Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Lead revisions

The lead was written before much of the body text was added, so I agree that it could be rephrased. This is a possible revision for paragraphs 2 and 3 which bring in some topics from the body as more of a summary.

At the time of the alleged attack, Strauss-Kahn was the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and considered to be a leading candidate for the 2012 French Presidency. As a result of the allegations, he resigned from his IMF post, which came at a bad time for the world economy because of the debt crisis, and has made finding a replacement for his role more urgent and complicated. There has been widespread reactions to his arrest resulting from the subsequent “media circus” it caused. In France, feminists supported the woman’s claims as an example of sexism in their country. Much of the French public was also traumatized at seeing “degrading images” of Strauss-Kahn widely published in U.S. media right after his arrest, a type of display which is illegal in France. In addition, there was speculation by a majority in France that he was actually the victim of a set-up, in order to remove him as a possible political candidate. Many who have known Strauss-Kahn well, including his present and previous wife, insist that although he was known as a “womanizer, he was incapable of behaving “violently” around a woman.

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

1st para seems fine. 2nd para I'm not keen on the wording. What about:

His arrest and the associated "media circus" resulted in widespread reaction, both in France and the United States. Images of Strauss-Kahn's "Perp walk" were widely published in the US media causing controversy in France, where such things are illegal. Immediately after the arrest there was much media speculation that the allegations were a set-up by political opponents; a poll of the French public found that a large proportion believed this to be the case. A number of Strauss-Kahn's associates, including his present and former wives, supported his version of events, saying that, whilst being a "womanizer", he was incapable of behaving violently to woman. Others criticised Strauss-Kahn's conduct with women. The events prompted a discussion of sexism in French culture by feminists.

You'll note I also recorded the criticism and moved the feminist stuff toward the end (as it has less relevance to the event). Thoughts? --Errant ^(chat!) 19:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't care for the rewrite there very much ("such things" is reminiscent of The Economist's chatty, confiding style which I, and I know many others, don't care for at all, with the potential to hide many sins ioho). Sorry. Why not just delete the extremely naff 3rd paragraph and be done with it? Does the lede have to precis everything in the article? FightingMac (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You;re right, really, although we could replace it with a really brutal summary of "The arrest and associated "media circus" cause commentary in both the US and France both in relation to Strauss-Kahn and broader issues of sexism and sexual harrassment". --Errant ^(chat!) 20:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your phrasing is better. I made a few changes that I prefer (explained later):

His arrest and the associated "media circus" resulted in widespread reaction, both in France and the United States. "Degrading" images of Strauss-Kahn after his arrrest were widely published in the US media causing controversy in France, where such images are illegal. Immediately after the arrest there was much speculation in France that the allegations were a set-up by political opponents, where the majority believed this to be the case. A number of Strauss-Kahn's friends and intimates, including his present and former wife, insisted that although a "womanizer", he was incapable of behaving violently to women. Others, however, criticized his conduct with women. The events also prompted a discussion of sexism in French culture by feminists.

Reason for a few changes: I don't think "perp walk" is a common enough term for the average reader, and prefer not forcing them to another article; replaced "associates," since the word is typically business-related; poll detail simplified; only one previous wife was quoted. As an updated lead it seems to summarize more of the key sections from the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The more brutal the better I say :-) I don't see the need for fingers in the air around media circus. Wikiwatcher1, you might have been right pre-DSK regarding perp walk but surely not post? FightingMac (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"The more brutal the better I say :-)" Sounds like a truly "neutral" suggestion. And with a smiley face! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

2nd revision

Not a fan of some of the tweaks:

• "Degrading" is opinionated, and not clearly associated to any view, I also am not a huge fan of "air quotes" used too much - and we already have one in the paragraph.
• I think perp walk is better (and with a wikilink is defined) as most of the media reports relate to that. But not real issue over it.
• "intimates" seems unclear, at least in the UK it doesn't clearly mean what I think was intended. Associates is bad though, any other suggestions?
• "where the majority believed this to be the case"; this needs to be clear that we are working off one poll, otherwise it is way too strong an assertion.
• "insisted"; never been a fan of this in articles, unless clearly sourced, as it is editorializing the statements of others - stick to "said", IMO.
• Wife, grammatically, needs to be "wives" as the subject of that section is two people (I see your concern; we possibly need to reword).
• , however, is redundant, not a big issue but I tend to gripe over "loose" sentences like that :P
• that although needs a comma to have correct sentence grammar. Though the whole sentence could be reworded.
• I've thought of another tweak to my own text, to women need to be "toward women".
• Oh, another for my own: 'resulted in widespread needs an "a" in there.

Phew. FWIW I tend to agree that this is too much for a lead on such a short article and we could cut it further. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Very happy to leave it entirely to your judgement, ErrantX. Indeed a lot of work it seems and I shouldn't want to be the cause of more of it. FightingMac (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorporating most of your suggestions, here's a possible revamp:

His arrest and the associated "media circus" resulted in widespread reaction, both in France and the United States. "Degrading" images of Strauss-Kahn after his arrrest ("perp walk") were widely published in the US media causing controversy in France, where such images are illegal. There was subsequent speculation by a large portion of the French population that the allegations against him were a set-up by political opponents. A number of Strauss-Kahn's close and intimate friends, including his present and former wives, argue that although he was a "womanizer", he was incapable of behaving violently toward women. Others criticized his conduct with women. The events also prompted a discussion of sexism in French culture by feminists.

I kept the word "degrading," (quoted in article, re: BBC) which clearly explains why it was an issue without forcing many readers to another page to define the slang term "perp walk." FWIW, the term "perp," short for perpetrator, is incorrect in any case, since he hasn't been proven guilty. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh well done observing that about the 'perp', Wikiwatcher1, like you know half the political commentators in the US, including novelist New York Jay McInerney I cited but whom you dismised as 'trivial' (in court again at the arraignment and oviously chasing a Pulitzer here, dream on Jay ... I'm in the frame too), hadn't thought to mention it commenting on Mayor Bloomberg's defense of the perp. And I invited you to contribute over the perp. FightingMac (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't support the word "Degrading", that is my main issue with the current proposal. The problem is that it is not well attributed & makes too strong a statement. What about: Images of Strauss-Kahn in custody were widely published in the US media causing controversy in France, where they were called "degrading". Publication of such images has been illegal in the country since 2001. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It sounds better. Don't think the 2001 should be used, though, since it's not in the article and doesn't seem necessary for the lead. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep sounds fine. I'm still not sure about "close and intimate friends" - it's a bit.. lewd :) and also somewhat inaccurate because they seem to be associates more than friends - do we have a word somewhere in the middle of those two? --Errant ^(chat!) 19:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I further tightened some of the wording in what was place. Leading sentences with "XXX, ...." is usually redundant. etc. And corrected a few commas. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How about, "Among those who knew him well"? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Perp walk

