Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Allegations of previous sexual misconduct

I think the article should mention previous misconduct behaviours of Dominique Strauss-Kahn in others affairs (Tristane Banon case or Piroska Nagy for example).

  • In 2007, Tristane Banon, a French journalist and writer, accused Strauss-Kahn of a sexual assault in 2002, but she did not press charges.[1][2][3][4][5]
  • In 2008, the IMF Board appointed an independent investigator following allegations that Strauss-Kahn had had an affair with a subordinate, Piroska Nagy. Nagy alleged that Strauss-Kahn had used his position to coerce her into the affair.[6] The IMF board issued the findings of the investigation, noting that the affair was "regrettable and reflected a serious error of judgment on the part of the managing director".[7][8] Strauss-Kahn issued a public apology for the affair.

My contribution is always deleted by the user "Wikiwatcher1", I think that's not fair. What do you think ? Esthertree (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

L'anglais de l'addition est un peu mal. Je suis devesté =(. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The correct translation in french of "the english of the addition is a bit bad. I am sorry" should be "le style grammatical de votre ajout en anglais est un peu mauvais, je suis désolé". But I appreciate that you did it in french :p ... Please, feel free to put right my english rather than delete all my contribution :) Thanks ... Esthertree (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Why is the accuser not named? U.S. media haven't disclosed it but French media have; I'm wondering if Wikipedia has a policy on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

yes there is a policy about that; but I can not explain it properly. Check out the discussion at [1] and you will find links to the actual policy as well as various opinions about it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

French reaction

This section lacks solid reference. Martine Aubry crying? What is the relevance and source of this?

This is also the reaction of the French socialist or Jewish intelligentsia. There were many other voices which dissented with these opinions, especially among the conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


The fsct is Dominique Strauss-Kahn has very serious allegations against him. Keeping this separate from his regular bio is unfair, even if people say that he is presumed innoccent. The article alleges certain acts, and does not indict him. But this is a fact of his biography and should be part of the regular bio page only. Rajeshbg38 (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Propose merge (and redirect) back to the main article. Per the talk page (here) consensus is to avoid a split at this time. The event is not notable as a standalone event at this stage, this article is a product of WP:RECENTISM --Errant (chat!) 23:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep split: Per explanation about its undue weight to news. It has effectively undermined the biography.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • That doesn't strike me as a good reason to split the content out, but one to reduce the content in the biography! At the moment this event would probably not survive AFD. --Errant (chat!) 00:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Merge and reduce the section in the bio to something less "shock horror scandal" and less minute-by-minute reporting. CaptainScreebo Parley! 01:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not even sure pruning is possible at this point. The article already has four sizable case-related sections. The first paragraph alone has 10 citations. Yet the first 1,000 words in his career sections has only a few. Nor does there seem to be a mad rush to trim cites; and who's got the guts and time to do that kind of surgery and effectively rewrite those sections?
He hasn't even pled in front of a judge yet! But how can this large section be trimmed when new case stories keep evolving, such as in todays Telegraph, which is now reporting that the NYPD's version is being challenged by new witnesses? In any case, actions speak louder than words, and no one sees a problem with high-calorie additions like this one:
"Kurt Taylor Gaubatz, an Old Dominion University associate professor, wrote that the IMF's limited form of diplomatic immunity, known as "acts immunity", is most likely inapplicable as it "only covers actions taken in the course of his duties".
Those are a few more reasons a split is more logical, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep split. Over 800,000 people have viewed the main article in the past five days, no doubt primarily to read about this event. RS coverage has been correspondingly robust. This should be augmented with material that has been deleted from the bio. At the end of the day, this should actually be larger than the corresponding entry in the bio (and that entry pared down to more summary form). Having a split would mirror what we just did with the Bin Laden article; with an event of this notability, about a notable person, at the end of the day two articles are in order. I recognize that some editors, such as wikiwatcher, would feel more comfortable reflecting certain information if it were in this article, rather than in the bio.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    • It's nice that people are reading us for news, but we cannot compromise the core mission of the Wiki to pander to that. Which is why Wikinews exists; that is the appropriate place for this material. In addition this article is undue; you are suggesting something almost as long as his biography based on mass media coverage, considering he is in his 60's and was head of the IMF through an extremely notable financial period it concerns me that just because he is accused of a sexual allegation it requires so much coverage by comparison. Also, this event is not yet notable - he has been charged, but not been convicted and jailed - if it gets to that point your argument has merit. Until that point the whole article is a BLP violation. You have confused a significant event in a notable persons life with an independently notable event. This is purely a product of recentism and does not have historical signifiance worth making an article. --Errant (chat!) 08:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Please compare this article with the first two sections from the bio covering the case to date. It seems to cover the essence of the events in a more summary form. A merge/replacement with some added cites might be an option.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the (current) content that is here is perfect for our coverage at this stage. --Errant (chat!) 08:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep split. Concern are on the DSK article that it is already too long, which thus need to be pruned. There are still facts and analysis coming out about this cases, which thus need expansion. A separate article is need. Yug (talk · contribs) 08:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge - It is not clear if this is going to have any long-standing significance. WP:NOTNEWS Mtking (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It already have big significance for French politics. With over than 20.000 news articles counted by google news, it's already a major sex scandal and year's event. Yug (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. It is a current event, and it is news; however, it has already had a lasting impact on his life, and more importantly, it has resulted in a variety of broader impacts for French politics and the IMF. We don't know where things will end up, but whether he is innocent or guilty, I really can't imagine any outcome where this case doesn't stand on its own as a notable event. In twenty years, there will undoubtedly still be people who want to know about the facts and history of the court case that tore apart the life of a prominent French politician. In general, Wikipedia has the potential to be pretty good at putting news events of enduring significance in an appropriate context (e.g. 2011 Nakba Day, Fort Hood Shooting, etc.). So far, we generally haven't done that here. Some people have been too intent at inserting trivial minutiae. (Ask yourself, after this case is ultimately closed, is anyone still likely to care? If not, the detail probably isn't encyclopedic.) At the same time other people have been ridiculously aggressive about trying to prune down the content. This can be a good event topic but it needs room to develop into one. Dragons flight (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
it has resulted in a variety of broader impacts for French politics and the IMF; do you have a source that analyses this impact?
it has already had a lasting impact on his life; well, it has had an impact, hard to call it lasting prior to a trial - or indeed days after the event... even then, a significant event happening to a notable person is not automatically notable.
In twenty years, there will undoubtedly still be people who want to know about the facts and history of the court case that tore apart the life of a prominent French politician.; speculation (that it will tear apart his life), also, if people want to know the nitty gritty details in 20 years the sources will be there for all the news material. ANd if you all went and wrote some good Wikinews coverage that would be there too. We do summary, not riveting detail (for example; the Wright Brothers summarises their lives, it doesn't pick apart their every action on their crowning achievement in 1903 - we have source books which provide that detail).
Some people have been too intent at inserting trivial minutiae. indeed, I still haven't seen an explanation for why a separate article helps with this!
This can be a good event topic but it needs room to develop into one.; usually, when you start to say something like this in relation to a BLP, pause and consider whether your in NOTNEWS territory - especially when the event is a sex allegation and court case.
TL;DR; nothing there convinced me that this is an independantly notable event. --Errant (chat!) 13:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
In the world, an major international institution leader resigning after a sex assault. In France, DSK, front runner for the upcoming French election, will not be able to join. That's already one of the majors (the major) scandal this year. Yug (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
No, he didn't resign "...after a sex assault." He resign after an "alleged" sex assault. See the difference?TMCk (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
(add) So at this stage we having nothing more than a serious rumor going on.TMCk (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
...and we don't know what the scandal is or will be (and wp is no tabloid).TMCk (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • ...and therefore: merge usefull information and purche the rest.TMCk (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep split and expand. Epeefleche makes a convincing argument, though I do think we need to be very careful per TMCk's comment above. Steven Walling 18:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge. If we report this issue with due regard to policy, and bearing in mind that this is not a newspaper, the necessary details can all go in the main DSK article. Speculations about conspiracies, and about DSK's future, do not belong here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep split. This is an event in itself with plentiful coverage in reliable sources and both national and international significance. Quigley (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
We write from a historical viewpoint (not a "it's in the news" viewpoint); Therefore your argument doesn't do well with wp policy.TMCk (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The abrupt downfall of one of the most powerful politicians in the Western World is surely of historical significance. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep split and expand. The legal proceeding has obvious notability, and there already are complaints on the DSK talk page that coverage of the legal proceeding is overwhelming the article. As the case goes on, it can be expected to involve developments and people (the counsel, judge, victim, etc.) that are only peripherally related to DSK, so I see a split at some point as inevitable, and there is no reason not to go ahead and do it now. John M Baker (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep split Not sure why we have a deletion debate and a merge debate open at the same time, but this should be kept split. WP:NOTNEWS in no way says that events currently in the news are ineligible for articles. (please excuse my double negative) This event will quickly overwhelm the parent article with undue weight. Many users seem to take the BLP policy much too far, there is nothing wrong with reporting about this event and its effects so long as we stick to high-quality reliable sources. As I said on the deletion discussion, this is more than just some gossip report in the New York Post. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep split As per arguments stated above. This is probably the best and most neutral article I've read so far of a very sensationalist case. Overweighting this in a biography would undermine the neutrality of the biography, and under-weighting the issue in this article would undermine the importance of the legal case. --soulscanner (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a heads up; I am in the process of merging a lot of the detail from his biography over to here, because we have a situation where some detail is in the bio, and some here, and it gets a bit confusing :) It seems consensus is against me on this one, I still disagree with this article, but nothing I can do about that now. However, I think that the right approach now is to work on the detail here and leave a summary in the bio. --Errant (chat!) 09:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree FightingMac (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The potential problem will be keeping a blitz of future daily news items, especially sex-related details, from overwhelming the article as the case begins. In the bio, there was a natural tendency to add cut-and-paste news items, all from RSs, which drowned the context in a flood of minutia. But there was almost no effort to later trim and prune old and less significant details because they were sourced. Some of the trivia would be thrown in with as many as 5 citations, and no doubt casual editors are fearful of pruning other editors' work. And how can one label material trivia without using a POV? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


Major content deletion


  1. details: for the detailed report of the assault : yes, in a such case, all in played within minutes (assault), or hours (escape?). If DSK was or wasn't in his room at 12:15 matter.
  2. expanding : if we want an proper article, better to include content : list of charges, FMI crisis, French politic change ; US-French opinion's gap (French shocked), at least mentioning these issues.
  3. redundancy: the introduction should be shortened, though (or better, moved to DSK's article, and move the DSK's assault section into Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case)
  4. outline: without a shorter introduction, and a clearly divided outline, this article will not develop smoothly.

