Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn

State of New York or City of New York v. Strauss-Kahn

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)

We will see comment

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)

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

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?

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

(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)