A user deleted on tight grounds non-free rationale didn't reference article. Here it is now as revised:

Non-free use rationale Article = Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case Description = Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) escorted by NYPD detectives to court following his 2011 arrest on charges of sexually assaulting a hotel housekeeper Source = Duplicate of Perp walk image. Copyright is stated to be held by Getty Images Portion = Most (copyright banner at bottom removed) Low_resolution = Yes Purpose = Accompany text in article discussing controversy around publication of images, particularly in France, where it is illegal to publish such images unless a person has been convicted of the offense that led to the arrest. Replaceability = Irrepeatable historic event; no free images are known to exist other_information =

It's an example of the kind of image that caused uproar in France as decribed in the text. FightingMac (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The image clearly illustrates what the French were annoyed at seeing. In the U.S. at least, republishing the image (in an encyclopedia, no less) would be referred to, in slang, as "in your face." It's defined as "aggressive, confrontational and provocative" acts. Is it necessary? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, Wikiwatcher1, but it's not meant as "in your face", really. It has genuine encyclopaedic interest and I think instructs my Falu student who references the article but may not know what a perp walk is. What *was* in our face I thought was the French wiki publishing the name of the housekeeper even although Wikipedia's jurisdiction is in America with a tradition of respecting the privacy of sexual assault and rape complainants; the old French exception for you and I know you don't like irony so I shan't elaborate. I don't know about you but I did find that in my face alright and right up my nose and the basis of my perhaps not too wise 'pretty please' requests for images of the perp walk. Hope this sets your mind at rest. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry too much, the image was removed procedurally because no NFCC rationale was given for this article on the file page - that does need to be fixed ASAP because it is a caveat of the usage policy for non-free images. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have fixed that now, haven't I by uploading a duplicate of the image with a NFCC rationale addresssing the article as documented above? I'm not happy about having to upload a duplicate but when I went to edit the existing image in Perp walk I couldn't find a way of providing a rationale for a second occurrence in another article, so I took the route I have. If the deleting user still has concerns I can simply upload an entirely new non-free image. I'm studying WP:NFCC. It's interesting. I'm quite sure use an image is appropiate here. It's just getting the technical stuff right.

BTW I notice Wikiwatcher1 is adding content about maid security. If he cares to add some content about the maids' protest at the arraignment, very historical, I can add back the image that got deleted. FightingMac (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's from another editor. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I saw that. But there's no furure for the image I'm afraid. WP:NFC#UUI makes it clear at #7 that for an agency photo it's the image itself that has to be the object of discussion, not the event. I've added an 'image requested' template here. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I ran out of time last night to fix the NFCC - there is no need to upload a duplicate, just to add a new NFCC template to the current file page with the rationale for inclusion on this page. The rule just means there must be explicit rationale for each use. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah... didn't think of that. Noted for another time. My suspect maids' protest image dead in the hypo I'm afraid. Future Perfect at Sunrise (wonderful name) refers: firstly agency images only allowed if the image itself (and not the events) is what is discussed, which I sort of knew, but the killer is the image must add to the article which FPaS remarks can hardly be the case since we all know what a demo looks like. So I have to defer but I mean I just think it's so you know, censorious, that Thompson's passionate statement on behalf of his client and the protest image is just basically banned from Wikipedia like this, but of course I have to accept the community's faulty rationale and remember Wikipedia is just not about me (but it's hard, and it hurts because god knows I really really do care and all I'm trying to do is set things straight here). FightingMac (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

POV template rationales

To properly post a POV template, there are certain requirements, one being:

"Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article."

These disputes should be clearly stated in a neutral way so others can respond. General references to earlier discussions is not the way to accomplish that. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There are ongoing NPOV disputes all over this talk page, most of them inspired by you. Your Banon edit for a start. Didn't you post POV templates at Roman Polanski rather freely? Since we're here I'd like to ask you something much earlier on in the history of this article. I wanted to include references to both the politician Jack Lang and journalist Jean-François Kahn in the French reaction section. You allowed Lang but not Kahn because Kahn was a mere journalist 3,000 miles away (like Lang wasn't too). But I'm wondering now that I've discovered your great desire to protect Roman's reputation against the Wikipedia attack dogs whether there's something more to it involved here, like Lang defending Roman against extradition saying it just proved how American justice sometimes runs amok. Might that have something to do with it?. I'm glad to see both are now included. FightingMac (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

My approach to these templates are always "meh"; if the dispute is long running and active then it can be useful to notify editors. However it usually gets used, mistakenly, as a reader notification template - which is not what it is for :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC) 08:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

@FightingMac. This is the first I ever heard of Kahn or Lang. As for Polanski's article, it had little to do with protecting his "reputation," but simply putting a widely read and news-affected article into a readable format. Coincidentally, the main editor I had any debates with was User:Tombaker321, and I noticed that a message about that user was just posted a few days ago on the Polanski talk page:

"User:Tombaker321 was blocked indefinitely over eighteen months ago, you can see comments on his/her talkpage that the user "seems to have edited Wikipedia primarily for the single purpose of adding derogatory content about the life of Roman Polanski2 . . . " User:Off2riorob, June 5, 2011.