Yug (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't we move the "Conspiracy theories of a set-up" and "Proceedings" sections from DSK's article to this one? The conspiracy theories in particular are not directly relevant to him, but to the case itself. So it would be better suited for this article. Laurent (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I also think we should, especially for the conspiracy theories, which seems to have no ground, and are much more like some urban legend. Clearly useless in the DSK article.19:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Expansion, but with context, to avoid simple news collections. As this article is a rehash of what's in the bio, and still lacks a consensus, it's probably not really a "main article." Pending more input, I'll remove the hatnote from the bio but will copy and try to summarize material from that article to this one without objections. The problem I see is that this article, from comments above, could be deleted. But the subject in the bio is already too large in proportion so it's becoming harder to include much more. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I frankly don't think it will be deleted. An american reporter said it's all the Monica Levisky affair (sex), and Bernard Madoff affair (highest level of finance). Google news already have 20.000 related article. So, don't worry for the deletion, this scandal is big enough. Yug (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
If it goes to AFD, deletion is pretty much guaranteed I'm afraid. Making an article out of a sex allegation barely a few days after it goes down will barely survive. Amount of Google news hits is, well, pretty irrelevant - find me a modern news story that doesn't get 10's of thousands of GNews hits. I was giving the creators here the benefit of the doubt by proposing a merge rather than taking it to AFD. --Errant (chat!) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikiwatcher, if you agree, I would like to restore the reverted sections, move the Conspiracy section here, and to let see how this article expand in the next 3~4 days. Out of this free data collection, an new outline of topics will emerge, and a clean up (deleting meaningless details and gossips) will be welcome. Yug (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but "expanding gossip" and then cleaning up the mess is not logical. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
POV. Your revert's explanation for 15 sources is "all gossip, delete" ?.
I try to keep the page working on, while some, 2 user as far as I know, keep deleting whole pages contributed by likely over than 15 different users.
So yes, first collect items, then check coolly the page, and delete one by onee irrelevants statements. Carefully. Yug (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It's easier to stay healthy than it is to cure sickness.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Good one and true.TMCk (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It's easier to cut the two legs than to cure sickness.
According to your action : delete about 15 sources, and about 20-30 statements with one simple explanation : "gossip".
The sections we are seeing emerging (political impact) contain the same statements that the ones you deletes (#Consequences). Again, delete 20 different sourced statements with one light explanation is something I never saw before. Yug (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As the content is now expanded I have put the article up for discussion. This is a news article and out of scope of our coverage. It gives undue weight to a sex scandal which has attained news coverage by virtue of being about sex ;) As such it is a BLP violation. --Errant (chat!) 20:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not just a sex scandal, although it's obvious from the obsession with what SDK actually is alleged actually to have done that it has precipitated prurient interest. First and foremost it's a criminal case FightingMac (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"However, details of the events described by the victim are being challenged by other witnesses"

I've flagged this with 'not in citation given'. The UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph indeed has a paragraph in the cited source claiming that the maid's story was being challenged by other employees. But the report was based on an AFP report repeated verbatim here (in turn apparently based on a French police source) and there's no suggestion in the original that the account conflicts with the maid's version. In other words it's speculation by The Telegraph and an example I should say of what to expect to come from this article (and of course the other hotel employee was not a 'witness'). FightingMac (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(added) My good faith 'not in citation given' template has been removed and replaced by a report in "Another witness surfaces in Strauss-Kahn affair" which quotes this time a German press agency quoting 'Le Parisien and BFM TV (are we perhaps seeing a pattern here?) as saying

France's Le Parisien daily and BFM television quoted police and hotel sources as saying a male employee was clearing away breakfast in Strauss-Kahn's Sofitel suite when the maid arrived.
Finding the door ajar, she pushed it open and entered the room, Le Parisien quoted police as saying.
When the other employee told her she could go ahead and clean the room, she fetched her cleaning trolley, the report added.
At that point, the other employee left, according to the report.
The maid told police that, when she came to clean the room, a naked Strauss-Kahn emerged from his bathroom and sexually assaulted her.

Again there is no suggestion that this conflicts with maid's account and in fact it answers a criticism made by Bernard Henri-Levy to the effect that house rules in major hotels dictate that cleaners work in pairs.

Levy suggested that the chambermaid had been sent as part of an anti-Kahn conspiracy, stating in the Daily Beast "It would be nice to know — and without delay — how a chambermaid could have walked in alone, contrary to the habitual practice of most of New York’s grand hotels of sending a ‘cleaning brigade’ of two people, into the room of one of the most closely watched figures on the planet.”

Neither Le Parisien nor BFM television carry items about this story on their website I can find.

Not impressive, eh? FightingMac (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Details to "challenges" in cite

About the "which" and "whom" questions, it seems they're both answered in the source. Are you just wanting to expand the article with those details? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes I am. I'm asking the editor to clarify exactly what part of the maid's account (of which no full details have emerged as far as I know) is being challenged here. As I make clear above, the source cited is a speculative secondary source from the UK's Daily Telegraph whose primary source cited undisclosed police sources saying there was a second hotel employee in the room as the maid arrived but without suggesting that this represented an inconsistency in the maid's story and indeed could be read as an explanation of a question notoriously posed by Bernard-Henry Levy in the The Daily Beast i.e. tending to support the allegations rather than challenge them.
However delete the flags if you think it's a non-issue (though I would appreciate your reasoning here). FightingMac (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Better now, thank you, but I reiterate that it is essentially speculation on the part of The Telegraph that this is a challenge. I would have gone for 'have been clarified by another hotel employee'. FightingMac (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I tried again, see what you think now. --Errant (chat!) 13:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes that addresses my concerns nicely. Thank you very much. You're very good at this! FightingMac (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I've inserted a link to the Daily Beast exclusive which seems relevant here and should be a sufficiently RS for our cousins over the pond given that it was selected by le grand vieux Bernard-Henri Lévy himself to defend DSK. In the light of this report, and in regard to the remarks I make above, can I stress once again to contributors how important it is to verify your sources. Just doing a bit of copy-pasting off the internet is frankly not good enough (but I am very grateful to user ErrantX who eventually provided an excellently considered form of words). Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no mention of her having HIV

It was in the news that she is black(from Africa) 32 yo with 17 yo kid. Living in household for HIV positive people. (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No RS supporting claim she has HIV. News story was that she was in housing provided for HIV patients but thereafter it's speculation. FightingMac (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

New evidence section

The added section is a good idea, but I see a few issues that could be changed to help:

  • "Evidence" might be a cleaner title. Forensic evidence is always "detailed," for one. But some evidence is not forensic, such as his phone call, lunch, line-up, etc.;
  • The section would fit more logically after "Alleged attack and arrest";
  • A lot of the paragraph detail has already been given earlier, in context (i.e. bail, house arrest details)
  • One important statement is uncited, and actually contradicts other sources in the article, namely, the one about the hotel videos;
  • The next to last sentence states "based on the evidence," but contradicts that that evidence was collected and is being tested. I think "based on the allegations" is more accurate, without engaging in assumptions.
  • Mentioning the woman's age is out of context in this section;
  • There are unnecessary redundant cites for a single paragraph. Eight are not needed. In any case, all of the statements are included in many of the pre-existing cites. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Maid running' needs a citation (there are reports that there was no CCTV in the penthouse suite corridors). FightingMac (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Most of the section at time of writing has nothing to do with detailed forensic evidence of which as far as I know no description has emerged. The whole section reads like a not very bright high school blog. FightingMac (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it mostly duplicated content from above, with a few added details. Not sure why it was added seperately - I merged it with the first main section. --Errant (chat!) 11:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not news

When writing content try to stick to summary tone and past tense. If something will happen, probably don't add it till it does happen. This avoids the article reading like a news report. --Errant (chat!) 22:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

this new edit is an example of the type of news-article tone to avoid FWIW. --Errant (chat!) 22:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why 'French reaction' and not 'International reaction'?

Why the emphasis about French reaction? Le long discours (hope that's right, it's what Google came up with). It's almost comical (yes, we do get it state side that the French are extremely pissed about this). FightingMac (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The title is purely descriptive. Right now the content of the section happens to be based on the reactions of French media and French people, if the content had a more international perspective then it would make sense to call it an "international reaction", but that's not the content that we have right now. Dragons flight (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
So far the event had a bigger impact in France than in the rest of the world. Later on, we can create a separate international section but I think the French section should stay on its own (or at least as a subsection of "International reactions"). Laurent (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
A thought that requires some expansion but, yes, I agree it's essentially valid. However we are about providing an international coverage. I've edited the section to make it a little more balanced, though I wish I had time to do something about its patronising tone, which would be actually offensive were it not so comical and on reflection I was content to let stand as a terrible example to les autres. Meanwhile someone might care to add a section 'Reaction in the rest of the world' for the sake of NPOV and balance?
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, even if it's only something off a mobile cam or whatever they're called. It would fit in so nicely just after that deeply moving agonised cri de coeur of Bernard-Henri Levy. Les cousins can have the maid's name, we will console ourselves in dignity with the perp walk.
Incidentally the French page is rather good and beautifully written. We might be falling behind the curve here guys. FightingMac (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
English version reading very well IMHO this writing. Well done everyone! FightingMac (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Need to restore section on conspiracies

Numerous WP:Reliable sources are talking about the possibilities of a conspiracy, that he was enticed into a situation with the intent to frame him. In which case, there would be little evidence of intentional violence from him. Anyway, a section needs to be restored to the article. See Google results for "conspiracy" text:

Rather than deleting text, more should be added to reflect a WP:NPOV neutral balance, which includes viewpoints which believe there was a conspiracy. -Wikid77 03:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire text of the conspiracy section (as existed 24 hours ago) was folded into "French Reaction". It wasn't really substantial enough to justify its own header. None of that text has been deleted as far as I can tell. Dragons flight (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The only content of the French equivalent concerns the opinion poll which quotes 57% of the French public believing DSK is the victim of a plot. That seems to have been deleted but I certainly think it's notable and worth reinserting. FightingMac (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, apologies. I see it is there. FightingMac (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the text about the set-up scenario and re-split the text as "Conspiracy theories..." because that text includes Strauss-Kahn's opinions stated weeks before the incident, not as a "French reaction" later. I have no objections to renaming that section as "Concerns of being set-up or framed" to avoid the term "conspiracy theories" in the header. -Wikid77 15:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The "conspiracy" issue seems to be a part of the French reaction, as no other details have come out. Suggest keeping as paragraph in "French reaction" section instead of it's own section, unless the topic expands later. Sectioning as a TOC item probably gives it too much prominence at this point. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

French reaction quotes

I question whether there is any benefit to quoting the French journalist, Jean-François Kahn, right after a quote from a French Minister. The two quotes are in the same brief paragraph, but they're discussing different subjects and from extremely different levels of authority. As for whether it's ok to use a French language source, I'm not sure. But the journalist's quote itself may not be the best selection under the circumstances. If we need more for the topic, I think safer ones can be found. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

