it leads to an unbalanced article. There no longer seams to be any valid reason not to included it now she has herself gone public. To me this appears to be double standards, if this had been in any other conthry Wikiepedia would be leading the charge against suppressing her name under similar circumstances.VERTott 00:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

note - this is a cut and copy post that has been replied to on the BLP noticeboard thread here - Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(Again) Notability[edit]

WP:BLP1E states "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article."

No one has yet created a biographical article on Diallo, so BLP1E is not applicable. BLP1E has nothing to say about the inclusion or exclusion of a name from the text of a relevant article. patsw (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly; she's not notable - in the Wikipedia sense - because she's only known for one event. I'm not arguing to keep it out to protect her privacy; I'm just saying, there's no point bothering to name her; I don't see how it helps to understand the article; it'll make just as much sense saying "a housekeeper" as it will to put her name there.
So this is not a complicated BLP concern; it's a basic, article-content discussion. "Do we think adding her name makes the article better?" - I don't. If more do than don't, I bow to consensus, and I really don't care if it gets added. It's not (any more) a big deal.  Chzz  ►  07:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are an aid to learning more, and should often serve as a place to start further research. In general, the inclusion of basic facts, e.g. names, places, etc. help those doing further research to find additional related material. In that sense, including names will nearly always make an article more useful. We generally weight that against the potential harm of drawing undue attention to non-public figures (a harm that can be amplified in cases when public attention is drawn to negative events). While she chose to remain private it made sense to respect that, but now that she has chosen to appear prominently in front of the public, I don't see any reason not to include her name. Dragons flight (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The bother of providing her identification is that it is simply a fundamental fact. It's relevant, verifiable, and widely available in reliable sources.
  • Diallo, by granting national media interviews, is a public figure by any definition.
  • But for the sake of understanding your point: (1) Could you relate "potential harm of drawing undue attention to non-public figures" to a policy or guideline? (2) What "potential harm" to Diallo are you alluding to? (3) What is meant by "drawing undue attention" -- who is drawing whose attention, and why would that attention be "undue" if it is relevant and already reliably reported? patsw (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
By "bother", what I meant was... for example, it might be a V RS fact that Mr. Kahn has a pet dog called spot, but we wouldn't (presumably) think that that detail was pertinent to this article about the case. I know that is a somewhat extreme example, as there is no doubt that a housekeeper was intricately involved in the case. Just, I don't see why the name helps understand the subject.  Chzz  ►  19:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Using Chzz's reasoning in this case, I don't see how the name of Strauss-Kahn is pertinent to this article about the case. Shouldn't he be identified as "a hotel guest"? If Diallo's name doesn't help understand the subject, how could Straus-Kahn's name help understand the subject? patsw (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Clearly 'a hotel guest' would be woefully incompletely. We will have to say, as we do now, he was the head of the IMF and a leading candidate to be the next president of France, which means hiding the name is silly. Of course, since he was clearly notable before the event, the comparison falls down completely, whether or not excluding the name of the maid is justified.. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(Again) Notability[edit]

This is the third time stating this, I am reluctant to do so but the error is being repeated. The Wikipedia uses WP:Notability to refer to whether a a subject gets a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. A discussion of the notability of Diallo in the Wikipedia sense is moot if and until, a stand-alone article is created for her. BLP1E refers to the creation and titles of articles, not to the inclusion of a name in the text of an article. patsw (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that the nonexistent page is quite popular. Kope (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Tristane Banon[edit]