Sadly, I now assume most of the other editors at that time knew he was a WP:SPA but cared not, even as he corrupted the article significantly. When I asked him if he was using a wp:sockpuppet account, he sneeringly responded with a LOL. None of the admins or editors said a word. It was not Polanski's reputation that I tried to protect, but Wikipedia's. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't understand Off2riorob. I wasn't addressing you but Wikiwatcher1. Here's the first three paragraphs from the Talk page section involved

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)

And (Personal attack removed) It's back in now from another editor. Of course it's notable because it illustrates the sexism in French media that existed pre-DSK, which prompted the demonstrations and petitions and continues to be the subject of agonised soul-searching in French media. Not only did Kahn feel constrained to apologise but he also resigned from journalism. (Personal attack removed)

Regarding Tombaker321, I'll look out of curiosity but I'm sure it was exactly as you say. There are some real sickos and lusers contributing to Wikipedia. But (Personal attack removed) I was thinking about referred to POV tags he was placing and I was merely suggesting pot calling kettle black.(Personal attack removed)

I do thank you once again for your support about the Conti edit at the noticeboard. Following that, Wikiwatcher1 has reintroduced it twice, once in the aticle and once on the Talk page here. He plainly doesn't think it a significant matter. 13:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I misunderstood. Those were your comments above Wikiwatcher1. All I can say is you must have an amazingly short memory not to remember your discussion about Lang earler on the talk page as noted above. I'm happy to accept what you say Tombaker321, I'm sure loads of that went on, but that was not the bits of your Roman Polanski editing I was referring to. FightingMac (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

When I wrote that this was the first time I ever heard of Kahn or Lang, I was referring to this article, as opposed to the Polanski one. BTW, I removed the link to Off2riorob which confused some of the earlier messages, so maybe you can either delete or move comments back together for clarity. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) FightingMac (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The article covers a lot of off-shoot topics, so a concise lead briefly covering many of them seems helpful. There's no new material used needing any cites, unlike many leads I've seen such as his bio, which has 7! A lead should rarely need redundant citations. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the lede fine Wikiwatcher1 and really rather a good summary of the issues so far. I did do a small copy-edit to make it more formal sounding but don't let that stop others from editing. I see ErrantX has already made a good edit. I find it rather hard to edit other people's copy myself. You're in a place you wouldn't normally be if you had written the whole thing yourself and I don't find it a straightforward task. Still I think the lede is fine in content. Did my best with style but feel free to tweak. FightingMac (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why, as a description of the alleged event, is "sexual assault" preferable to Editors here than what UPI and ABC say; "forced her to submit to anal sex and to perform oral sex on him" ? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the problem here? What you mention is in the article here, 1st paragraph, line 4. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I have been making a lot of mistakes lately. Thanks. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Victim lives in housing reserved for AIDS patients

It should be noted that numerous sources, including NY Post, have stated the victim is the only adult living in housing reserved for AIDS patients. 68.230.131.75 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC) See [1] [2] [3] [4].

It should be noted that the New York Post is also a gossip rag (apologies to all literate rags for lumping you with this "publication," and apologies to all publications for calling this thing a publication). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I shan't quarrel with that judgement :-). I would like to see the article keep all her details private until such time as her defense releases them. Just a personal preference there and it may not be realistic if the American media in general start to publish widely, but as far as I can see they've been remarkably good about that. FightingMac (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thompson Wigdor

This is how the article reads now and how it read before I changed it:

The housekeeper is represented by Thompson Wigdor, a two-partner law firm that focuses on employment discrimination and criminal cases. Thomson is the federal prosecutor who brought the criminal case against New York police officers for brutalizing Haitian-immigrant Abner Louima in 1997.

This is how the article read after my change:

The housekeeper is represented by Thompson Wigdor, a firm that focuses on employment discrimination and criminal cases.

This is a quote from the source that backs up either wording:

What remains is Thompson Wigdor, a two-partner firm that focuses on employment discrimination and criminal cases. Thompson himself is perhaps best known as the federal prosecutor who brought the criminal case against New York police officers for brutalizing Haitian-immigrant Abner Louima in 1997.

I changed the language for two reasons. First, I don't think it's necessary to go into the background of the attorney. Nor do I see how Thompson's prosecution of the police officers is particularly relevant to his representation of the housekeeper, other than being a famous case. Second, the language in the article is almost a straight copy and paste of two sentences from the source article. After my change, it's just a copy of a single phrase.

I don't care a whole lot about this, so if there's a consensus for the old/current wording or some other permutation, fine, but I figured I'd give others a chance to comment if they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My view when this first in was "why are we reciting detail on the law firm?" - very tangential. Both sentences are definitely a copyright problem - the single sentence could be ok, but a re-word would be better. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrase I left in is so brief and factual I figured it wasn't a big copyright issue. However, how about, "The housekeeper is represented by Thompson Wigdor, a small firm whose practice includes employment discrimination and criminal cases"? The only reason for including anything about the firm is because the defense attorney has a Wikipedia article, making it easier for the reader to find out more about him, whereas the housekeeper's firm and the two partners do not have articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Really this is such nonsense as hardly to be worth noting and frankly I can hardly be bothered.

Of course it's notable that Thompson is the federal prosecutor who brought the case against NYPD in the matter of Abner Louima, as notable as Brafman defending Michael Jackson as was very widely reported in the media (by all means add that in if you want). Of course it's not a copyright violation and as it happened it wasn't copy-pasted as evidenced by my needing to correct a typo later on.

What is an issue here is WP:PRESERVE, which in this case is not a mere essay but policy. You show every sign of unconcernedly trampling ('your soup, my spit') over other people's carefully considered and thoughtful content and it's extremely discourteous of you. An example from the lede: originally the lede said that DSK had resigned because of the allegations. But that was not so and does imply some question of guilt. Rather he was called upon to resign not because of the allegations made against him but because he was in custody and clearly not in state to carry out his duties. When I made my copy edit I was careful to make the distinction. Later you edited simply to 'he resigned' and whereas I think that was a good edit from the point of view of brevity, it nevertheless does miss on explaining why he resigned and there will be many reading it subsequently who might conclude that indeed he resigned because of the allegations themseleves.

I ask you simply to leave my edit alone and especially not tinker with the separate paragraphing, as you did with your clumsy edit of the out of court attorney statements (which I did point out to you but which you nevertheless chose to do nothing about). For your future reference when you do conflate like that you should write a lead into the material, "Outside the court, lawyers for the parties made statements ..." sort thing if you are not to totally exhaust your readers' patience.

There's nothing to fix here. Leave it alone. I hardly ever edit other contributors' content and when I do it is usually merely for copy, as I did with the lede this morning where the content itself was scrupulously preserved. I ask you to extend editors the same courtesy. It really is quite intolerable we have to deal with this sort of nonsense along with all the other problems this unfortunate and very ill-advised article, with all the BLP minefields and POV advocacy problems it brings in its wake, gives rise to, and an article which, incidentally, I give notice now, I shall move for AfD deletion as soon as it is possible again, as I do devoutly hope it will indeed be possible. FightingMac (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to respond to Mac's comments, so if other editors, including Errant, have a view on how this material should be presented, please say so.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's notable that Thompson is the federal prosecutor who brought the case against NYPD in the matter of Abner Louima, as notable as Brafman defending Michael Jackson as was very widely reported in the media (by all means add that in if you want).