We need to balance the French reaction section. Not all French reaction was supportive of DSK and some of it was absurd, of which this latter I have provided the two most notorious and notably reported examples. In that context your somewhat refined reservations about subject matter and levels of authority strike me as irrelevant and of course they apply equally to the preceding paragraph I expect you valorise, perhaps supplied. I hope we are going to allow native language sources. I read several languages and always prefer the original. When I made the edit I thought I had been careful to provide an English language source. I'll check. FightingMac (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've now cited Lizzy Davies' The Guardian piece as well for the Kahn quote as an English language source. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Why add an "absurd" quote to provide "balance," which it fails to do in any case? Having a quote from a "journalist" in this article is only a small step above adding "man-on-the-street" opinions from France. All of the problems mentioned up top are still valid and none were answered. At least try to explain why the opinion of a Frenchman about Strauss-Kahn's "alleged" crime, 3,000 miles away, should be included in an encyclopedia. Nor is this article a great place to note cultural differences about male-female attitudes. A minister's comment about the bail amount is relevant, but adding that cute French quote is not. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Kahns's remark is notable simply because it's absurd and was widely commented on in both French and English MSM. He himself eventually felt obliged to apologise for it. I thought it right to include it as representative of French reaction (I wasn't trying to make a note about cultural differences) but if you feel confident that isn't so and that is the view of the community then by all means delete it.
You are entitled to your views on journalists I'm sure but I would only point out that in that case you make a strange bedfellow indeed here where almost every source presently is of necessity from a journalist.
I don't really understand your remark about "why the opinion of a Frenchman about Strauss-Kahn's "alleged" crime, 3,000 miles away, should be included in an encyclopedia". I didn't provide the original contribution here and of course it precisely included the opinions of French persons such as the the triple-barrelled philosopher cited whose name I can't be bothered to look up yet again and who is indeed 1 French 2 like a majority of French people, lives 3,000 miles away from New York 3 a combination of circumstances likely in a section called 'French reaction'. FightingMac (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Like any quote, Levy's could have been left out. But as the BBC, and others discussed them, claiming " it was the media intellectual Bernard-Henri Levy who went furthest, delivering an anti-American diatribe in his weekly column in Le Point magazine," it seemed relevant to that section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I would certainly agree with Hugh Schofield, the BBC man in question, and with the editor who included Levy's remarks. Certainly they're very notable for the affair and of course Levy is very eminent. But what struck me about the original contribution was that it was sourced to the BBC in general ... 'the BBC notes' rather than to somebody at the BBC. No British writer would ever do that because of course the BBC aims, rather like Wikipedia, to provide balanced coverage and offers a representative range of views. It would be rather like an English writer citing a remark of Jean-François Kahn's but sourcing it instead generically to Marianne. There are a number of British journalists who specialise on France of which | John Lichfield is my favoiurite. This is JL on the Houellebecq-Wikipedia affair. He also wrote a very perceptive review of Platform, one of the few French novels I've struggled through in the original, and which I thought was anarchically funny though I do finds 'Wally' rather bleak. I gather lives in Ireland which is extremely curious.
Thank you for responding FightingMac (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
There's not a lot of other opinions about the quote, but do you object to having Kahn's quote removed? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
No, pas de tout, but it has been widely commented on in UK. FightingMac (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No really, I don't object, and shan't get into an edit war over it or comment, but I'm not going to do it for you! FightingMac (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I see the Jean-François Kahn remark has now been deleted and that's OK but I returned the Jack Lang remark to the 'French Reaction' section (it had very unfortunately been relocated erroneously). I notice the (garbled) quote commencing "unanimous in their condemnation of the way Strauss-Kahn has been treated in the U.S ..." isn't cited (as it certainly should be) and is not to be found (as one might expect) in the BBC reference supplied in the previous sentence. Could we have the citation please? Also there's a weasel word 'Most' commencing 'Most of Strauss-Kahn's socialist friends ...'. Could we have that attended to please and indeed consideration given to reflecting the views of those who weren't "unanimous in their condemnation" and further some attempt made to correct the stylisic infelicity of the implicit oxymoron there.
Finally I note that Jean-Francois Kahn, who is the subject of this thread which has occupied so much of my time here, is in fact profiled in the BBC reference cited

Asked what he thought had happened in the New York hotel room, he said it could not have been attempted rape: "More likely an act of imprudence, a bit of domestic tupping."

and I should be curious to receive (here) the observations of the originating contributor. FightingMac (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The cite is currently #19, from the BBC. I'm not sure how it got moved over the last few days, but I'll move it back. I have nothing against what Kahn says, but quoting a journalist in an encyclopedia is out of place, especially in this article - maybe in any article. We had a good quote by his wife, relating to his womanizing, which even got deleted. But stating any opinions that may reflect on the guilt or innocence of an accused on trial should be left to pundits, and not be put in an encyclopedia. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I moved the Lang quote, relating to the bail, to the paragraph about his bail, since it became a single-sentence paragraph that needed a home. So it wasn't exactly erroneous. But the your relocation is fine. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, accepted, though I'm a little cautious about selective use of sources here and I have to say I entirely disagree about quoting journalists. I remind you the article is about the allegations and not just the trial and specifically not the question of DSK's innocence or guilt. Kahn's remark might be held to reflect on DSK's innocent or guilt but it's notability lay in the assumption that there was no charge to answer in the first place, a harking back to 'droit du seigneur' as some commenators remarked, and that is what he apologised for. I remind you that the US is much more relaxed than the British about discussing trials and the server is Anerican. That's not in my competence right now but if you're planning to question the inclusion of every evidential item then I might have to get myself up to scratch in it to take you on. Did you query the inclusion of a remark originally implying that the maid's evidence had been challenged by a hotel employee? Didn't that also significantly reflect on the guilt or innocence of the accused (specifically support the view he is innocent)? Support triple barreled philosopher Levy's clear presumption of innocence, which if not directly referenced by the article is nevertheless certainly well known across France and to all interested in the affair outide of it and whose views about DSK being thrown to a pack of dogs are given so much prominence in the article?
I shall eventually edit the weasel word 'most' myself if I don't see it edited soon. FightingMac (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
If I wanted to throw in a supportive comment, Kahn's would be the only one, besides his wife's, that's relevant. Levy's quote was only about the media frenzy and degradation of a French notable, and not reflective on guilt or innocence. I just noticed that the full Levy essay was added as a cite, but not by me. But allowing pundits, philosophers, or journalists, to be quoted as experts is ridiculous on its face. I removed the Levy quote since you see it as somehow indirectly supportive of his innocence in this case.
The paragraph relating to the missing hour and varied maid story of entering his room was a step too far beyond mentioning the forensic evidence, and tests that are ongoing. They didn't reflect on his guilt or innocence, but might have affected the credibility of the hotel or maid, so even they didn't belong, and I removed them. It seems we've been so busy debating things like Kahn and perp walk photos, editing and pruning was neglected. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I do support (and entirely agree - common ground here certainly) the removal of the paragraphs concerning the speculative press and internet reports of the background of the maid entry and exit from the room (but I am concerned WW that you are taking upon yourself a resposibility which other good faith contributors, including myself, might resent). However I support the standard you set here, let's hope it's kept - les autres aren't even trying :-).
Appreciated your inclusion of Debré (if that was you) and tidied it somewhat, supplying an English language citation as well. This section is now fine with me. Thank you for your input. FightingMac (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


So.. I need help over this sentence:

Previously aware of her husband's reputation as a flirtatious womanizer, with his once having admitted and apologizing to having had an affair, she expressed little concern in public and claimed it didn't bother her: "I’m even proud of it. It’s important to seduce, for a politician. As long as he is still attracted to me, and I to him, it is sufficient.”

There are a number of issues here... the comment/quote was made in a 2006 interview, so this sentence is a bit misleading in implying that it is a quote from this event. I'm torn on the exact relevance, it seems a little "CoatRacky" to me.

Secondly the rest of the sentence gives me pause. Can we express a knowledge of his affairs in a slightly more careful way? --Errant (chat!) 09:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote seems reasonable as it's in context. In the U.S. at least, it's almost a media instinct to focus on the wife, as an additional victim, when her husband becomes involved in sex scandals. The media frenzy is unable to interview him, so her opinions about the events and related attitudes, are next in line. It would be simple to rephrase with the date quoted, but I don't think it's critical to its relevance. BTW, the article's reference #1, by the VOA, includes a recent video that includes the "affair" issue in similar context. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


I have concerns over the image; it was taken in '07 and is not related to the event. IMO there is no need to decorate the article with an unrelated image when the other images is specific to this event... just my view, what are the thoughts of others? --Errant (chat!) 15:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 image is likely to be deleted. I would prefer a trial related image, but I don't think we have one that is free. Dragons flight (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sorry I didn't see that. I'm still not sure about the image to be honest, not sure what it adds - dating from way before. --Errant (chat!) 16:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the image was my edit? Feel free of course to substitute but it is surely understood we ought to have a pleasant image in the lede if we are to avoid painting DSK in a false light or risk the accusation of pre-judging the issue. Can't we led by les cousins across the pond here? Notwithstanding that remark, I would like to see a picture of the perp walk if one is available (but absolutely not in the lede). FightingMac (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As soon as he actually becomes a "perp", we'll be able to find you one.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but surely I don't have to labour the point that there's an inherent inconsistency on the one hand the French so carefully protecting the dignity of the accused while on the other so careless of the privacy of the accuser (I mean the naming of names) and that in the context if you please of a sexual assault charge where we know that huge numbers, perhaps 90% I've seen suggested in the UK, of assaults aren't reported on just those concerns of being put in the public spotlight. Mayor Bloomberg of New York City defended the walk stupidly but there's no doubt he's reflecting sturdy Anglo-Saxon values here: this is the respected British journalist Janet Daley, who could hold her own against the likes of Bernard-Henri Lévy any time any place including in her sleep if it ever came down to that, blogging on the subject here.
If a public domain picture of DSK's perp walk does surface, I'll be supporting it's image appearing here, although absolutely not as the lede image for reasons I've noted elsewhere and which indeed prompted me to replace the court-room image that originally appeared with an image from happier times.FightingMac (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, any image in an article this brief is effectively a lede image. You read and quote French sources, but you seem completely against the "French so carefully protecting the dignity of the accused," and beg to find the very erroneous "perp" images the French have criticized so vehemently:
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, even if it's only something off a mobile cam or whatever they're called.[2] --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
1 Flat out disagree "Unfortunately, any image in an article this brief is effectively a lede image" 2 yes, on my knees. Erroneous? (perhaps you mean misguided) but let's war over it when it happens. FightingMac (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is actually missing something important. The perp walk of DSK is a unique historical event evoking international reaction and discussion. If one wants an image of that then an excellent case could be made for fair use under WP:NFCC. The question is not whether an image is available, but whether we should want to show it. Does it serve a useful and appropriate educational purpose? Personally I have my doubts. At the very least, I agree with the above that it should not be the only / primary image on the page. Dragons flight (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I do agree with that. That is to say just because it is unquestionably notable is not to say it would be wise to flaunt French sensibilities. But my point was that the French wiki have shown no reciprocating niceness about Anglo-Saxon sensitivity in naming the maid involved. Should they be allowed to have their cake and eat it too like this? It strikes me that we others might be on a hiding to nothing there. And it's not if as this law of theirs is rooted deep in their history. It's year 2000 law. FightingMac (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Just as well, the image gives her name from what I can see, and it's the consensus on the main article of DSK that her name not be given: Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn#Victim.27s_name. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Incidently I see that an image of the alleged victim has been uploaded to Wikicommons and immediately nominated for deletion here on copyright grounds but I also introduce privacy issues in my support. FightingMac (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I could have sworn your comment wasn't here before, yet I ran into no edit conflict. O_O I concur with the privacy statement as per WP:BLPNAME. That's one of the reasons why we rejected the idea of putting her name in the main article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Flinders. Edit conflict - probably because I amend so much! Sorry, I should be more disciplined. FightingMac (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I do the same all the time. While we're on the subject, btw, I think that anything directly related to DSK should follow suite with the main article, and that includes not showing the alleged victim's name. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • There has been concern about him not wearing a tie, in other photos, based on legal rights to dress code in France. His New York mugshot shows him without a necktie:
• DSK mugshot from New York Daily News: NYdaily-DSK-mugshot
On a suicide watch, a suspect would have several items removed: necktie, shoelaces, belt, socks (etc.), and it might be difficult to recover a tie in time for a court appearance. Hence, a photo of him wearing a tie would show that aspect, as having been photographed in that manner, elsewhere. This issue relates to concerns of his legal rights. -Wikid77 23:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
"Sensationalism" and shock value are what draw readers and viewers, not "concern for legal rights." The images, regardless of the lack of respect for French sensitivities and law, could become a "trial by media" issue which will obviously affect a fair trial. It's one of the reasons Polanski decided to flee: his prosecuting attorney admitted, "I'm not surprised that Polanski left under those circumstances, . . . it was going to be a real circus." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's absolutely right. FightingMac (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
"Strauss-Kahn's New Apartment Now A Tourist Attraction:" Looking for balloon and popcorn vendors; children's rides possible with permits. Call if interested. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

15-20 years?