  • - Banon whitewash

I find it utterly incredible that the name Banon does not appear in this article. It seems perfectly clear that Tristane Banon decided to bring her case in France as a direct result of the rape accusations levelled against Strauss-Kahn in New York - indeed, that is a common justification for naming the accused in rape trials, to give potential other victims an opportunity to come forward. This is a criminal case brought against a public figure as a result of the topic of this article, and should certainly be re-included, however briefly. 7daysahead (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't write things on the talkpage that are attacking living people. WP:BLP applies on talkpage just as much as in articles. Banon avoided the issues you are accusing her of - There is no connection between Banon and this legal case so not there is not going to be any supposition added here about her alleged motives and timing. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I utterly fail to see anywhere in my comment where I have attacked anyone. I have made a sensible suggestion that one of the ramifications of this case be noted - not explored, not dissected, noted, however briefly in the article, and you have responded with vitriol and an attempt to shut down the discussion. I quote the Telegraph: "[Banon] said that she changed her mind after Mr Strauss-Kahn was arrested in New York on May 14. " (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8647884/Mother-of-Tristan-Banon-admits-she-had-sex-with-Dominique-Strauss-Khan.html), and I would appreciate an apology, or at least a civil discussion. 7daysahead (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Rob, while I may agree with you that I think Tristan Banon does not belong in this article, I think you stepped way over the line in think you had a right to close this discussion as if you were, yet again, the unilateral voice of what gets to be in wikipedia articles. 7days should have his say, and others should be able to participate in the discussion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with 7daysahead, her charge deserves another section in this article (we may also need to change the title from singular "case" to plural "cases".) We don't need to correlate both charges which is potentially original reseatch, just treat them as separate cases, the truth is they're both accussing Kahn for sexual assult. Since Banon's case already gained sufficient publicity, there's no reason not to include this one. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Proposal. For the time being, add the link to Tristan Banon as a See also, annotated as "French journalist who has made an accusation of attempted rape against Strauss-Kahn". patsw (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Do I have to explain how many ways that violates WP:BLP policy? And please note that there is no 'case' and no 'charges' relating to Banon as yet - allegations of sexual offences (even if well-founded - we should make no assertions one way or another) should not be included in BLP's until, at a minimum, legal proceedings have begun. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please explain what in BLP excludes in an article a summary of a public accusation of a crime which has been widely reported in reliable sources. patsw (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Your 'summary' violates WP:NPOV: it makes no mention of the fact that DSK has denied the version of events given by Banon, or that (as the linked article notes) that a counter-complaint of slander has been raised. It is also fails to explain why this is of any relevance to the New York events, given that Banon has stated to the contrary - it is synthesis. This article isn't about determining whether DSK is a rapist, or indeed about anything other than the facts, as reported in reliable sources: 'facts' being matters relevant to the article topic, which isn't DSK's sexual morals, but a particular set of events surrounding an alleged sexual encounter in New York. This article was forked from the main bio on DSK because of the (perceived) need to cover the topic in further detail - to use it as a compendium of allegations would constitute a content fork. If and when the Banon 'case' becomes an issue of legal proceedings, it can be discussed in the main DSK article, or in a new one if necessary - in this article, it is off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
@ patsw, 7daysahead, Sameboat and Bob drobbs: see the section above and comment there if you like, regarding the editing behavior of Off2riorob, AndyTheGrump, ErrantX, CaptainScreebo and Wikiwatcher1 on this article. Benefac (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
See WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The above is not a personal attack; it is a criticism of your (plural) editing of this article. Ou tis (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for popping out of the woodwork to add to this scintillating debate, apparently you've been around on WP for a while, have you ever read WP:TAGTEAM and what it implies? In case you haven't:
  • "Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team."
  • "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil."
Have you looked at the article history? Myself, Andy and Errant have edited the article once each in the last 100 edits. Rob is often around on the BLPN and keeps an eye, Wikiwatcher has always been around and, although there is often disagreement, consensus amongst editors (not just those mentioned above) has been reached many times before. As this last editor points out above, [7], there are other editors who have been frequent or habitual contributors to this article who are not named, how come? And, yes, I do find unsubstantiated accusations of tag-teaming rude and quite outrageous really. CaptainScreebo Parley! 14:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Proposal. (modified) For the time being, add the link to Tristan Banon as a See also, annotated as "French journalist who has made an accusation of attempted rape against Strauss-Kahn, and whom Strauss-Kahn is thence counter-suing for slander.". That takes care of ATG's first two points. Relevance: Same charge levelled against the same person. Banon has stated to the contrary: False (contradicted by my Telegraph link above). Unless I see any good justifications as to why this sourced, neutral, relevant link should be added, I'll add it to the article on Monday. 7daysahead (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is about the events in New York, as the title makes clear. DSK has not been 'charged' with anything as yet regarding Banon. I will remove the link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
A "See also" link leads to related articles. If you wish, you may read my previous post with "Same charge" replaced by "Same accusation". You appear to be being deliberately obtuse; I repeat my intention to edit this article on Monday. If you revert it without good reason, I shall request the adjuducation of an administrator. 7daysahead (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Administrators don't 'adjudicate' content disputes. I suggest you wait for input for others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
If we start citing anyone who has had sexual relations with DSK, whether alleged or actual, attempted or consensual, we would need to remain neutral. That would include other RSs, such as "Dominique Strauss-Kahn not 'a drooling dog', claims porn star", for example. And more recently: "Anne Mansouret, mother of French journalist Tristane Banon, . . . admits that she too had sex with him." I agree with AndyTheGrump that it's better to stay focused to the article topic.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Then move this article to the more accurate title and change this a disambiguation index, it is now ambiguous. French official is investigating Banon's possible slander, thus constitute the "case" about sexual assault. I honestly don't see the reason that Banon's case (either allegation or counter-complained) doesn't belong here if the title does not specify which case exactly it is. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
If and when there are charges we should definitely do that, right now there is only one case, this one and its got nothing to do with Banon (the daughter not the mother)Off2riorob (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Tristane Banon another person that has accused Kahn of attempted rape. -

in an article about an attempted rape trial that seems a bit leading and undue to me.