Why is it significant? This is not a news article, it is an article specifically about this event - too much tangential information is not relevant. To explain this, consider; we have a number of individuals and companies mentioned in the article. If each had a sentence then we would be looking at most of the article being tangential :) This is something that happened in 1997 and isn't related to the case at all. Regardless, "perhaps best known" is a view, and needs to be attributed if kept.

Of course it's not a copyright violation and as it happened it wasn't copy-pasted as evidenced by my needing to correct a typo later on.

Unfortunately text need not be identical to the original to be a copyright violation. If it is a close paraphrase that is also a copyright violation - it is usually best to word it completely differently to a source. The single sentence is probably not a huge issue, but it needs to be attributed to the source to pass our licensing policy.

I think the extra detail isn't needed, but am not so desperate that it has to be done immediately :) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and generally agree with them, but I'm not quite sure what your conclusion is. I suggested an alternative wording earlier, but you didn't say whether you liked it or not. Assuming you didn't (cynic that I am), I have another suggestion: we just say: "The housekeeper is represented by Thompson Wigdor." We combine that sentence with the paragraph above because it makes sense to have both representations in the same paragraph and because it eliminates short paragraphs. Then, once consensus is reached as to whether more information about the firm should be added and, if so, what, we can edit the article accordingly. That also eliminates the existing copyright issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

CP has this

Of course, United States law does allow for fair use of copyrighted content, and, within limit, Wikipedia does, too. Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only if clearly marked and with full attribution.

It doesn't get much briefer, does it, and there a limit to the number of ways you can say a firm is a two-person partnership and that one of them is a federal prosecutor who led on Abner Louima. Even Bbb23's pared down edit would be seen as a copyright violation on his interpretation. If he really has cogent concerns about copyright he could have fixed it with a copy-edit preserving content. I'm not sure, legal whizz-kid notwithstanding, he's labouring under some sort of misconception that knowledge is copyright. It was who I who found this source and contributed its content to the article and my contribution shoud be respected. The Abner Louima lead is not tangential but encyclopaedic. It was wikilinked so the reader could refer. The knowledge dissemination model of Wikipedia is that of any flow of information through a network, a directed acyclic graph ever expanding and hopefully, unlike Talk page comments, not returning back to itself in a vortex. Over the weekend I shall do some reading about the legal teams and provide some more encyclopaedic content. That Brafman represented Michael Jackson certainly strikes me as notable and should be included. 'Knowledge is power'. The stuff about DSK 'reportedly seeking' public relation advice content long ago became fact and should be edited and since then there have been published accounts giving accounts of the legal teams involved and their likely strategies such as this from NYT The Strauss-Kahn Case: Sizing Up a Legal Clash’s Many Facets The Strauss-Kahn Case: Sizing Up a Legal Clash’s Many Facets which can be incorporated. If Bbb23 has the legal skills he sets himself up as possessing, I suggest they might be better employed in the service of the article by adding content from sources such as this, rather than pedantic nit-picking copyright issues on a two sentence extract from a 10-something paragraph source. (Personal attack removed) FightingMac (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, please don't expand irrelevant detail about the legal teams any further. Who cares that Brafman represented Jackson - the article isn't about him! If you start adding such things it provides a platform to note all sorts of random detail: what his wives are most famous for, what other notable things happened at the Sofitel, what Taubmann or François Kahn have previously written, Front National's political stance... See the growing issue? :( In terms of the copyvio - we can close paraphrase material, but it must then be attributed to the source directly (as in "X said,...."). It's not a big issue and is easily fixed, but we do have to take extra-care over ensuring such things, because at some point someone could swap out those references and we then end up with a problem. You will find people being sticklers for our copyright policy - which is because it is one of the five pillars, and close paraphrasing w/o attribution is an endemic problem for Wikipedia :) Nothing to worry about. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll defer but I don't really agree. For rather a long time Natasha Kiss' opinion of DSK's love making skills (but not of course her trivial pet name 'Gengis Khan' for the lovable beast) featured in this article and I didn't see you riding head of cavalry to sweep it away. FightingMac (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to clarify which court he's in now

My understanding is that Strauss-Kahn was arraigned in New York City Criminal Court, but now that he's been indicted, the case is under the jurisdiction of the New York State Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County (the Hon. Michael Obus is a member of that court), and it's that court in which he will be tried. The article needs to be more clear about the shift to a court of limited jurisdiction to one of general jurisdiction. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should remove the first reference to New York City Criminal Court. Then, there's nothing to clarify. I don't see why it's important for the reader to understand the precise procedure of initial appearances, arraignments, etc., and what kinds of judges do what. I will remove the reference.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's important because the entire point of the article is the case against him. Specifically, it's important which venue Strauss-Kahn is going to be tried in. For example, if he had been charged with a federal crime in the Southern District of New York, the probability of conviction would have been somewhere between 90 to 100% because the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are overwhemingly tilted in favor of the federal government (which is why virtually all federal criminal defendants are advised to plead guilty and actually do so). In state courts the chance of an acquittal is slightly better. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That's just your take on it. Even if you're right, you'd have to find sources that say so and convince other editors that such an analysis of conviction rates belongs in this article (which I doubt you could do). And, even then, the only thing that matters is that it's state court, not which of the state courts see him at any given moment in the pretrial and trial proceedings.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Inclined to agree with Bbb23. Could do with some input from the legal boys on the civil lawsuit implications. Bbb23, dear boy, I'm really flattered by the attention you lavish on my edits. It's really sweet of you but absolutely don't feel you have to. I can send you a rough draft of my next manuscript to tidy up if do you fancy it though. FightingMac (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Re detective agency: is there in fact a policy against naming companies? Just curious, I'm not bothered by your edit. I certainly wasn't trying to puff the company involved! Thanks for repairing the reference, don't know how that got mangled so badly. And thank you for also reverting the edit giving the name of the housekeeper. Grateful for that and something I think we all agree. FightingMac (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No policy again naming companies. However, generally, unless the company name is relevant, it's just an extraneous fact that distracts marginally from the important fact, which is that a private detective company was hired. The puffery was in the description of the company - also not necessary (and I didn't see it in the source unless I missed it).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The puffery was the description 'global investigation company' on their website which I should think is a more common description today than 'private detective company' which irresistibly summon up unfortunate memories of 'private dicks'. Google confirms roughly 8:3. However it's not important. As long as there's a source which identifies. Obliged. FightingMac (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw the user Wran, whose edits you quite rightly deleted, also attempted to restore a couple of mine on Thompson I deferred on. He/she nothing to do with me and I wholly don't support his/her edits. FightingMac (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Just quoting as a matter of interest from the French site here

• L'enquête à décharge de la défense est confiée à la société Guidepost Solutions. Les avocats de Dominique Strauss-Kahn font également appel à la société de consultants TD International, basée à Washington. FightingMac (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Care with sources

Reviewing the reference to Elisabeth Guigou ("... stated that the media's images of Strauss-Kahn at the police station the morning after his arrest were an expression of "unheard of brutality, cruelty and violence" etc.) I find in fact that they referenced the bail proceedings, as did think at the time and why I early in this article removed the lede image of him at the proceeding with a pleasant one of his from happier times (only to be accused of "in your face" presumption in including an image of his perp walk {*curls right hand and lightly touches forehead*}).