Where does the idea he faces 15-20 years come from? It's unsourced and I've seen conflicting reporting on this. Dragons flight (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The figure of 15-20 years is in multiple sources, which were likely deleted by others trying to trim article size. See Reuters ("France in shock as IMF chief charged with sex assault", May 15: R15), Huffington Post ("Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director Of IMF, Arrested", May 14), or Buenos Aires Herald ("IMF's Dominique Strauss-Kahn faces sex charge": BAH70), or France 24 ("IMF chief Strauss-Kahn charged with attempted rape in New York", May 15: F24-15). -Wikid77 (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This contradicts other sources. Also, the actual text of the law [3] (70.80) seems to indicate that a Class B Felony sex offense is subject to not less than 5 years and no more than 25 years. "Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree" appears to be such a Class B Felony per [4] (130.42 & 130.92). Your sources all seem to come from before he was indicted, so perhaps they misunderstood the ultimate charges. Dragons flight (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that too. I've seen 25 years alone on the most serious charge. You might like to flag it with a 'citation needed' template or simply correct it with a source. Still reading very well this article I think. FightingMac (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
As an active court case, most likely to become a very public trial, here and in Europe, it seems that this article requires much more attention to details and statements than the average. Many people will use it as a source for news. I think our standard for accuracy should be higher than merely sticking a citation tag on questionable details. Even a tag earlier posted on unsourced statements relating to important evidence was never cited and had to be eventually removed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Well yes and actually I supplied the tag yoou mention because I had seen reports that in fact there were no CCTV camera outsie DSK's room.
But the purpose of a flag in general is to alert the community in general of something that needs attention. Contributors can't always spare the time to hunt out the details at the time. And in any case what is at stake here is not evidential. What user 'Dragons flight' and me are saying here is that we know there's something amiss here and could someone check it out. Presumabl;y the editors who have been contributing detailed charge lists know sentencing guidlines as well and can help out?
You're so absolutely right about it likely to become a public trial (here and in Europe) and we should be so extra special careful! FightingMac (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
What doesn't make sense is why, if you saw reports that there were "no CCTV cameras" there, you didn't strike it. On the day the sentence was posted, 5,000 readers viewed this article. But it took over half a day before it was deleted. So over 2,500 people might have been misled about this evidentiary detail. I agree we need to be extra careful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Well simply because I couldn't find it! Of course I tried. I read two or three hours a day and archive much of what I find notable but not everything. Ditto the sentencing which simply wasn't in my competence. I couldn't strike (I do sometimes strike but only when I'm quite sure I'm on solid ground) because I wasn't certain how RS my source was. At least I alerted readers that the remark (not of my originating) was suspect. Throw the dirty dog a bone here please! FightingMac (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not complaining. In fact, you could be asking me why I didn't remove it sooner. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Apologies. Misunderstanding. I thought you were getting at me. I do appreciate you removing it. FightingMac (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I've updated this as 25 years on the most serious charge, and up to 74 years in the (unlikely) event he was sentenced consecutively on all charges. Dragons flight (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"meh", just delete it as speculation/newsiness. If he is convicted then we will know. No rush. --Errant (chat!) 08:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't agree it's merely newsiness. It indicates how seriously the charges are held in the US (whereas we know that at least one prominent French public figure originally opined that the whole thing was just a bit of '"domestic tupping"). One criteria for notability of an item is that it has been widely reported and in this case that is certainly so, it was just repeated here inaccurately. You're taking too exalted a stance here I think.FightingMac (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
We will know how long he will be in jail if/when convicted. Until then there seems no need to say "he could be spending up to 74 years in jail", before the trial even begins :) That is the definition of a news article. --Errant (chat!) 15:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
"... and he faces 15-20 years in prison if convicted" still there in the lede and it's wrong. He faces 25 years or more if convicted. I'm correcting but won't edit war a deletion. FightingMac (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidence-related statements

Since this is an ongoing "sexual assault case," with evidence being collected by opposing sides, normal WP:RS rules will require more scrutiny to avoid posting evidentiary facts before they are given in court. Obviously, this is hard to do, with opinions and hearsay comments spread by the media. But the media is out to sensationalize at every opportunity — "if it bleeds it leads." They are out to make a profit. The legal system is out to enforce justice.

When any trial begins, court reporters will be on hand, and will likewise have strict guidelines about publishing case details, including drawings (photos usually not allowed.) The case details reported by those experienced court reporters in RSs will be fair game for hopefully summarizing facts. I hope WPs standards will stay much higher than the for-profit news. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Supported your recent strike of the paragraphs about entry and exit of the maid from the room but worry you might be taking an overly heavy responsibility on yourself. But if we can reach a consensus on maintaining the standard you set, that would be a happy outcome for me. Let les internautes go to the French page for saucy titbits I say. FightingMac (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparently not "happy" enough, in that you effectively disagree that some, or any, care should be used in citing sources. You added a cite from the Daily Mail (footnote #19) that's saturated and reliant primarily on "speculations" and anonymous sources. But the rationale you gave was: "another source for 'consensual sex' speculation," which added nothing to the more RSs you earlier removed, because they did in fact use the term "consensual." Since you apparently missed those speculative statements, here are a few:
" reportedly contacted the family . . . according to a US newspaper."; "It is not known whether there is any truth in these allegations, but . . . "; "The sources claimed . . ."; "Strauss-Kahn allegedly responded: 'No, baby. Don't worry, you're not going to lose your job. Please, baby, don't worry."; "Police sources then claim . . ."
How do you justify this blatant contradiction? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
To expand a bit on the subject, note that the citation added about the alleged bribe offer to the maid's family, included the disclaimer, "It is not known whether there is any truth in these allegations, but . . . " whereupon the story continues. Rumors? Gossip? Blog statements? Who knows, who cares? It attracts readers. But it also undermines the entire judicial system by risking a trial by media result. A search for details of this anonymous story already gets a half million search results!
Before the web, blogosphere, & social media, it used to take a tremendous effort to find jury members that had not already formed an opinion, when a widely publicized case began. That meant publicized by newspapers or TV. But at least newspapers and TV were liable for defamation if they made up stories. The web has somewhat skipped over that risk since "flash rumors" can spread so fast that no one knows where they started. The "flash rumor" mills are already creating havoc in some less-developed countries where there are more cell phones than toilets. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence exclusion policy or guideline

Why does our practice change in this one case? Content is included if it is verifiable by being reported on in reliable secondary sources. There is no evidence exclusion in Wikipedia. Where reported accounts of a crime are in conflict, both accounts appear with citations. The level of detail and balance is an editing judgment. The widely-reported circumstances of DSK's arrest is likely to be entered as evidence. Is the suggestion being made that it be excluded from the article? patsw (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion is to use "more scrutiny" in selecting sources for an article about an ongoing case. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Accept user Patsw's remarks, indeed I've had occasion myself to remind contributors that verifiable is the standard. Neverthless Wikiwatcher1 strikes were sound I think. The first source was in fact speculation based on an apparent leak of information from the investigation which very possibly placed the facts of the matter in a false light while the second was a Daily Beast blog which in the end wasn't picked up by other MSM (presumably on legal advice because it was quite sensational?) and must be considered borderline as a RS. FightingMac (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

'Consensual sex' claim

At present reports that any sexual encounter will be defended as consensual remain speculative. I'm surprised that Wikiwatcher1 reverted my strike given his comments on scrutinising the evidence. The source cited makes it entirely clear that in fact the claim is speculative: "However in a hint at what may become his main line of defence, his attorney, Benjamin Brafman, said at New York criminal court: "The evidence, we believe, will not be consistent with a forcible encounter". Is there a language challenge here? I have to say it's frankly not very satisfactory. FightingMac (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I've seen this statement in many other sources, so I'll find something clearer. When I saw the rationale of "speculation, newsy, not in French Wiki," it seemed that something this important to a criminal case should be handled more carefully. If it's speculative by a publisher, we should delete it. No harm intended.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Footnote #7, "Dominique Strauss-Kahn: sexual contact with chambermaid 'consensual'", (The Telegraph, U.K., May 17, 2011.) There was no speculation in the use of the word "consensual," which is a logical and simpler way for the media to say a "non forcible encounter." If you want to rephrase it for exactness, that's fine. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Any statement now, before the people making them are not in a courtroom and not under oath, is going to be speculative, or hearsay. This is how criminal cases are covered before there is a plea deal or verdict. There is no exclusion for this content in Wikipedia that is reported on in reliable sources and attributed to the prosecution or the defense. As I mentioned earlier, adding this content is subject our editing process to make sure that both sides are presented to the Wikipedia reader. patsw (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Argumentative. The fact is that all media repeating this story have qualified their report with '"there is speculation that ..." or some similar form of words. The essence of the report is a remark in the courtroom by DSK's lawyer " The evidence, we believe, will not be consistent with a forcible encounter", a careful choice of words which makes no admission about a sexual encounter in the first place (for example it is consistent with a scenario in which DSK happened to be masturbating when the maid entered the room). To proceed to Wikiwatcher1's edit (which he reverted after a strike by me) "Strauss-Kahn's attorney claimed that any sexual encounter had been consensual, but the woman's attorney denied this was the case" is simply one whole stage further than has been reported so far in newspaper accounts (and remember also that Wikiwatcher1 is contemptuous of journalists) 1 his lawyer wasn't 'claiming', rather he was making a submission to the court 2 he made no admission of a sexual encounter 3 the woman's lawyer's response was to reporters' questions and not a response to DSK's lawyer's submissions, entirely misrepresents the state of affairs and is simply flat-out wrong. Why should I have to spend my time to 'rephrase it for exactness' (I've done plenty of that over the past few days and not just for exactness' sake but also in defence of the basic grammar, style and diction of the English language) as confidently invited above when it clearly shouldn't be there at all?
I am a bit concerned about comments about the defendant's lawyer's remarks and the alledged victim's lawyer's "response". This isn't a case between his lawyer and her lawyer. Its a criminal accusation. It is a case between the state of new york and his lawyer. The alleged victim is a witness, not a direct party to the case.Eregli bob (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding my query 'is there a language challenge here?' I have noted repeated infelicities of style, inappropiate idiom and basic errors of grammar in edits over the past days. In this very section 'alleged, assault and attack' the second paragraph begins 'according to the woman's account' without ever referencing a woman in the section in the first place. While I'm happy to make good-humoured corrections on an ad-hoc basis I'm afraid on this occasion (and subsequently) we arrive at un pont trop loin. FightingMac (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the essence seems to be an interpretation of his lawyer saying the evidence "will not be consistent with a forcible encounter". While interpreting that to mean "consensual sex" is plausible (even likely), it also isn't the only alternative. So, I think it would be presumptuous of us to say that DSK intends to mount a defense of "consensual sex" without additional clarification from his lawyers (which might come at trial, or via comments they make to the press). However, I wouldn't object to quoting the lawyer's current statement as is, and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. Dragons flight (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not speculation that his lawyers intend to argue a "consensual sex" defense. Benjamin Brafman indicated this to Criminal Court Judge Melissa Jackson in the bail hearing.(Ax, Joseph (2011-06-18). "Strauss-Kahn may attempt a consensual sex defense". Reuters. ) The Wikipedia is a summary of knowledge, so a full linguistic and legal unpacking of how "not forcible" equals "consensual" is not necessary. The accounts in reliable sources which discuss Branfman's and his associates statements are in consensus that not merely that Branfman's defense will be "consensual sex", but that it is the only
Benjamin Brafman did not indicate that as I make clear above. I have replaced (at the end) with, "As of 24 May 2011, there was speculation in main stream media that Strauss-Kahn's defence team will argue that a sexual encounter did take place, but that it was consensual" and I hope that this will be an acceptable compromise. However my position remains nevertheless that this is merely speculative newsiness. FightingMac (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Patsw, look at the article you just cited. It hedges A LOT with words like "may attempt", "speculation", "try to read the tea leaves", etc. I don't find that article at all clear that there will be consensual sex defense. And as the article says, all of the speculation is based on a very short statement from his lawyer that doesn't necessarily actually admit that a consensual encounter occurred. I see a lot of speculation and no clear consensus about what the defense will be. Dragons flight (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. I am not appealing to your subjective sense of clarity or to my subjective sense of clarity that "not forcible" equals "consensual". It is the consensus of all articles in reliable sources which I have read. If you have a reliable source which asserts that "not forcible" does not equal "consensual", I'd be interested in reading it.
Of course you're right in what you say but sources qualify with 'speculative' and my point about careful use of words is valid. FightingMac (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. Benjamin Brafman was not making an admission on behalf of his client. At a bail hearing, he does not need to present a defense, and by then the not guilty plea was already entered, so his "not forcible" statement was discretionary. So why did Branfman say it? It was because he felt he had to counter in some way an overwhelming statement to the judge from the prosecution of the likelihood of his guilt based upon the physical evidence and witness statements which had already been gathered by May 19 -- or risk that DSK would be denied bail a second-time. patsw (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
We're on common ground here. Certainly he made no admissions and in particular most certainly not that there had been a sexual encounter. I doubt he was much concerned that bail would be refused a second time. Legal opinion at the time was unananimous that bail would be eventually negotiated. FightingMac (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
"... by then the not guilty plea was already entered." You are misinformed. No plea has been entered yet as all sources are very careful indeed to point out. I don't feel I need notice you further. Thank you for your remarks. FightingMac (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: that yours truly is "contemptuous of journalists": Prove it or strike it, with an apology.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll aplogise. A misunderstanding based on your remarks about Jean-François Kahn whose opinion you didn't think worth including in the section. Sorry.
FightingMac (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A not guilty plea was entered