What about...

Anne Mansouret who said she had sex with Kahn and that it was aggressive, she is also the mother of Tristane Banon who has also accused Kahn of attempted rape.

Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Should be "attempted rape." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - corrected. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, in an attempt to move towards consensus, I'm including the above suggestion by Off2riorob in the section "Support and opposition" (corrected for grammar). 7daysahead (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent me. I totally oppose your coatracking of additional allegations in this case article. I have removed them. Banons allegations article has already been deleted. Her unconfirmed and disputed legally allegations are notable only in her own life story, if there is ever a trial we will report them elsewhere then. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rob. The section added was nothing but a coatrack. There is no consensus whatsoever for its inclusion - and I suspect it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Seconded, this is about DSK and the maid in New York. The implosion of his political career and various accusations about his predatory habits concerning women, or alleged rape as is the case with Banon, will eventually end up in the main bio if and when they become notable and enduring. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Off2riorob: If you believe I have misrepresented you, accept my apologies. I have reread WP:Coatrack and disagree that it falls into any of the suggested categories. I opine that it is the adamant rejection of any mention of Tristane Banon which is NPOV, a view which seems to be shared by around half of those contributing to this talk page (yes, yes, WP is not a democracy; neither is it an autocracy). 7daysahead (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
No worries, its a difficult medium for clarity of expression and its easy to misread an assertion. As for the content - this article is about this trial, this case, adding tangential stuff like Banon's claim is a bit leading here - the kind of detail that would not be allowed as evidence in this trial and should not also be in our article about the trial - as if saying see he is a (add whatever here) because he has also done this. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I have to chime in here that they are related cases and not merely a Coatrack; the allegations are reported by reliable sources -- which by the way, is the most important thing involved in WP:BLP. We can exercise discretion. Waiting for legal proceedings to start simply plays in the hands of potential conflict of interest editors. We should also strive to corroborate our changes with the French Wikipedia. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 04:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Disputing a remark by 7daysahead right at the start here, it's not clear that it was the DSK affair that prompted Banon to file a complaint. In fact Michel Taubmann had published his official biography of DSK at the beginning of May. This was plainly designed to pave the way for a 2012 presidential bid by DSK and the entire last chapter was devoted to Banon's allegations, which were dismissed as a fantasy by Taubmann. Banon challenged the version of events portrayed there and was in consultation with her lawyers at the time the New York business blew up, but it does seem plausible that she would have filed a complaint to protect her reputation in any case. In fact the New York case initially prompted her not to file a complaint. It was only after DSK was freed from house-arrest that she filed. As for mentioning her in this article there simply isn't any good reason to do so until, when and if she is identified as a subject of interest and she hasn't been yet. The French article claims she was so right at the very first bail hearing but she was not directly named and that she was the individual referred to "from abroad" was just media speculation. In addition she herself, as well as her lawyer, have sought to distance herself from the case, so I really can't see why she should be mentioned in the article. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC) {for FM]

Why isn't there a summary of the alleged victim's public statements[edit]

I'm surprise that there isn't at least a short paragraph summarizing the public statements by the alleged victim, and the various comments regarding those public statements. Surely this should be included in the article?--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Support & Opposition" Section[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that the "Support and Opposition" section is almost exclusively opposition (to the allegations)? The only support (for the allegations) comes from LePen who is a much hated figure who was once tried in France for Holocaust Denial. All the opposition also seems to be people claiming that it is out of character for DSK to do this. Note that there are plenty of people who have openly stated that this was not the case. Take David Koubbi, a lawyer representing French writer Tristane Bannon. There is a whole article on Slate arguing the accusations are credible. The MSNBC anchor who interviewed the alleged victim also described her story as "credible". How are these any less notable than DSK's family and friends defending him? Furthermore, this section is very poorly named. "Support & Opposition" is very confusing. Perhaps "Reactions" is more appropriate? Poyani (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. You might want to re-post this above, in Section 1: "Is this article being maintained by Strauss-Kahn's PR agents?" Read and comment there, for further arguments supporting your point. Tks! Benefac (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested move[edit]

Instead of the current conjectural title, this article should be named People v. Strauss-Kahn, in accordance to thousands of other legal case articles on Wikipedia. Any objection? --bender235 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