Can I (once again) ask contributing editors to source their contributions properly.

The Economic and Political stuff still needs a makeover. Perhaps Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, who has written affectingly above of his deep frustration as he watches me deal out unwarranted kickings here {*hands in pockets, not bothering to take fag out of mouth*} instead of contributing constructively to the article, might care to have a go?

Failing that I suppose I'll have to, which will be tedious because one doesn't really do PPE chez nous, and if I do have to do it then I warn the community now I shall jolly well put that pic of Bob Geldof, a thoroughly pleasant young man I always think whatever it is he actually does, back in and there will be hell on earth to pay if it's taken out again.

Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW. Do we really have to have these red-links? I can't stand them. FightingMac (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, guidelines on redlinks are pretty mushy, but I removed the long one because wikilinks shouldn't normally be included in quotes (it's also ugly but I don't think we have a WP:UGLY), although the guideline is broken at least as often as it is followed. As for the sociologist and the Council, arguably, there could be articles about both one day, so I left them in. There's an existing article about the sociologist on the French Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw the French Irène Théry article. It frankly struck me as an SPA. I don't thinks she's notable enough in English letters to need an English BLP and in time the reference to her in the article can go when good sources are found for the feminism debate, which will probably mention her anyway. FightingMac (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Redlinks can be good; they encourage people to start articles. The usual approach I take is "if it is possible someone might be able to write that article, then make a redlink and it will draw their attention to it" :) But if the option is between no redlink and a link to french wikipedia go with no link - switching language sites causes confusion for readers :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they actually do that I suppose that's all right. I don't hold out much hope for a link on the law Guigou. These legal articles are quite something. I though about a translation but even that would be a major task and out of my competence. I will do a small stub on the NYHTC some time in the future. FightingMac (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have some notes on it on my desk, but had no time to work through source material (my translation is not brilliant any more). French law is one of my minor interests (wrote a few pieces / a book on their privacy laws a little while ago). Will try to get to it before the weekend. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Tom (looked at your user page first time). That would be useful. FightingMac (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, just to say that I could help out by translating the relevant French articles correctly for you, then you can hash it/them into shape, adding or deleting as you see fit? Let me know which article(s), if they're biggies let's just go one at a time, eh? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Helpful offer, but I don't think translation of the relevant French articles would be the way forward here. This is loi Guigou and the relevant section is Présomption d'innocence. A glance at either should convince you it's not very feasible. FightingMac (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

More filler and digressions

Is the deletion of citations related to the article subject and replacing it with detailed IMF election details, including photos of candidates, beneficial to this article?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

These two paragraphs are irrelevant to this article:

The Wall Street Journal noted that the U.S. faced a delicate dilemma in backing a candidate amongst those who had announced their candidacy. On the one hand it had advocated for more emerging-market representation and governance reform, a position favouring the Mexican central banker Agustin Carstens. On the other hand, it would wish to maintain its hold on its appointment of the No. 2 spot at the fund and its selection of the head of the World Bank, a position favoring France's Christine Lagarde or Israel's Stanley Fischer.[72] The Guardian reported June 16 that the IMF under its acting head John Lipsky had taken a more hardline stance towards Germany regarding the Greek debt crisis, threatening to trigger a Greek sovereign debt default by withholding funds if Germany did not agree to guarantee a Greek bailout. The IMF ultimatum came a week after Strauss-Kahn's resignation.[73]--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I would go even further and question most of the Economic subsection. I thought this article was supposed to be about DSK's prosecution. It's true the prosecution caused DSK to resign from the IMF, but how far do we go with that? Doesn't this kind of information belong in other articles? At least the political subsection is mercifully short.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23. That section, simple and semi-literate at its outset, has been with the article since the beginning and its real function, as all who have been with this article since the beginning will know and recognise, was always to laud and valorise Strauss-Kahn. All I did with it was to copy-edit it so that at least it wasn't actually an embarrasssment to the reader to see it. As it stands it's a collection of varyingly successful paraphrases of a number of sources of varying degrees of relevance. The long and poorly paraphrased Economist paragraph can go at least I should judge.

The main criticism of the section, after it's agenda and naivity, is of course that it's Eurocentric. That's why I chose to add the paragraph about the US dilemma in backing a candidate. The paragraph about the IMF toughening its stance against Germany is as topical as anything in a section ostensibly about 'impact'. This is the French article's entry by way of comparision:

Dès l'annonce de l'arrestation, John Lipsky, premier directeur général adjoint du FMI104, assure l'intérim. À la suite de la démission de Dominique Strauss-Kahn de son poste de directeur général du FMI, plusieurs personnalités font acte de candidature à la direction de l'institution financière : Christine Lagarde, ministre française de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, le 25 mai, soutenue par plusieurs dirigeants européens, et Agustín Carstens, gouverneur de la banque du Mexique et ancien directeur général adjoint du FMI. Le gouverneur de la banque d'Israël, Stanley Fischer, qui s'est également porté candidat, est écarté en raison de la limite d'âge fixée à 65 ans par le règlement intérieur.