In the normal course of an arrest in New York State, either the arrestee is released without arraignment, or arraigned before a judge at which time a plea is entered. In DSK's case, he was arraigned and entered a plea at that time. patsw (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well of course I must defer and aplogise. But I am surprised as I've seen no other source comment that a 'not guilty' plea has been entered yet and on the contrary have been careful to stress that a plea hasn't been entered. It's not possible that this source is wrong? I shall investigate. Thank you.
Since I'm here, who is it who keeps reverting my edit to the effect that there was speculation about a plot on social networking sites such as Twitter immediately after the arrest? It's notable and well sourced, notable because it's not only in countries like Tunisia where social networking sites are making an impression on public opinion. I can't find who it is from the 'History' section. It just seems to get struck. FightingMac (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Patsw, I had a look at your reference and I was surprised to see that it refers to the first bail hearing where all accounts I've seen definitely stressed he hadn't entered a plea. I do wonder whether WCBS just got it wrong?
This is Bloomberg law news recently
In an indictment filed May 19, Strauss-Kahn is charged with criminal sex acts, attempted rape, sexual abuse, unlawful imprisonment and forcible touching. While he has denied the accusations, he hasn’t entered a formal plea to any of the charges. He is scheduled to be arraigned June 6.
It's a direct contradiction, isn't it? And other sources I'm seeing stress he's expected to make a formal plea June 6.
I'll try and get a definitive source from a legal site later on. FightingMac (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not a contradiction. Upon arraignment, the defendant enters a plea to the preliminary charges. In the case where the defendant pleads not guilty, the next step is a bail motion. If bail is granted, then the defendant is released, and in DSK's case with special restrictions. If the case proceeds to indictment, the charges are disclosed to the defendant, and then there are discussions between the prosecution and defense which may result in (a) dismissal of all charges, (b) a plea of guilty with negotiated sentence, or (c) a plea of not guilty which means that the trial will determine the verdict. An plea in response to the indictment is typically a marker for the completion of a plea bargain, or an end to negotiating one. The date where DSK must plea in response to the indictment has not been set. patsw (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
So in fact he hasn't formally pleaded 'not guilty' to the charges? I mean the reality here is that newspapers sources are reporting him as not having entered a plea and as expected to enter a plea when he next appears in court. I'm busy this morning but I shall look later on to see what coventionally is meant by 'entering a plea' in American letters. I'm not getting at you, and I accept your source is good faith and that it may well be exactly as you say, but the simple fact of the matter is all the other sources (or can you show others like WSBC?) represent him as yet to enter a plea. FightingMac (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, New York City has adopted the same system now in use by Federal Courts that the defendant is always assumed to plea "not guilty" during the initial arraignment, and that it is only during the post-indictment arraignment that he is explicitly asked for a plea. In other words, to streamline the process, the defendant is no longer asked for nor expected to enter a plea during an initial arraignment following arrest. So it would be fairly typical for Strauss-Kahn not to enter any explicit plea (which is the same as an implicit "not guilty"). Dragons flight (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Dragons flight. I made no progress at all with my researches! I have to apologise to Patsw. I can only 'plead' myself that the sources I've read stressed the formal plea would be entered later. Sorry and thank you for the clarification. Appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The understanding that the defendant is always assumed to plead "not guilty" at arraignment is false. The defendant is always asked for a plea. However, in every legal advice site for New York State law, it is advised that one plead "not guilty" at arraignment in order to retain the ability to negotiate with the prosecution. The only case to plead "guilty" would be where there can be little dispute over the facts, little negotiation of the sentence, and the offense is minor. patsw (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Tradition in New York City also dispenses with a formal plea of not guilty. The law presumes a not guilty plea." [5]
"New York City tradition also dispenses with a formal plea of not guilty and a 'not guilty' please is presumed" [6]
I assume the websites of criminal defense lawyers based in New York City know what they are talking about. Most of the reporting from the initial arraignment says he did not enter a plea, which would seem entirely consistent with a process that allows a 'not guilty' to be assumed on his behalf without ever asking the question. Dragons flight (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

57% (opinion poll)

I edited 'a majority believe' to 'nearly three-fifths' in the remark about the opinion poll in the 'French reaction' section. Wikiwatcher1 edited to 57%. I restored 'three-fifths' with a request not to revert 1 95% confidence limits for polls generally work out at around 2% implying a 'true' (the situation is subtle but I happen to be a brilliant mathematician and can spare the time explaining if it were genuinely helpful) value of around 55% to 59% 2 it's absurd to quote two significant figures. Nevertheless Wikiwatcher1 reverted again.

It's extremely (and once again comically) disobliging. FightingMac (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

When quoting a result from an opinion poll, the Wikipedia style is to use the reported number verbatim. Any rounding or colloquial interpretation of the number is a source of avoidable editing controversy. patsw (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for this. If that is so then of course I defer. Can you quote the section of the WP policy opus (it's a bit of a jungle) where that is stated (you link to a Wiktionary definition of 'verbatim')?. The article originally said 'a majority', whereas the the FT source cited said 'some 57%' (which is WP:weasel of course) and I shall restore that pending my finding a source (as indeed I noted examples) which quotes 'nearly three-fifths', as is clearly best here and I can add would be cited by any reasonably numerate individual without requiring pause to reflect. FightingMac (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Percentages. Specifics on editing disputes regarding the expression of a fraction, percentage, or quantitative terms like "majority" are numerous, and in my experience, typically resolved by using the number in the manner it is expressed in the source material, and trust the reader to apply their own interpretation of it. patsw (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Your source merely concerns formatting when writing percentages and has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'verbatim' remark you make. Can you clarify please? As for the rest of it, isn't that exactly what we're about here? 'Three-fifths' was challenged, it should have been challenged here and not without a revert, I've justified it and will presently go looking for a source that uses it according to the Wikipedia policy you cite (but have yet to source). Can you please source that policy for me now? That would be helpful indeed. FightingMac (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
"Nearly three-fifths" is an interpretation of the numbers and as such is WP:OR. It seems that we are trying to push the numbers to make them bigger than they really are. Indeed why not write "over half"? That would be about as accurate. As Patsw say, when there is some controversy about numbers, we should just put them verbatim and let the readers make their own interpretation (on top of that, I think that a plain percentage is more readable than "three-fifth", but maybe it's just me). Laurent (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Not at all OR, just ordinary interpretation. Are we quoting the poll itself or sources commenting on the poll? If the former, then mention should be made of the poll's structure, size, sample, items (there were three alternatives and the 57% refers to those who thought there was a plot or probably a plot (my emphasis)), sampling error etc. But of course we're about the latter and indeed we should be careful not to put the figure in a false light. That was precisely why I made the edit I did because the original edit said 'a majority', which for a lot of people is basically saying everyone. By saying three-fifths we make it easier for the reader to conclude that all the same two out of five didn't think there was a plot. I agree with "over half" (with the reservation that nevertheless 'nearly three-fifths' is likely justified by the poll, given the sensitivity of modern sampling techiques) but that would surely invite controversy whereas nearly three-fifths really shouldn't. To say 57%, unless actually quoting the poll with all the reservations I express, is simply absurd. For the time being I've entered 'some 57%' from the Financial Times cited. Patsw said he was citing Wiklipedia policy. I would like to see that please. FightingMac (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
A simple compromise should keep everyone happy. One editor determines that three fifths is better than 57%, but % is the way poll totals, like this one, were stated. By simply reverting the fraction to 60% should do it. It's not our job to randomly convert % to fractions gratuitously. It also adds more words instead of a simple number. 60% then? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
No, absolutely not. 'Fully 57%' or 'some 57%' but not '60%' unless qualified 'corrected to 1 s.f.' which is not appropiate I think for Wikipedia. To repeat, we're not about quoting the poll but quoting comment about the poll. However the policy (?) I'm told is 'verbatim' and thus we should select 'some 57%' which is what the source says. FightingMac (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
But you wrote "By saying three-fifths we make it easier for the reader . . ." And three-fifths is 60%, which is even easier to read. What's the problem? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In context I meant 'almost three fifths' which is what my original edit was and later in the sentence I repeat 'nearly three-fifths'. In any case, I don't agree that 60% is easier than three-fifths. I've often noted that percentages is where many people maths hit the deck.
I'm done here. Thank you for your input. FightingMac (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"American coverage" section

IMHO, the quality of this article will not be based on a word count. This new section, "American coverage of the events related to and subsequent to his arrest," is loaded with verbosity, topic forks, and a massive amount of redundant comments from earlier sections. The very first sentence, and almost all the rest, seem to be "filler":

Since his arrest by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police at JFK Airport on May 16, 2011, Strauss-Kahn has been under intense scrutiny by New York and national news media, with coverage of the details of his case appearing in newspapers and on radio and television daily.

The few references to the "American coverage" do not support any reason to separate this topic::

  • "coverage of the details of his case appearing in newspapers and on radio and television daily."
  • "There was a media presence at police precinct . . ."
  • "The media coverage of Strauss-Kahn appearing in handcuffs is controversial."
  • "Coverage of his residence pending trial . . ."