None here - Such a title would only me a problem if there were multiple cases.Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Status of case is in limbo and could change soon. Maybe waiting a few days wouldn't hurt. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think WikiWatcher is probably right - if the prosecution us dropped, we'll probably have to rethink the article. If the case goes ahead, I'd agree with the move: it seems to be the norm for articles of this type. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that would alter the title correction, it would still be People v. Strauss-Kahn wouldn't it? only the people decided not to progress? ... anyway, it looks like I won't be having to eat my hat, which is good. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the appropriate format would actually be New York v. Strauss-Kahn, rather than "People". Also, I'm not sure about the naming convention. There are a number of article titles that don't follow it, such as Kobe Bryant sexual assault case (which would seem fairly similar, especially if the criminal charges are ultimately dropped as they were for Kobe). A title like "People v. ..." can also be self-limiting. For example, the main article on the Casey Anthony trial is actually Death of Caylee Anthony, but that covers far more material than just the single trial. Personally, I think it is best to let things shake out for a little while before deciding what to do here. Dragons flight (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Yws, that seems like a reasonable position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why (dismissed charges)? Is it the convention of Wikipedia to add the disposition of the case to each article title? As in "New Jersey v. Doe (guilty)' or "Connecticut v. Roe (not guilty)"? patsw (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dismissed charges are not, guilty or, not guilty verdicts - they are - no case to answer, as such - there is no case, no trial , no assertion of anything apart from no action in relation ot the rejected allegations, and as I see it that is worthy of inclusion in the title - I have asked my legal amigo to comment - I am open to discussion coming up with a better title but considering the dropping of the case I do think the title needs to reflect that - Off2riorob (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary for the title. The lede should clear state within the first few lines that the case was dismissed or even in the first line, but having it in the title is a bit much and surely against case naming convention. SilverserenC 03:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
"surely" ? Off2riorob (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Surely, as in i've seen a significant number of articles on court cases and i've never seen a title used as it is here. However, I am not saying that such a title doesn't exist, I just find it highly unlikely. Shouldn't we move this discussion over to somewhere like Wikiproject Law to get their view on it? SilverserenC 03:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, good idea, if you could post a comment asking them to comment here that would be beneficial indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Asked. SilverserenC 03:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Parentheses are for title disambiguation only. Hence the new title is wrong on its face, since there are no other "New York v. Strauss-Kahn" articles. If people really wanted to add "dismissed charges" to the title it would need to be "New York v. Strauss-Kahn dismissed charges", i.e. without parentheses, which would seem to violate the style guides that titles should be as simple as possible. Also, I'm not so hot on the move, since it seems to preemptively exclude discussion of the Diallo v. Strauss-Kahn civil suit, which otherwise would seem a natural section here. Perhaps, it makes more sense to follow the Kobe Bryant example noted above and simply keep it at Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case (or something similar) that discusses both the outcome of the criminal and civil proceedings. Dragons flight (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm - the civil case will likely steamroll in the same direction as the criminal case. Diallo v. Strauss-Kahn civil suit -is an available title... I don't want to see the article under the sex title - considering the lack of a trial and the dismissing of the charges - rejection of the allegations - it now appears undue to label the subject under any kind of titillating title. Also -moving to New York v. Strauss-Kahn won't allow any addition of content about a civil claim from the woman as such would have nothing to do with the dismissed criminal allegations. Off2riorob (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
"Strauss-Kahn sexual assault allegations"? Which could cover the criminal and civil case, and perhaps also the Tristane Banon allegations. The various cases and allegations are certainly verifiable and make a lot of noise in the news, but personally I'd prefer to avoid expanding this into multiple pages for each allegation and case. Dragons flight (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Such a title with Basnons claims - without conviction and this dismissed allegation with its related civil claim would imo all put together be totally undue and a likely policy violation. Banons claims already sit happily in her bio and the civil issue is not even notworthy yet and may never be and the charges on this are dismissed - Off2riorob (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
If we look at an extreme case article, O.J. Simpson, there is only an article about his trial, not the civil suit. Nor is there an article about his later criminal case for multiple serious felonies, like kidnapping, which he's serving time for. Why not just remove the parenethical phrase? The civil suit is already noted. Simpson's civil case was for multiple wrongful deaths, and was able to use the criminal case as evidence. Yet there is no article for it. Without any criminal case for DSK, the civil suit may not amount to much more than minor news clips. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There is an article for OJ's second criminal trial: O. J. Simpson robbery case. Also, O. J. Simpson murder case has a section on the corresponding civil trial. Dragons flight (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
@Off2riorob. Respectfully, I disagree. The widely reported allegations don't vanish simply because the courts reject them (unfortunately). We can and should tell people prominently that criminal charges were withdrawn in New York. Eventually, we may also tell people that the civil case was dropped (or settled or failed or whatever) and that Banon's criminal complaint in France was resolved. Nonetheless the allegations (and the various cases) are a sad but memorable part of DSK's history that still warrant a place in Wikipedia and I don't think there is anything undue about dedicating space to them (nor using the titles mentioned above). A substantial part of that space should be explaining why New York found Diallo's allegations not credible, but that is nonetheless a discussion of the allegations. Dragons flight (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Currently Banon's claims are noteworthy only in her life story. The dismissed criminal allegations have their own article , so there isn't an issue, is there? Please note, I didn't compare with OJ. We have spent the last month or two keeping at the tangential content out of this article and I still object to suggestions to centralize a bunch of unproven and rejected criminal and civil issues in a single location titled under such as sexual allegations against ..... Off2riorob (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Prosecution recommending dropping of all charges[edit]