But the article's not just about the prosecution. If so, then indeed it would be merely 'newsy' and not belong to the encyclopaedia. As I keep remarking, I don't think an article as obviously BLP contentious as this has a place anyway and if it goes up for AfD I shall the first to vote for its deletion. (Personal attack removed)

By all means wield the scalpel, Bbb23.(Personal attack removed) FightingMac (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just one point in response to Mac. The article is supposed to be about the case - hence its name. There are many articles about cases, and that doesn't necessarily mean they are any newsier than many other Wikipedia articles. It just means the case is notable enough to warrant an article. Of course, you can disagree that this case is sufficiently notable, but that's what this article is about. And that's mainly why I object to some of the material, which given the article's purpose, is attenuated at best.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've answered this before, Bbb23. The word 'case' in the title is plainly generic, meaning 'affair' as the French article has it, and not specifically a 'trial' case as you will have it. That has been the interpretation from the very start and indeed most of the content (all the 'reaction' material for example) that has been added would be redundant on your interpretation. I trust this is the last time I shall need to point this out. It does seem rather self-evident. Incidentally I see a comment I made has been deleted without indicating it has been deleted. The comment was to the effect that I do wish the user in question would return to obsessively defending Hollywood kiddy-fiddlers and cease his tedious intercessions here. If the user thinks that a personal attack perhaps he can his 'personal attacked removed' template? Thank you.FightingMac (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, WW just removed most of the material. Mac restored it all. I'm not sure I see a consensus here, but based on both WW's and Mac's comments, there seems to be some agreement, at least about removing some of the material. Mac, given that WW wants to remove most of it and I assume you don't, can you please remove the material you want to remove so we reduce the amount of disputed material? If I'm wrong in my understanding, then please set the record straight. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where we are here. A user deleted the edit (the diff is noted) I submitted in response to your point Bbb23 but predictably (indeed as I predicted: added, also deletd as PA I see - I predicted narcissist rage) left his Economist content of old. I've restored my edit. As for your point Bbb23, there has been a 'Resignation and impact' section almost from the article's inception and it's not been disputed before and I think it's quite right that there should be such a section. Events have moved on and there is competition for the post of IMF managing director and some controversy as to whether the post should be filled by a BRIC or European candidate. Previously the section has been quite Eurocentric, whereas Wikipedia should be international, in its outlook and my other comments above I need not repeat I think. The section as it stands now should be kept in its entirety. It took me some time and effort to put together and unless an editor can offer a genuine improvement it should stand. Can I add there is no space constraint in Wikipedia and there is no 'trim' policy except as dictated by undue weight considerations, not an issue here. FightingMac (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Per duck, this is not about consensus. The massive filler and off-topic digressions, with photos of IMF candidates, merely serves to undermine the subject of the article. Obviously, the continual deletion of relevant citations about the "economic impact," and flooding it instead with IMF election trivia, serves only to dilute the subject. The filler material, much of it in non-English languages, is being added by an editor who has said multiple times that they did not want this article to exist, would vote to delete it if given the opportunity, and has no qualms about using PAs against anyone and everyone, merely ignoring continual warnings.

The following paragraphs, all of which directly related to the "economic impact" subject, were again deleted:

Strauss-Kahn's unexpectedly early resignation created fresh political concerns in choosing his successor at the IMF. The Washington Post opined that without Strauss-Kahn at the helm, Europe was at risk of losing a key source of financial support in its efforts to contain the debt crisis buffeting the continent, including potential financial bailouts for nations such as Greece and Portugal.[69] American economist Joseph Stiglitz judged that Strauss-Kahn had been an impressive leader of the IMF, re-establishing the credibility of the institution, and said it was important to maintain his reforms and carry them forward.[70]

The Economist remarked that before Strauss-Kahn became head of the IMF, the fund's relevance to global finance had been in question. However, his early endorsement of fiscal stimulus for the Eurozone during its financial crisis had been accepted and acted upon, with new contributions to the fund tripling in size. The Greeks trusted him and he was one of the few non-German policymakers to have had influence over Angela Merkel. Whatever his personal failings, he was an outstanding head of the IMF.[71] In addition, he championed the need to protect poor countries from the effects of fiscal austerity, helping the IMF become kinder and gentler to less developed countries.[1]--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)}}

There's also a cowpat test: "if it looks like cowpat, feels like cowpat and tastes like cowpat, then by golly it must be cowpat". Also known as bullshit. Not here of course. FightingMac (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll make a couple of comments and then get out. Getting between you two risks serious injury from the crossfire. First, I disagree with WW that this not about consensus. Second, I disagree with Mac about the "trimming" issue, which is a red herring. Finally, and most important, I support WW's removal of the material. Regardless of what his reasons are, mine are that the material is insufficiently relevant to the article to warrant inclusion. Back to your battle stations.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My "reasons" are fairly simple. To maintain this article to a standard that one visiting editor summarized almost a month ago:

"This is probably the best and most neutral article I've read so far of a very sensationalist case."

I see most of my edits not as a combatant, but as a 24/7 janitorial service, with only one employee left and the rest home presumably sleeping.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this Bbb23. Firstly let me insist that I'm not exchanging fire with the user you mentioned. He (she? surely not) deleted every reference to himself in what amounted to an ultimatum from me regarding his Taubmann libel and he has now taken to removing reference to himself without even [troubling to note the removal]. Of course I'm not prepared to notice him in the circumstances.

I'm troubled that you support a contributor whose POV advocacy has been so throroughly exploded. If proof was needed how damaging this kind of WP:CRUSH editing is to the article, to Wikipedia in general, this would be it. Rather than advance the article as circumstances change, the user wants to revert to an old edit valorising DSK (and one, I can add, which I did him the courtesy of copy-editing into some semblance of literate English in the first place). FightingMac (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mac, I try to avoid supporting or not supporting editors. If an editor has a suggestion about content, regardless of my view of the editor, I consider it as objectively as I can.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes of course and it's admirable of you and that's what we would all wish of ourselves and for Wikipedia. But in the case of CRUSH editing of this sort, there comes a point when one simply has to suspend the usual courtesy of assuming good faith.

• The requirement to assume good faith is not an excuse for uncooperative behavior. There is a limit to how long good faith can be extended to editors who are continually shown to be acting in a manner that is detrimental to the growth and improvement of the encyclopedia. Nor is AGF defined as doublespeak for urging all editors to agree with a particular viewpoint and accept any changes that are advocated.

Why should we assume good faith of a user capable, for example, of doing this to a newbie, the very first comment on her talk page? Where was the assumption of good faith there? FightingMac (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is really a digression, but I'm not assuming good faith or bad faith. I'm just looking at the suggestion without trying to pierce the editor's motives. If someone on the street warned you about an oncoming car, would you ignore the warning because you happen to know that the warner is a "bad" person?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have to differ there, Bbb23. Your point is that this is an article about the prosecution of DSK and my point is that it is not just about that and indeed that such has been accepted from the outset with the inclusion of such sections as the 'Reaction' section. Of course the content I have added stands or fall by that test of notability. But note that if you are indeed right, then logically the entire section (indeed that was your original point) should go, and not only that but most of the content of the article. I'll let you have the last word if you want one. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you know Hempel's paradox, a rather deep inductive paradox that still attracts discussion?