The title of the section could have been called "American coverage," since the rest is understood. Much of the added verbiage about bail amounts, criticism in France, equal justice under law, suicide watches, and definition of "house arrest," are all included earlier in the article. After all, he is in America, so why have a separate mash-up section with an assemblage of already stated facts? I'm obviously not going to delete it if I'm the only one that thinks the section adds nothing but repetition. It's just my opinion.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well improve it then, Wikiwatcher1. That's the name of the game here. I would say we do need a section explaining Anglo-Saxon reaction, especially regarding the perp walk and the Anglo-Saxon tradition of not shagging domestics at the drop of a garter, Honi soit qui mal y pense and all that.
For the time being I'm happy enough to see how other editors contribute and I may well add a few carefully researched observations of my own later on. I fully support the section (brave and enterprising of Paswt, and I can add that I thought it was understood and agreed from an earlier enquiry by me that we would eventually include international opinion. God knows we gave you enough leeway and of our time with your 'French reaction' section.
Thank you for not deleting it without checking first the opinion of your fellow contributors. FightingMac (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Maybe someone could start by explaining the relevance of the most recent addition to that specific section. And use of the word "coverage" and "media" are assumed, redundant, and say nothing that isn't obvious:
"Coverage of his residence pending trial: He sought to reside at an apartment obtained by his wife and was rejected by the residents of that building. He went to an apartment maintained by the security guard company contracted to monitor him. This apartment became an instant tourist attraction." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Suggest retitling section 'American reaction'. Leave it open to contributors to select sources describing it. Presumably you don't dispute it's very different from 'French reaction' and just as notable since the allegations concern an incident in New York (which is in America).
Please give contributors space to collect and write up their sources. Jeering (yes) from the sidelines is not constructive. The 'French reaction' section reads quite well now and is quite successful I think in describing at least some facets of French reaction, though it remains very far from encyclopaedic (no coverage so far of feminist reaction for example). Yet it began life as a semi-literate and comically ponitificating mish-mash of an agenda pushing apology for popular French outrage. FightingMac (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Suggestions to clean up this new section: abbreviate title  Done; exclude redundant facts; and exclude facts unrelated to "American response," (one suggested name). Since the 52-word first sentence essentially says that this is a "big news story" (3 words), there should also be some explanation of the purpose of the new section. Many readers, knowing this is an American news event, assume that there is American coverage, and will wonder what the section can have that the others excluded. If the section belongs, this should be simple to answer. Obviously, a story of a notable Frenchman arrested in the U.S. will have a separate discussion of the French response. But from the details now in that section, there is no such explanation about an American response. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in that section appears to be American reaction :S The first bullet point is just... duplication of other content just adding that US media covered the event (which I'm afraid is fairly obvious ;)). The second paragraph of the first bullet is French reaction. The second bullet point is just what happened... and should be moved up to the events. "This apartment became an instant tourist attraction"; is just trivia. When you boil the content down it seems to be basically "The American media covered the story" :) --Errant (chat!) 07:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've tried to integrate those items into the appriopriate areas. --Errant (chat!) 09:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
FWIW I didn't remove the US reaction section because there does appear to be American reaction worth recording (sorting through some material now), but ideally it should actually be reaction (i.e. opinion/views) rather than re-reciting events and noting that the media were in attendance :) I'm not sure how best to organise the "perp walk" controversy, it strikes me as a primarily French reaction for the moment though --Errant (chat!) 09:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I reverted a blank of the section. Grounds were that it was 'gibberish'. It's not gibberish as it stands presently and the consensus here is that we should have one and let it develop as was the case with the 'French section'. Please do not blank on this scale without discussing it first on the Talk page and certainly not with such blimpish discourtesy to the community. FightingMac (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It's been discussed as a section and paragraph fragment that says nothing that isn't obvious. This is not a sandbox where an editor plops down a section fragment ("gibberish") hoping that others will come along and make it meaningful. The single generic citation added nothing. The "French reaction," on the other hand, had started with many paragraphs with numerous cites and topics, warranting a section. Adding a filler section is equivalent to adding a wikilink to the word "crime" or "arrest," and talks down to our readers. BTW, does the French Wiki article have an "American reaction" section? Deleted text:
== American reaction == . . . "Since his arrest Strauss-Kahn has been under intense scrutiny by New York and national news media, with coverage of the details of his case appearing in newspapers and on radio and television daily."[9] Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Possible expansion details if sources can be located ;-): "In America, the subject is widely discussed on Facebook, Twitter, and on blogs. There are also reports of the subject being a topic of conversation at cafes, donut shops, beauty parlors, sports bars, and fitness gyms, most notably by treadmill users, due to their close proximity. It has also been claimed discussions of the subject has replaced TV watching in American nursing homes and hospital waiting rooms.[citation needed]. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Where are we holding this discussion? This seemed natural to me restoring Mr. Grantevans2's reversion but when you came to reverting that resore you noted a new 'Fragmentation' section you started where indeed I have explained, as requested, my restore on WP: NOBLANKING, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS.
Thanks for the tips on sources. I'm not sure if I'll contribute or not (anyone up for a 'Russian' section?) but I'm sure there are loads of Americans out there who would probably welcome the chance to make a contribution treated right. FightingMac (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
You can use this sub-page, Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case/American response, if you're able to add some cited details relating to that subject. The article section is currently a meaningless stub. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
So far only a few editors are interested. As stated, it seems pointless to me, without substance. Another editor, wrote "Nothing in that section appears to be American reaction." And note that although I've added my 2 cents worth, I have not trimmed or deleted any part of that section. I too prefer to discuss first. Again, as it is now, it's a single-sentence stub, needlessly sectioned off, without substance, and looks downright silly. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Will you please decide where you want to hold this discussion. Give the section time. I don't think its present content silly. That's your view. You can be quite sure I at least shall eventually add to it. I'll give you a date. June 10th. You did blank once. I think we all get by now you thinks it's silly. A thought. Why don't you have a stab at the 'perp' walk from the American angle if you're so keen to see content now (I repeat it's quite ordinary for Wikipedia to have blank or essentially blank content)? Mayor Bloomberg etc. No question at all that's notable and should be included. Or do you disagree? I suspect you will. What exactly BTW is the problem with 'only a few editors' being interested? FightingMac (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The current content of American Reaction is verifiable, relevant, and cited. What's the problem? Maybe everyone following the story now thinks it is too obvious to be mentioned, but we're writing an encyclopedia and in a decade, it will be important for readers to know that this story received intense media scrutiny for (as of 2011-05-25) ten days running. Consider the section a stub since most of the other content I had entered there migrated to the factual account sections. patsw (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Nice one, Patsw. FightingMac (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Fighting;talk about irony; I came here specifically because of your comment on the BLP about the "American reaction" being poorly written(at least that's how I interpreted your comment) and then I saw it and said to myself "FightingMac's right again; it's gibberish" and promptly removed it. That's funny. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
But, it really does seem unneeded since it has been sitting there awhile with no meaningful development at all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't understand Mr. Grantsevans2. Never commented 'American reaction' was poorly written, though I do have to admit its first incarnation I saw didn't win Nobel prizes for Literature. I assumed French input. Get this right, I'm not a grammar snob. I don't care how poorly it's written, I'll make a copy edit if I think it's in good faith. Have a look at Domonique Ramirez all of which was copy-edited by me. I spent a fair amount of time tidying that up because I thought it important. What I object to is being f***ed after I've made the effort. The original 'French reaction' was comically poor. Perhaps that's what you're thinking? On the whole I support your input I've seen but blanking the section 'American reaction' as gibberish was uncalled for and a real discourtesy. FightingMac (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I also saw your public request for help there: "Looks like they're in trouble over at the main article about a section 'American reaction' by the way. They could probably do with a helping hand from someone with at least basic grasp of the English language :-)" I agree with Mr. G. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Fighting, I like your input too and I am just trying to explain that I did not mean to be discourteous at all; especially not to you. I actually thought(obviously mistakenly) that you and I were in agreement that the section deserved a quick re-boot. That is what I think is funny; I'm laughing at myself for my misterpretation. I also do not usually look at the edit history to see what work has already been done or by whom, I am reaaally slow with the computer. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Cheers Grant. Thanks for this. FightingMac (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The entire second paragraph is redundant, even repeating the "media frenzy" term. I'll try to fix it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Fighting, I likely cut too much for your liking, but these local politicians and sources "tribeca" whatever, are just too insignificant for an encyclopedia,imo...and as you know, there can be a "media circus" or "frenzy" everytime a "Arnold" type blows his nose, so its not really notable at all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

But just how much 'law Guigou' do we need?

The law Guigou is the French 2000 law that protects the dignity of criminal suspects. When I began my edits to the 'French reaction' section it wasn't overtly mentioned anywhere. Only the originally generic BBC quote, sourced eventually by me to its French correspondent, the excellent Hugh Schofield, mentioned a law preventing such monstrosities as the 'perp' walk. I provided an interlanguage link to the French page here describing that law. Later in, connection with Le Monde remarking that the opinion poll was in fact a contravention of this same law, I directly named it and provided the same interlanguage link. In addition, along with the obligatory BBC quote representing the totality of opinion in the UK in one simple bum-comfy capsule pour insérer quelque part , I provided a piece from the very excellent indeed Benedict Brogan (a mere journalist alas but there you go) of the UK's The Daily Telegraph which set out to explain French sensibilities to the perp walk and directly references the law Guigou.

If after all that an enquiring Anglo-Saxon still hasn't grasped that the French were extremely pissed off by the perp walk because it's totally illegal just like the opinion poll they published the same day explaining how everyone in France thinks the whole thing a Sarkozy/CIA/Vatican/quelle que soit plot, then he must frankly be rather dull of intellect.

Mais attend (hope that right)! There is an editor out there who thinks the point hasn't been made clearly enough and he added "The Economist magazine notes that under French law, 'suspects may not be shown hand-cuffed, nor their faces exposed.'" and when I struck this sentence (and god knows the contributor involved does enough stiking of his own), noting that it was over-kill but thanking the contributor nicely for his good faith edit, Боже мой! but he only adjectivally reverts it back again with the unfathomable comment that we shouldn't be forced to learn French.

Allez figurez vous, ça vous donne envie de pleurer.

But of course we should all be forced to learn French. FightingMac (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It was restored with respect to the K.I.S.S. principle. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there was already this - "indeed the law bans 'degrading' photographs of prisoners awaiting trial" from the Hugh Schofield quote. What's hard about that? What the The Economist quote adds is merely that the suspects face shouldn't be shown either but that wasn't what the fury was about.
I can usefully add I think that properly speaking K.I.S.S. is a design concept. But much of life itelf, which is not generally held to be a design, except perhaps theistically in ways nevertheless held to be ineffable, is very far from simple. Is there a K.I.S.S. Wikipedia policy? No, there jolly well isn't. There's a consensus at least that the lede of an article should try to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, but of necessity an article on something like, say, Square roots (to which I have contributed elegantly), will eventually enter far from simple territory in discussing, for example, continued fraction representations, and the same in spades for something like the Riemann Hypothesis (ditto not, but I'm working on it) where it is quite impossible to give any real explanation of the nature of the hypothesis since it requires a technical understanding of analytic continuation, which simply isn't part of High School maths.
However be that as it may, the fact is that the section already had a clear explanation, was more than adequately sourced and The Economist sentence adds absolutely nothing.
Will you please explain (in simple terms we can all understand without resorting to an emigmatic acronym which really isn't relevant) what the editor has in fact achieved with this extra remark sourced from The Economist. Why do we need that much Guigou? What's the agenda here? (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The French reaction statements referred to "humiliating," and "degrading" photographs. The added quote translated the adjectives to nouns. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Erm ... no it doesn't. If that was so we would see the words 'humiliation' and 'degradation' in the added quote which we don't and even if we did how would that be simpler and more informative? FightingMac (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It answers the obvious question of "how" or "why" they would describe it as such. It helps complete the substance of the issues, in plain language. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Rubbish. Strike it Wikiwatcher1 (you're good at that). Or is this a case of свою говно малина пахнет (as a designer you surely recognise the reference at once)? FightingMac (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
"Under French law, "suspects may not be shown hand-cuffed, nor their faces exposed." And what if they are: then the French may, will, and have, described those photos as "degrading" and "humiliating." Clear enough? P.S. Can you skip the parenthetical remarks, as they're getting tiresome, and keep mocking the AGF guideline?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
1 No, absolutely not clearer 2 promise henceforth to cut parenthetical remarks. They certainly weren't meant to mock AGF but rather to amuse and instruct.
Done here too. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There was more content on this whole perp walk thing in the US reaction section - so I shifted it up and tweaked the Le Monde content (i.e. removed the reference to Perp Walk, instead mentioning it in more detail after ward). See what you think. --Errant (chat!) 09:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why was the 'Daily Mail' 'consensual sex defence' reference struck?