Reporting that the Prosecution is recommending dropping of all charges - looks like a rewrite will be required - if the case doesn't go ahead. Off2riorob (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If indeed all charges are dropped, then I think that this article should be deleted: a short one-paragraph summary in the main article on DSK should suffice.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The charges have been dropped. I oppose deletion of this article. patsw (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The article will need a recent rewrite to remove all recentism from it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

televised bail hearing[edit]

The article mentions the arraignment and the television coverage of the preliminary bail hearing, but does not explain why the bail hearing was televised. So far all the sources I've found say bail is usually set at the arraignment, i.e. it's the same hearing, and arraignments are not usually televised if a party objects.[8][9] (Alleged "perp walks" outside of court are sometimes televised, but in-court arraignment hearings usually are not.) The article should explain why DSK's bail hearing was televised, but so far I can't find any WP:RS to explain it; does anyone know of anything?TVC 15 (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been rephrased as per your correct impressions and sources. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete this article?[edit]

We have two proposals for deletion of this article, see Talk:New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn#Prosecution_recommending_dropping_of_all_charges and one proposal to rewrite it. Can we have further comments please?--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It could probably do wih a significant rewrite in the light of recent events, although not a drastic one, but no way should it be deleted. This has been a very high-profile case. PatGallacher (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The massive press coverage surrounding this case cannot be undone, and besides it has created a separate issue involving European perceptions of the American judicial process, so I think deleting the article would probably be a mistake. Certain aspects of the case seemed inconsistent with the presumption of innocence; in particular, the first judge's unusual decision to deny bail at the arraignment and instead schedule a televised bail hearing (at which the defendant appeared unshaven after days in jail) should be explained, but so far I can only find blogs.[10] By the time of the dismissal, there was a different judge. Alas most of the daily/weekly WP:RS presented the case as a sequel in their perennially salable continuing narratives, e.g. 'battle of the sexes' or 'banker vs maid', with much opinion and speculation but little reporting. Hopefully now that the deadline-driven rush for scoops has ended, we might see some WP:RS putting the case in context.TVC 15 (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This claim "it has created a separate issue involving European perceptions of the American judicial process," - isn't relevent to keeping this article. You can create European perceptions of the American judicial process if you think its a notable topic and include some detail about this case. I agree that the article is a clear keeper and that if the newsy tittilating content is removed/rewritten it will be much improved/more encyclopedic-ally valuable. Off2riorob (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit this article?[edit]

The article has been generally kept lean throughout it existence. The editing that is required is remove some speculation and anticipation of the outcome of the criminal case. This has been done to a large extent already. Some things are moot in light of the dismissal. patsw (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example from the introduction which I would remove because its significance has been mooted by the dismissal.

I put this on the talk page, rather than deleting it immediately, just to get a sense if other editors share a common understanding of what I mean by moot information. patsw (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The time period from when the case was first considered "near collapse," until finally dismissed, nearly two months later, is relevant. It's been implied in the cites that had he not been able to post the extreme $5 million bail, he might have been kept at Riker's Island jail during that two-month period, instead of just being subjected to the perp walk in front of American papparazzi, and having to live under house arrest in the center ring of our media circus.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the first sentence you wrote. That being conceded, does it belong in the introduction?
Regarding the implication (what I would call speculation) in your second sentence, if the "near collapse" public disclosure had occurred while he was still on Riker's, a successful motion for release pending trial would have been inevitable. patsw (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the dated events, a sentence each, give a fuller chronology of the three key turning points in the case. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unnamed Section[edit]