Let us say a Wikipedia editor advances the proposition "All herrings are red". This is a matter than can be settled empirically simply by looking at herrings and observing whether they are red or not. But a certain disruptive editor chooses to introduce complications. He uses the law of implication to change the perspective somewhat. Rather, he says, we should be testing the proposition "Everything that is not red is not a herring" and indeed from a strictly logical point of view this is formally the same proposition. But here's the catch. The disruptive editor then seizes on anything which is not red, one of my own edits for example, and observes it's also not a herring, thus lending support to the thesis "Everything that is not red is not a herring" and therefore also to "All herrings are red". See, a red herring!

A red herring according to a certain disruptive editor I can think of

This is indeed how a certain disruptive editor I can think of (and I certainly don't mean you, we often differ but do I recognise your edits are entirely constructive) in fact proceeds here. FightingMac (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

[Outdent] @Bbb23. On reflection I've removed most of that content I added. I'm frankly sorry to see it go, on my Fula student test I believe it should be included, that it's actually important to include it, but I do want to remain focussed on combatting the POV advocacy of the other user here and not get too involved in side issues regarding content. FightingMac (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your reasons are, I'm glad you removed the content.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Image description filler

An editor added the following image description which was also deleted:

A blonde long-haired gentleman with baggy eyes perhaps in his late 50s wearing an open-necked shirt bare to the chest and a gold chain necklace has his arm draped around a besuited gentleman of a similar age wearing a blue polka-dotted tie. They are smiling and appear comfortable in each other's presence.Distinguished musician and political activist, composer of the hit singleI don't like Mondays, Sir Bob Geldof (left) with Dominique Strauss-Kahn at the IMF's headquarters April 23, 2009 in Washington, DC.]] --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Section first flooded now drained

As explained earlier, the "economic impact" section was first flooded with irrelevant trivia and photos which effectively diluted the details and cites that were totally relevant to that section. Now the section is being emptied of all relevant material, leaving in its place a bit of irrelevant trivia as a memento.

On June 14, the IMF announced two candidates had been shortlisted for the post of managing director of the IMF. These were Agustin Carstens, governor of the Mexican central bank, and Christine Lagarde, French finance minister.[67]

Hence, with the tacit approval and under the watchful eyes of editors, key portions of the article are being completely undermined and trivialized. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been "drained" because of you Wikiwatcher1. Given Bbb23's objections, which are strictly speaking unassailable, I had the choice of either endlessly defending content I believed in (Personal attack removed) or committing a kind of editorial hari-kari (that's French for knocking yourself off) and paring it down to a level of detail that couldn't be attacked and joining Bbb23 (Personal attack removed).

(Personal attack removed) Indeed my content might not have been completely well conceived. I readily concede that I am a somewhat passionate individual not always wise in my judgements. I certainly meant my content in good faith. I wanted to add some material that wasn't Eurocentric and did record some of the impact of the DSK affair in choosing his successor. Normally we could have debated that. With other editors I have often deferred and conceded and worked together to providing mutually acceptable content. (Personal attack removed)

I can't be bothered to check how much of my comments in the last section survived your redactions. (Personal attack removed)

So the candidacy for the IMF post is trivia is it? Really?

This is not an attack, (Personal attack removed) It's simply setting out a view of the facts of the matter.(Personal attack removed) FightingMac (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we characterize the accuser?

It seems to be fairly standard in the US media to describe the alleged victim as some or all of the following: 32-years-old, widowed, Guinea immigrant, granted asylum, Muslim, Black, mother of a 15-year-old, etc. For example:

• NY Times: "The woman, 32, a widowed immigrant from Guinea who was granted asylum seven years ago... 15-year-old daughter"
• CBS News "... the 32-year-old widow from Guinea, West Africa ... She's a family person. She's a hard working woman"
• SF Guardian: "32-year-old ... is a native of Guinea who has been in the U.S. for seven years, Shapiro said. She has a 15-year-old daughter and, until the attack, lived in the borough of the Bronx in New York City. She speaks English and French."
• MSNBC: "32-year-old immigrant from Guinea ... legal immigrant from the west African nation of Guinea and is of the Fulani ethnic group. She is a Muslim who has been living in the U.S. since 1998, when she followed her then-husband to the United States. The pair later divorced, according to the report, and the woman is now a single parent of a 15-year-old daughter."
• Reuters: "32-year-old Guinean widow ... [comes from] community of devout Muslims ... her daughter is now aged 15"

I'm not exactly sure what to make of this. If we follow the example of the American media, then it seems routine to include at least some biographical details. Aside from the curiosity value though, most of this info doesn't seem very informative/useful. On the other hand, we probably wouldn't be doing any harm to repeat details that have already been widely reported. Personally, I don't know what the answer should be, but I thought it would be a good idea to start a conversation. What, if anything, should we include from the facts that have been widely reported about the alleged victim's background? Dragons flight (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Any of the examples are brief and descriptive, and should fit well in the article. Without going into the sources, the Guardian quote is nice because it has her attorney's name, who it says gave the description. This kind of detail, instead of some taxi driver's impression, is logical. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. No details. Newsy. It can wait until her attorneys release the information or whatever the process is. FightingMac (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

At least two of the articles describe her (at least in part) by quoting her attorney. Dragons flight (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well those parts then. Now that I think of it her attorney characterised her a devout Muslim? I'd read up the relevant Wikipedia policies first before incorporating that in the article. For myself I would just wait on all of this, until she appears in public. FightingMac (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason not to include these details. They are entirely relevant to the article and appropriate. Ronnotel (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would being Muslim be relevant and appropiate? There may be issues in a civil case for damages (because Muslim society sometimes considers the very act of a rape as grounds for stigma) but I can't see they're an issue in a criminal case. I would like to debate this with you here when I return, Ronnotel. FightingMac (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why the focus and worry about her religion? Only one of the quoted cites above mentioned it, and it could easily be left off as irrelevant.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