Why was this citation from the prestiguous UK Daily Mail for "As of May 24, 2011, there was speculation in mainstream media that Strauss-Kahn's defence team will argue that a sexual encounter did take place, but that it was consensual" struck?

It makes a clear affirmation of the fact thus

I went to some trouble to find a good source. FightingMac (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As was explained, it was based on unverified rumors. I assumed you were serious when you wrote, "Let les internautes go to the French page for saucy titbits I say." Was I right to assume that? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you were Wikiwatcher1. My position is unchanged and that is that these speculative newsy stories shouldn't be sourced at all. I only add that if we are to sourcee them then we should source them accurately. Here's the saucy titbits on the other side of the pond if anyone's interested (citing the New York Post, another fine and distinguished paper, as original investigative source. FightingMac (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
And since when is the Daily Mail a prestigious newspaper? We should definitely avoid using this kind of tabloid trash in a complicated article like this one. Laurent (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is 'reliable' in the same way that custard is bullet proof. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh well, tried my best :-) WikiLaurent and AndyTheGrump I beg to differ on the Daily Mail. FightingMac (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thin ice warning: "Strauss-Kahn leaks trigger official US clampdown". WP has a duty to be extra careful.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
French TV news broadcast before the blackout. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't follow. A topical example that comes to mind is the Brit question of super-injunctions and Twitter. Senior judges in the UK have warned that twitters twitting identities are in danger of contempt. But all the relevant celebrities are outed on their BLPs in Wikipedia and likely safely by Wikipedia because the jurisdiction is USA and not UK (i.e. the Wikipedia servers are based in the US).
The United States allow considerably more leeway in the reporting of trial proceedings than in either France or UK.
Concerning the thread about Strauss-Kahn's plea above I notice this in your source, "The next hearing in the case is set for June 6, when Strauss-Kahn could plead to the charges laid against him." which again confirms my assertion that main stream media is reporting he has yet to enter a plea.
I see nothing in the source warning newspapers not to run stories based on leaks. Your post seems more excitable than rational and frankly I think you're naive - of course the leaks came from police sources in the first place (a bed-time thought - will Julian Assange Wikileak anything that come his way about this case?). FightingMac (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to go back to the Daily Mail thing; it's generally regarded as a only-somewhat-reliable source of largely tabloid (and lightly right wing) content. For BLP's it is not a brilliant source. Also; there is a problem with it supporting the sentence FightingMac added; namely it seems to be one of the sources doing the speculating, I don't read anything there that says the mainstream media has been speculating. Is there a secondary source that identifies this? --Errant (chat!) 09:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Many actually (originating from the New York Post it seems - that fine organ :-) ) but I agree I was quick off the mark. I think only-somewhat reliable is a good description of the Daily Mail but blanket dismissal of it is quite absurd, not least because of its many fine columnists. FightingMac (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a case of unverified rumors. Branfman made a statement to the court that the evidence will show it was "not forcible" on May 16. There's a consensus among legal analysts that the defense will include a claim that the sex was consensual. In fact, there doesn't appear to be any opinion that there is the possibility of another defense. If there is an opinion that the defense will be that the encounter did not occur given after May 16, I would be interested in seeing it. patsw (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose we have to go with American spelling on this article since it's on their patch, but gosh how I hate defense! FightingMac (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Wikiwatcher's 'thin ice' warning above, this on the UK super-injunction and Twitter affair might interest
While many attendees felt that there was a need for further discussion, among delegates from the United States, there was little sympathy for the British legal position.
"I do view it to being similar to the Chinese situation where they also cover up misdeeds of high ranking people," Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales told the BBC. FightingMac (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

How do privacy rights interact with Branfman's May 16 statement made in open court? patsw (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, not at all, but I didn't follow what Wikiwatcher1's point was anyway i.e. to say Wikipedia is not a site that leaks information like Wikileaks. Wikipedia simply comments on (hopefully reliable) sources already released. So I assumed he was making the judgement that what the NYPD had leaked was violating the rights of either or both of the defendant and the accused in the case and Wikipedia contributors had a duty of care accordingly and that's where the current super-injunction/Twitter case then becomes relevant (of which the main point is that Wikipedia isn't presently terribly troubled that matters protected by UK court injunctions are repeated in BLPs).
You are a lawyer (hopefully not a teenage lawyer :-) I don't mean to be rude but I had an on-line spat a few years ago on legal matters in another incarnation and was astonished to discover my very able disputant proved to be a teenager ...)? I understand in English law that merely repeating a libel in good faith is not a defence. For example the contributor who recently tried to open a section on the alleged apporoach by friends of DSK to the victim's family to offer cum-money to make the whole thing blow (sic) away would be liable if the original allegation was libellous. Is that the situation in American law too, which is Wikipedia's jurisdiction? FightingMac (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Risk of article fragmentation

There seems to be a gradual fragmentation from what was a more coherent article. I see a few newly-created problems:

  • Paragraph fragmentation: There are some newly added paragraphs that are single sentences or single thoughts, and read as isolated factoids disconnected from any clear context;
  • Topic fragmentation: There is a new section for the "American reaction" that is only a single sentence, and is a statement of the totally obvious. This sort of filler content can be considered condescending to our readers;
  • Reverting to a newscast phraseology, ie. a single-sentence date-stamped paragraph, beginning, "As of May 24, 2011, there was . . ." This was the key reason that this article was at risk of being deleted, and now seems to be regressing without much notice.
  • Fragmentation of subjects: As one example, in the "Alleged attack" section, we have "according to the woman's account . . ." with a description of of the alleged acts; however, the expected balancing followup response, relating to the probable (speculated) defense of "consent," was moved to the end of a subsequent section. This disconnects two directly related subjects, gives undue primary attention to the allegations, while diminishing, if not hiding, the counter to those allegations. This presentation of details goes against U.S. law where the presumption is of "innocence."
  • Undue weight to punishment: The newly-added section, "Indictment and pre-trial" is another verbose focus on what the punishment could be if he were found guilty. The obvious emphasis is supported by an entire bloated paragraph with four gratuitous citations, ie. simply to support what a "First Degree, a class B Violent (2 count) felony could lead to. This again perverts a presumption of innocence.
  • Language issues: There is a continual attempt to replace English language reliable sources with French ones. In the most obvious example, replacing a simple plain-language statement of law in English, with a link to a French-language legal treatise. Those kinds of edits, since they then rely on a proper translation, undermine the substance and verifiability of statements by obfuscation;

The article seems to keep being transmutated back to a less useful, disconnected, unorganized, newsy and unbalanced format. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

It seems evident to me that there should be an 'American reaction' section. If there is to be a 'French reaction' then logically there should be an American section on the I.T.T.T.T. principal. Or is this indeed an exclusively French affair, in which case the most economical route to the page would simply be to provide a translation of the French page?
And we were agreed that there was to be such a section, were we not?
If the present starter (and god knows the 'French reaction' section was pretty unpromising at first) is too condescending and gibberishy then perhaps it can be begun as a blank section as is commonplace?
I'll find out how to do that and provide it. FightingMac (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
On reflection I'll restore as found and ask would-be reverters refer to WP: NOBLANKING and especially core policies WP:CIVIL ('gibberish' jibe of Mr. Grantevans2 on his revert noted in History) and WP:CONSENSUS. FightingMac (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: comments in order of paragraphs above:
I should have French mastered tomorrow; the rationale for not requiring an American response section has been explained in a few places above but not responded to; there was no "agreement" there should be such a section. I suggested abbreviating the pompous title someone used; the way to create a potentially useful section is to create a sub-page to this article and when or if it gets some substance, beyond filler, then ask for a consensus (I even suggested some possible truly American ideas ;)
Personally, I like the idea of having an "American response" section if one could be defined (as explained earlier.) I don't think one can however, as the last filler paragraphs proved, with nothing but repeated details. But leaving a tiny section with filler actually does the article harm. As I'm sure you're aware, when readers start reading repetitious statements, they lose interest and think less of the article. And note that this section issue is just one of many that need to be fixed to not keep the article fragmented. Please help. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see why we should write 'American reaction' a job description. No one insisted on one for 'French reaction'. If you must have one I suggest the quickest route would be to write one retrospecively for 'French reaction' and then wherever you see the adjective 'French' replace it with 'American' and wherever you see the noun 'France' replace that with 'America'. I'll let you do that and promise to keep it in mind when I make my own edits.
I did glance at your other concerns above but other than noting a shared concern to avoid newsiness didn't feel much affected. I though the new section 'Indictment and trial' a good read but legal matters are outside my competence, apparently one of yours, and I'm happy to leave that to the experts (plainly - it was very sharp to notice that DSK has indeed effectively entered a plea of 'not guilty' where practically all sources say he hasn't) contributing, and of course I cordially welcome their endeavours. FightingMac (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Understood, ie. you're not willing to help. I added a subpage above in the "American coverage" section topic, so if you want to test out your "find-and-replace" idea, it's a good spot. Discussion of that section can continue up there, so it too, doesn't become fragmented. BTW, some other editors discussed the "not guilty" subject.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
No, not understood not willing to help. In the first place I'm extremely busy presently, giving generously a lot of my time to this article, and in the second place I want to see what other contributors might wish to add (if we haven't frightened all of them off so far). I could write a 50,000 word essay in my sleep about reaction to this affair, which I happen to think is the story of the century. Regarding the legal stuff I've seen two editors commenting here, Patws and Dragons Flight, and they both looked on the ball to me and I want to encourage them. The French currently have a blank 'Jurisdiction' page and I haven't see any of them give un mot Bachelot about 'fragmentation'. I don't know what a subpage is but I can't see what the point can possibly be if the 'American reaction' section is empty.
Fundamentally, what can be the objection to an 'American reaction' section given that there is already (and what has become a rather good and informative) section 'French reaction'? Will you please address that if you respond. But really don't feel there's any need. FightingMac (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
What subpage? Don't understand. I don't see anything. FightingMac (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh I see, thanks but no thanks. Sorry. Busy. FightingMac (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Responded in section above: "American coverage" section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There are too many issues to deal with in the above section. The one I will comment on is that articles that concern a criminal case, the details of the indictment are included. It is a neutral fact that DSK has been indicted and as juries are instructed, it is an accusation, and the defendant retains a presumption of innocence until a verdict is returned. patsw (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Alleged approaches to victim's family in Africa

I think the editor is way-over-cautious-to-the-point-of-foolishly censoring of this story ("speculative, newsy, very possibly libellous [sic] etc." was the reason given), but I am new to the article so thus herewith now submit my (now proposed-for-restoration) new section for consideration, here. (Please click blue phrase to view.)

I prominently noted the source, which could I know be considered suspect. I wonder if the editor read the source, though, and think (a) that I represented the source fairly, for any reasonable reader to consider, go further by going to the source, go further from there at will; (b) that while unnamed source(s) aren't that palatable they are of course endemic in US media, and this one is well described (as I quoted); and (c) the section/story is wide open to reasoned, researched rebuttal. For my part, I was equally open to the story being important to have in, in case it was disproved. I for sure don't know if the source has integrity and think disproved cases are important to have as we judge such integrity. And the uncertainty doesn't mean I/we have to throw the source out in the meantime. Since we haven't repealed the First Amendment I recommend restoring the section, as is or amended if there are specific complaints.