Commenting about your personal view of the case is not appropriate, especially if BLP comes into play (which does apply just as strongly to talk pages. This is not going anywhere except a fight - Borgmcklorg, if you want ot suggest changes/additions then do so. But without the commentary please --Errant (chat!) 13:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Edit this article indeed, the accuser becomes the accused and the accused gets to play some kind of victim when he clearly has a history of this kind of behaviour. Prosecution also did not serve their client with any good faith, in fact going out of their way to undermine their case (with Cyrus Vance Jr. in charge, it is hard to believe that was not political, and US sources openly speculate on that).
An 'evidence' section (semen, bruising, other evidence of sexual assault) might help if wikipedia is really a project to make an encyclopedia, all of those points have been stated in the press. The perpetrator is certainly no less a dubious character than the woman he attacked.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Our personal views on the case are irrelevant. We include only what is notable and is what is stated in verifiable, reputable sources. I would, however, argue that this case is notable, even if it is dismissed, given its impact on a very notable figure and in ripples outwards. Whether it needs its own article, however, is probably a greyer area. 204.65.34.167 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and Strauss-Kahn's special project team assembled after the charge was filed (private investigators, dodgy lawyers, former disinformationists at security agencies: also on reliable sources) doesn't have any input to Wikipedia? Really, truly?Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Borg: Please refrain from ad-hominem attacks on the editors who, as far as I can tell, have worked very hard to produce a balanced and well-referenced article. 204: My view is that the event is indeed notable and must be mentioned in the main article on DSK. But there is no need for the detailed sub-article, because, at the end of the day, the story can be told in one paragraph: there were allegations, the alleged victim was found not to be sufficiently credible to go to trial, so the case was dismissed.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note, I have reported Borgmcklorg's violation of WP:BLP policy in his/her first comment above at AN/I: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Violation_of_WP:BLP_policy_at_Talk:New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Common?[edit]

A Newsweek/Daily Beast poll found it was common for married men to cheat on their wives on business trips, with 3% of poll respondents claiming to have "made a pass at a hotel worker."

I believe this sentence needs to be rethought, as quoting a figure of 3% doesn't do justice to the assertion that the practice is "common." 69.174.87.20 (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

To call this poll relevant to New York v. Strauss-Kahn requires the bias of the editors of Newsweek/Daily Beast which I do not share. It makes assumptions about "married men", "cheating", and "hotel workers" that are not established as facts in the Wikipedia article. This is the sort of superficial speculation that appears in blogs. patsw (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence in question. Unless the union refers to the poll, we shouldn't - and it should be sourced directly from NewsWeek, not from the Daily Beast's spin on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

State of New York or City of New York v. Strauss-Kahn[edit]

We have New York v. Strauss-Kahn. Was this a case brought by the City of New York or the State of New York? The title shouldn't just say New York, given that New York, on its own, can mean the County of New York (Manhattan), New York City or New York State. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's only ambiguous if you are unfamiliar with the US legal system. Neither the city nor the county would be expected to have laws dealing with sex crimes. It is a state issue. I think this style of naming is pretty common and the normal expectation of New York v. XXX is always state since nearly all serious crimes are state crimes. If it were a city or county matter, I would expect to see New York City v. XXX, etc., but New York by itself in a court case title would be surprising only if it wasn't referring to the state. Dragons flight (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Concur with Dragons flight. When not otherwise marked, the default assumption is that the words "New York" in a case name always mean the state. City is added only where necessary for clarity. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The correct name of the case is People v. Strauss-Khan. In New York, all criminal cases are brought in the name of the People. The full name of the case is The People of the State of New York v. Dominique Strauss-Khan. To call a case NY v. XYZ is unheard of and totally not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.43.58 (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Can someone change the page title to "People v. Strauss-Kahn", "People of the State of New York v. Strauss-Kahn", or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.142 (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Including information about Diallo's gang rape story.[edit]

I'm surprised to see that there is no mention of Diallo's fabricated gang rape story. Many reliable sources are reporting that this is one of the main reasons the prosecutors stopped trusting her and recommended that the case be dropped.

Important points to cover:

  • She told the story to prosecutors twice, over a two week period.
  • The story was extremely persuasive and detailed. Told with great emotion and conviction. Including tears, halting speech and pointing out scars that were supposedly from the attack.
  • When she finally admitted that the story was fabricated she at first said that she made up the attack to be consistent with her asylum application. But it turned out that this too was untrue -- as her asylum application makes no mention of any gang rape.

I tried being bold and wrote up a three paragraph version -- with was reverted as being too long. Then I wrote up a one paragraph version -- which was also reverted.

Below is my suggested addition:

Also, Diallo told a compelling and detailed story of being gang raped by soldiers in Guinea -- that was completely fabricated. Over a two week period she told the story to prosecutors twice. Both times with great emotion, precision, and conviction, including: tears; halting speech; the number and nature of her attackers; pointing out scars that were supposedly from the attack; and how her 2-year old daughter was present. When she finally admitted that the story was fabricated, she at first said that she made up the attack to be consistent with her asylum application. But that too turned out to be untrue -- as her asylum application makes no mention of any gang rape.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

I'm not attached to the wording -- but it seems that the above bullet points are central to a hugely important turning point in the case: the prosecutors no longer trusting the witness. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed some of the not needed externals and the quotes in the citations - the issue is not complicated - the victim lied about having been raped in guinea. 00:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We will see comment[edit]

This recent addition - its of no value at all imo. Its says nothing at all, gives no additional detail to the reader. When we have seen whatever we can add that then. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we may be able to take a look. The New York Review of Books website is showing gateway time outs right now. New questions raised over Dominique-Strauss Kahn case is a Guardian story on a New York Review of Books DSK case investigative report. Seems like the maybe bugged missing Blackberry was switched off at 12.51 pm, and other stuff - success of the scheme celebrated on camera. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It might clear up the confusion if we had a verifiable timeline of the events on the day in question.

It seems that the new material should be included in the article. I'll try to incorporate it and will also trim some redundant details from a few other sections. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

DSK TimeLine[edit]

(Morning) DSK alerted via text msgs that his IMF BlackBerry allegidly hacked by unknown operatives.

10:07 DSK calls his Wife in Paris on his IMF BlackBerry.

12:05 Key records show that Sofitel room service employee Syed Haque enters room 2806.

12:06 Key records show that hotel maid Nafissatou Diallo entered room 2806 at this time.

12:06-12:13 DNA evidence show sexual encounter took place between Diallo and Strauss-Kahn.

12:13 DSK speaks to daughter Camille on his BlackBerry for forty seconds.

12:26 PM Diallo enters room 2820, another VIP suite on the same floor.

12:28 DSK checks out of Hotel Sofital and goes to "early lunch" with daughter Camille and her boyfriend.

12:** Hotel maid Nafissatou Diallo reports alleged sexual assault.

12:42 Diallo and head of housekeeping Renata Markozani reenter room 2806, the presidential suite.

12:52 Diallo and head of housekeeping Renata Markozani arrive at hotel’s security office on the ground floor.

12:51 BlackBerry GPS circuitry disabled according to the records of the BlackBerry company.

12:54 DSK arrives at McCormick & Schmick’s restaurant on Sixth Avenue

1:03 John Sheehan of Accor Group's security, gets a call from Sofitel and goes to the hotel. On the way dials Accor the parent company of the Sofitel.

1:28 Sheehan, still on the way to the hotel, sent a text message to Brian Yearwood, Hotel chief engineer.

1:30 Sheehan also sends another text msg to unidentified recipient.

1:31 Adrian Branch, hotel security chief, places a 911 call to the police.

1:32 Hotel chief engineer Brian Yearwood and unidentified man do a high-five dance for 3-minutes near the security office.

2:04 Brian Yearwood, unidentified man and hotel manager Florian Schutz arrive at service door leading to 45th Street.

2:05 Police arrive and escort Diallo to a room across from the security office.

2:15 DSK exits restaurant and goes to airport, discovers IMF BlackBerry is missing

2:16 DSK calls daughter Camille and asks her to search for missing phone in restaurant.

2:28 Daughter Camille sends DSK text message saying she couldn't find missing IMF BlackBerry.

2:30 Nafissatou Diallo shown photo of DSK by hotel’s security people.

3:01 DSK approaching airport, phones his missing BlackBerry.

3:29 DSK calls hotel saying he has left his phone behind.

3:38 police take Diallo to St. Luke’s Hospital, where they formally interview her.

3:42 DSK calls back and a hotel employee in the presence of police detective John Mongiello informs DSK that the phone has been found. DSK says he's at JFK airport for a 4:26 flight to Paris.

4:45 DSK removed from plane and taken into custody.

[8] [9] [10]

Microphage (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

New York Review of Books: What Really Happened to Strauss-Kahn?[edit]

Here is a very well-reported new piece from the New York Review of Books that walks the reader moment-by-moment through the day in question. If nobody has time to incorporate new information from this into the article, I may eventually try to do it myself. http://media.nybooks.com/strauss.html Sue Gardner (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in now. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Title descriptive?[edit]

Hey all,

Has there been previous discussion on this article's title? It strikes me that "New York v. Strauss-Kahn" is terribly non-descriptive. Anyone done any work to see if a common name can be established? NickCT (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't get much response to my previous post, I've noticed that Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case redirects to this page. Frankly, I think I prefer that title. Would anyone oppose a move? NickCT (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I would oppose it as ambiguous, as it could also describe the Banon business. Mezigue (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Strauss-Kahn Diallo sexual assault case? NickCT (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it is best to leave it as it is. No title will be simple, and people will in any case mostly be directed here from the DSK page. Mezigue (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Mezigue. In addition I think it's a good title. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

New York v. Strauss-Kahn[edit]

(These are remarks moved from Light show's (ex Wikiwatcher1) Talk Page):

I see you have reversed a number of my recent edits here. I haven't looked in details at them, but it appears you object to my use of quotations in citations.

I don't know of any Wikipedia policy that discourages their use. Now that fly-by citations have been incorporated in Wikipedia, I should have thought them especially useful.

What is your objection please? Unless I can see a convincing rationale I propose to reintroduce them.

Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The two key components of WP are its articles and sources, and cites should not be used as a way to bypass the article body. Otherwise, someone clicking on the source will be forced to read an editor's selected excerpts or long quotations that may not belong in the article.--Light show (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:LONGQUOTE gives this guidance: "Longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a footnote to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability."
For example in the passage about Paris Match publishing Diallo's name, I added a remark saying that their piece included appraisals of her attractiveness(one of the issues that provoked feminsist criticism in France at the time because it was blatantly sexist in nature) and quoted the relevant passage in the citation precisely for that reason. Why did you delete it?
Can I clarify whether you are an administrator, or what your role in Wikipedia is? From your edits and your response here, one would imagine that you have some kind of policing role, but I cannot discern any such. A glance at your Talk page suggests that you generally involve yourself with providing images of celebrities. I also notice that you were recently blocked for edit-warring.
Of course if an edit of mine is factually incorrect, or wilfully contentious and the like, then it should be reversed. But I don't see why they should be reversed in this manner by an editor merely because she disagrees with them (this is precisely what you have been criticised for in the past).
Will you please undo your edits or provide a proper rationale for them. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The Longquote use in one instance served no purpose since it repeated the relevant quotes already in the section. However, by adding a 50-word quote from an attorney beyond that, it took on characteristics of expressing one attorney's personal philosophy in general, which seems irrelevant. The Paris Match article included a 100-word excerpt from the magazine, in French. I'm not an admin, but thanks for reminding me I was once blocked. I don't revert material because I don't agree with it, but only if it's against WP guidelines. As your comments here imply, you are a quick-learning newbie and obviously know the guidelines, with an impressive ability to do complex edits after only your third effort. Good work overall. --Light show (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The reason the Paris Match quotation is in French is because Paris Match is a French magazine. That it is in French is another reason to leave it in the citation.
The Thompson quote is what was in the source, neith more nor less. What Brafaman said for Strauss-Kahn is repeated in full, and so should be what Thompson quoted. Before I made my edit nothing of Thompson was quoted, violating NPOV as I noted in my edit description. Quoting a small part of it and leaving the rest to the citation is entirely within WP:LONGQUOTE guidelines. Of course Thompson wasn't "soap-boxing". I don't doubt that editors try to soap-box on Wikipedia, but Thompson wasn't making an edit on Wikipedia: he was addressing the American people, and the events he was addressing were very much on the world-stage at the time - effectively he was addressing the world. The whole remark is very notable and worthy of record.
You are not an administrator or any kind of Wikipedia functionary. The material you have reversed is not against WP guidelines. On the contrary they are entirely within WP:LONGQUOTE guidelines (and to find them I merely had to Google "Wikipedia quotation guidelines" - it's the 4th hit down on my servers). Will you now please reverse your edits forthwith, or I shall do so myself. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a better way of adding a quote than the method you used, IMO. For example, DSK's attorney's comment related to the facts of the case, and was a general explanation of their intended defense. However, Diallo's attorney was clearly digressing in his comments, for instance, "The victim wants you to know that all of Dominique Strauss-Kahn's power, money and influence throughout the world do not keep the truth about what he did to her in that hotel . . . and she is standing up for all women and children around the world . . ." The section this was in was "Arrest and indictment," and not a section called "Attorney speeches to the American people," or "World stage." In any case, the citations have links to the full article. If you can add a balancing quote that directly relates to the specific subject of the section, then that should be fine.
Since only a tiny proportion of the article's readers read French, a 100-word quote from Paris Match, a French tabloid, adds only clutter to the footnotes. The link is already there for those who want to read the full article.--Light show (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
First of all you have moved this discussion from your Talk Page. Secondly I see from your User Page that you were previously the user Wikiwatcher1, responsible for the POV editing of Epstein's discredited report in the article that had been allowed to stand unchallenged for so long (even Strauss-Khan has distanced himself from Epstein's piece, of which it can be fairly said that what was new was not true and what was true was not new).
You are evidently unconscious that what you are actually doing here is criticising Kenneth Thompson, and not a Wikipedia edit.
I frankly don't see the point of continuing this discussion with you and I am restoring my edits forthwith. I have worked hard these past few days correcting errors here, restoring balance and filling lacunae (a full six months before an editor thought to record that the Diallo lawsuit had been settled) and I don't see why my efforts should be treated like this. If dealing with kind of unpleasantness is what editing Wikipedia involves, similar to suffering abuse on Twitter, then I shan't wish to continue, but I shall see my work through here. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk)
What "work" are you trying to "see through" here? As 60 of your only 62 contributions to WP have revolved around DSK, note that edits by single purpose accounts are inherently non-neutral. Add to that your desire to engage in personal attacks, and you might want to study the Guidelines forthwith.--Light show (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)