I've tested myself with "What if it were the National Enquirer?" That would be harder, I acknowledge. But it's also irrelevant in the end, I think.

I was going back to add this next bit to the end of my footnote, and will do so if the section's restored: Via Felix Salmon. Retrieved 2011-05-25.

As a suggestion, I'd say the editor could just as well have started his/her own discussion here, without deleting the section. Libelous? Are we kidding? We're not under French law, are we here? I think French standards are different, tougher, but .... It's an NY arrest & indictment, NY media outlet. Well, let's see. (And I know the editor's not kidding. I'm trying to meet halfway, here.) Swliv (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're unsure if the source is useful, try looking at it's front page. In the U.S. it's called "tabloid," good for grocery and liquor store counters. We trust you read the first sentence, "Friends of alleged hotel sex fiend . . .". --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 :-) 'alleged hotel sex fiend' FightingMac (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Speculative tabloid garbage like that should not be used as a source, end of story. And yes, it is potentially libelous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Felix and Swliv. Sorry to be high-handed but at least we're here. I'm quite sure in my mind that there are WP:BLP violation issues at stake here but I shan't revert if you restore because I'm not a Wikipedia administrator. I'll be surprised if your proposed section survives long. As I understand the sources for this story are 'undisclosed'? So how can you be sure it's RS? You surely recognise it's potentially libellous and that the people who are being libelled are likely rich and powerful? I countenance you with the well-worn advice driving a car that if you're going to crash into someone for preference crash into someone cheap. You do know that in the UK jurisdiction at least you're liable even if you repeat a libel in good faith?
The bribry allegations were mentioned for a while in the French article but were removed (not by me). They have been vigorously denied by DSK associates on the not too implausible grounds it would be rather obvious ('World exclusive: Alleged DSK victim's family living in abject poverty in Guinea take world cruise').
Felix, you say you know the source might be considered suspect. Wrong. You don't know the sources at all and its reporting souce The New York Post is by and large not generally considered a reliable source. I'm not being snooty about the gutter press, on this same page I valorise the tabloid UK paper The Daily Mail, but I am realistic. Here's a source querying the story.
I need to add a qualifying disclaimer. When I say I shan't revert any restore you make of the section you propose, in no way at all do I imply approval of your action in contributing the section. FightingMac (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
oh, and Felix, to use the 'c' word even when qualified way-over-cautious-to-the-point-of-foolishly is a big wiki no-no. Just in case you're new here as I do so hope and trust you are (and young, could put that in the frame as well). FightingMac (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Tabloid at best" is the nicest way I could describe this. --Errant (chat!) 23:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have been away. I come back willing to accept the consensus, upon a quick re-glimpse; though my basic sentiments as expressed I also still feel comfortable with. Anyway, mostly want here to clarify Felix for the record. He is, as one could find following the above link, a well-known financial-affairs writer and blogger. I wanted just to give him credit for leading me to that so-lacking tabloid, if the footnote were restored. RIP, good edit. We shall see, eh? Swliv (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Libel it's not

It is not libel if the article accurately states that source X reports Y.

  • The policies and guidelines for how to determine is a source is considered reliable are established, and extra vigilence for living persons.
  • And we need to be attentive to the media echo where the report becomes in the article that source W reported that source X reported Y where no attempt has been made by W to independently verify Y.
  • Also we need to make an evaluation of the significance of a report that doesn't have any of the parties involved stating that it happened. (gossip, rumor, and WP:UNDUE)

Applying these principles to the widely circulated report, that the alleged victim's family was contacted by friends of DSK to influence her to not cooperate with the District Attorney in the prosecution of the case:

The Daily Mail article itself casts doubt on the truth of the story. It is not suitable for the Wikipedia article without much more verification. patsw (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Patsw, I defer to your experience but what jurisdiction are you quoting? Suppose I, as (say) a Russian citizen, were to make a libellous statement in Wikipedia. In whose jurisdiction would I be liable? Only if you have time and inclination of course. Your input appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia would be liable, as publisher. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Not in the Russia I know :-) FightingMac (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quoting a jurisdiction, I am appealing to a generic definition of libel when I write it is not libel if the article accurately states that source X reports Y. The Wikimedia Foundation deals with the response to a legal claim of libel made against Wikipedia. If your participation in Wikipedia raises concerns that you will be accused of libel, then you should consult a lawyer familiar with your jurisdiction to evaluate that risk to you. patsw (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
In the U.S., if a writer submits a story that may contain libelous information, it becomes libelous only after it's been published. The publisher alone is liable. If 100 other publications use and republish the same story, they too become liable. Every publisher, original and secondary, are liable. The writer walks free (probably fired!) but the duty of verification is upon the publisher. If CBS publishes a libelous TV report, based on a false WP statement, CBS will get sued 1st since it has the deeper pockets. WP could become a co-defendant. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Patsw and Wikiwatcher1: 'forewarned is prepared' :-) .
I would be interested in knowing if there was a successful claim of libel made against a publisher who published that source X reported Y -- that is only citing the original report and not attesting to its content. patsw (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll have a look but I know hardly anything about law, although I have edited the occasional article coming into my sphere of influence ;-) My impression was always that merely repeating a libel in English law was a libel but absolutely I've never paid it any attention. Wikiwatcher's remark is that it's the publisher and not the author who is liable is also right I think, not sure. FightingMac (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"Wikipedia doesn't give legal advice". AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for legal advice, I was asking if a specific event has occurred. It's a factual question, not a legal opinion. patsw (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the AP Stylebook, there are a couple of U.S. states (can't remember which ones, but I know New York is not one) where repeating the substance of a purportedly libelous accusation is actionable after a libel suit has been filed and during the subsequent pendency of said action. [after rereading Chapter 2 of the libel guide in said publication]: Only California's definition of the fair-report privilege gives full statutory protection to such republication of reports by public agencies and statements made in public meetings. New York has pretty strong case law there, though. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"American reaction" moved

Go here to improve: →American reaction section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

'American reaction' section restored per WP:NOBLANKING
WP:CONSENSUS - The author(s), of an article section, must be contacted about discussion for deleting (or totally rewriting) that section, and a decision should wait until the author offers an opinion.
I've already made it clear that I oppose deleting this section. I do regard continuing to delete it as vandalism. FightingMac (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I also see that Wikiwatcher1 is continuing to delete a remark I authored in the 'French reaction' section on speculation in social networking sites following the arrest. But that is notable and well sourced. I do regard continuing to delete it as vandalism. FightingMac (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

If Strauss-Kahn were to become France's president, a report in Asia Times Online notes that "he could bank on his experience [at IMF] and lead not only France but also Europe. He could also rely on the US's trust, gained at the IMF and before, that he would not turn the European Union into an anti-American stronghold."
a speculation which I would have thought comes pretty high up on the 'bleeding obvious' scale as well being not in the slightest bit notable (I think we can safely assume Strauss-Kahn isn't going to make it to the French presidential next year).
In fact I deleted this remark when I saw it but Wikiwatcher restored it, so much does he value it, and of course I've respected his restore.
But I did delete another quote he made from this notable source in the 'French reaction' section
The conspiracy theories live because of the hopes and fears of what Strauss-Kahn might have done as France's president.
because it's not French reaction i.e. to say Sisci is Italian, he is the director of the Insitute of Italian Culture in Beijing and the source is Asian. FightingMac (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I do wish he would have the grace to cut us some slack back.
Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the pre-trial phase

After indictment and before the trial it is called "pre-trial" phase. The motions being made to the oourt now are "pre-trial" motions. Each hearing now is a "pre-trial" hearing. The term is common usage:

  1. Strauss-Kahn's attorneys are busy constructing a new bail package to present to a judge as early as Thursday morning in the hopes of springing their client from pretrial detention.
  2. Along with the professional-quality kitchen and a "nanny suite," the first floor features a "great room" with a skylight and fireplace, perfect for those pre-trial strategy sessions with his lawyers, and limestone "radiant heat" floors, according to the broker’s swanky online description.
  3. Former French Justice Minister Elisabeth Guigou called the pre-trial publicity "absolutely sickening." And another former French justice minister, Robert Badinter, said the IMF chief had been subjected to "death by media."
  4. As a pre-trial detainee, Strauss-Kahn isn't required to wear a prison uniform. He may bring his own clothing and wear what he chooses in his cell, whether it be designer suits, or something more casual.
  5. Thus, arraigned defendants who can't afford bail while awaiting trial are too often effectively told, for example: "plead guilty and be sentenced to 30 days beginning today; if not, we'll adjourn the case for 45 days for the lawyers to file and litigate pre-trial motions." patsw (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Patsw, I've restored your original edits after Wikiwatcher's 'trimming' edits. If there's anything else he's 'trimmed' as well perhaps you can note it here. If you need help restoring, let me know.
Wikiwatcher, I ask that you respect our contributions. That was effectively a rewrite of a section you have said you didn't support in contravention of WP:NOBLANKING and WP:PRESERVE
Beyond blanking of the text, the total rewrite of a section, is a similar removal of text.
I did regard your edits there as vandalism. FightingMac (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

More evidence and testimony revealed

More evidence and testimony has been revealed to the media which implicate Strauss-Kahn and undermine his anticipated claim of consensual sex:

  • Strauss-Kahn was shouting “Don’t you know who I am! Don’t you know who I am?” at the victim.
  • The victim's blood on the sheets.
  • Strauss-Kahn would have had a defensive wound or bruise on his back from the victims attempt to be freed
  • The screams of the victim were heard by others on the floor
  • The victim gave an account of the attack to employees immediately afterwards (added)
  • Strauss-Kahn also made passes at two separate female concierges during his 24-hour stay at Sofitel.
  • Strauss-Kahn's semen is on the victim's shirt.

The defense does not have to answer these allegations if and until they are presented in court and can be rebutted. The public can believe whatever they want. However, a juror would have to maintain a presumption of innocence until the start of deliberations.

Fox News Bloomberg Daily Beast Timeline of the weekend

Does any of this leaked evidence and testimony belong in the article? patsw (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's intended regarding the comment about a juror's presumption of innocence. However I hardly think WP mission to inform the public of relevant, well-sourced material should be concerned about what a juror may or may not see. If the information is reliably sourced and relevant, then I see no reason not to include. Ronnotel (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec)@Patsw - sorry, a quick perusal of the sources you provided, as well as my own Google search didn't provide a source for your fourth claim - that the victim's screams were heard on the floor. Can you tell us where you saw that? Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, likewise. I haven't seen that. Probably off-topic, but I am curious. FightingMac (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait till the trial, then it is on public record and we can deal with the presented evidence in detail. Using it now is speculative and a BLP issue. --Errant (chat!) 13:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely what BLP issue? FightingMac (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Probably not because of WP:NOTNEWS and I share with Wikiwatcher1 a common concenr that the article doesn't degenerate into 'newsiness'.
But I certainly think the sources can be cited in support of a remark such as "Since his arrest Strauss-Kahn has been under intense scrutiny by New York and national news media" in 'American reaction'. FightingMac (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The claim that screams were heard by other employees during the attack appeared in the comment boxes. What appears in the articles cited is that immediately after the alleged attack the victim informed her supervisor and others at the hotel who immediately contacted the police. patsw (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(smacks hand but it doesn't seem to help)... Immediately? ... But I'm afraid we should desist from speculation however much it might serve to improve the article ;-) FightingMac (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)