These descriptions meet the ordinary criteria for inclusion: relevant and verifiable to reliable sources and don't violate BLP or POV. I would be careful to avoid following a media echo, to look for the first appearance (i.e. the reporter who actually spoke to the source), and to prefer a source on the record over an anonymous source. An earlier claim, for example, was that the alleged victim was HIV positive based on the premise that she was living in housing designated for HIV-infected was circulated, and then denied, but it doesn't seem the denial reached all the media outlets where the claim appeared earlier. The HIV-status of anyone presents a BLP privacy problem. It would potentially only appear in a relevant Wikipedia article where the statement had been made on the record by the person himself or herself. patsw (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In the case of 'Muslim' isn't the policy that subject must have publicly identified herself as such? FightingMac (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No one is claiming we need to mention religion here. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We should briefly summarize at least all the facts presented in public by her attorney. (I think this should include her age, national origin, religion, and parenthood.) See also the discussion below, on broader implications. FatTrebla (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No reason not to provide the objective identifying info that is readily available elsewhere on the internet Wran (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

One very good reason: WP:BLP1E. And Wikipedia isn't a random collection of stuff "readily available elsewhere on the internet". AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E is no reason at all for not including this info within this article. The BLP1E policy would merely caution against creating a separate article about the alleged victim. No-one here is suggesting that. User:Wran is hardly proposing a 'random collection of stuff', that is a mischaracterization and Strawman. FatTrebla (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wran, do not add back the identifying information about the housekeeper without achieving consensus that it is appropriate and not a BLP violation. In addition to this discussion here, there is also a discussion on WP:BLPN. I've reverted your changes (which included far more than just that - I'm not sure what point you went back to in the article, but you removed a lot of other editors' changes).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As FatTrebla points out there is no BLP violation and you're putting the cart before the horse as there was no consensus for removing it in the first place Wran (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets put this very simply; for BLP reasons do not re-add this information or you will end up blocked. There is no need for information about her to be detailed as she is a non-public figure with no other significance. If details of her private life become important specifically in relation to the court case we can deal with those in time. Her name is not important. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. The name of the alleged victim is utterly irrelevant to this article, which is about DSK. If he were not notable, there would be no Wikipedia article about the alleged assault at all, so there would be no mention of the "accuser". There is no need to give details about an alleged victim purely because of the notability of the supposed assailant. This is not some tabloid rag, and we don't include trivial details for the entertainment of readers, or to suit the questionable motives of contributors. Wran, if you wish to complain about 'censorship', do it in the proper manner, not by editorialising in article space - not that this is 'censorship' in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@User:ErrantX Let's put this even more simply: do not threaten other editors. Is this clear? The specific example given in the WP policy on prohibited behavior is this: "Don't do that or you will be blocked." Above, you wrote to Wran: "Lets put this very simply; for BLP reasons do not re-add this information or you will end up blocked." This is an inappropriate threat. You and User:AndyTheGrump also need to avoid WP:Civil POV pushing. @Andy: Please also avoid falsely attributing motives to other editors (e.g. "This is not some tabloid rag, and we don't include trivial details for the entertainment of readers, or to suit the questionable motives"), there is no need for this. Please stick to the facts. I don't see any suggestion here that we include her name. FatTrebla (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, yes I am aware of all the facets of policy relating to WP:THREATEN. Anyone that consistently continues to violate BLP policy (in relation to the name or details of this women) will be sanctioned; I make that statement for clarity on what will happen. The comment was made with full appreciation of the relevant policies over threats, you will note I do not make such threats likely, and indeed rarely do. Mull on that as you will. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we get a pretty clear consensus in the DSK main article and then bring it over here as well? I could have sworn we did a while back. There is no reason to add her name as it adds nothing and violates her privacy. That's what WP:BLPNAME is all about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@User:Flinders Petrie No-one is suggesting that we include her name. That is a strawman argument.

The suggestion (with which I agree) was that we include some or all of the following: "32-years-old, widowed, Guinea immigrant, granted asylum, Muslim, black, mother of a 15-year-old." As amply documented below and elsewhere, this seems widely agreed on, with the exception of a few pushy editors. Their arguments advanced for not including this info keep shifting, making me suspect WP:Civil POV pushing. Virtually all reliable sources include the alleged victim's home country as a relevant fact, including: Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, CNN, BBC, New York Times, ABC News, Los Angeles Times, Reuters, Telegraph, her own lawyers, the NY police, etc. There's an entire 1,700-word article about this on the front page of the New York Times today: "From African Village to Center of Ordeal"[5]. The article avoids mentioning her name, but emphasizes the importance of her origins in Guinea and her Muslim faith (including the revelation that her father was an imam and she was schooled on the Quran), according to her family. This is appropriate background and amply sourced for our article. FatTrebla (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why the fact that the alleged victim is a "32-years-old, widowed, Guinea immigrant, granted asylum, Muslim, black, mother of a 15-year-old" is of any relevance to the article? It isn't about her. It is about DSK facing allegations of sexual assault. as for POV-pushing, this goes both ways, and without a properly-reasoned argument as to why Wikipedia should breach this individual's privacy even more than has done already, I'd suggest the POV issues are elsewhere. So what are the benefits to an encyclopaedic article about DSK of including such details? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

One attempt to explain came a few days after DSK's arrest: "This is further relevant in this case, given the context of critiques of IMF neo-imperialism. The context is about the power dynamic." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Objectively, and to WP:Avoid rancor, we can defer to the editors of these WP:Reliable sources: Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, CNN, BBC, New York Times, ABC News, Los Angeles Times, Reuters, Telegraph. All of these sources succinctly include this information, in hundreds of articles. (The NYT happens to be mentioned in most WP policies about sources and WP:Identifying reliable sources.) The alleged victim's own lawyers stated this information publicly (as quoted in these sources), and they presumably have her best interests in mind (unless you have some reliable source which suggests they do not). Including this information does not breach the individual's privacy. FatTrebla (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1 the nonsense about IMF neo-imperialism is (a) WP:OR, and (b) a ludicrous attempt at coat-racking. FatTrebla, The sources you quote are all news media. Wikipedia isn't. This is an online encyclopaedia. Now explain why we should breach the alleged victim's privacy more than has already been done. What useful information does it add about the alleged incident? Does the alleged victim's name make any difference to the charges DSK may face? If he is found guilty, will it affect sentencing? Can you actually give any arguments for inclusion beyond 'I want it' and 'I've got a reliable source'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@Andy: Please stop making Strawman arguments, no-one here is suggesting we include her name. Clear?

We've been over WP:Not news before, and you simply ignore my response, so there doesn't seem to be much point in my repeating it again here.

Furthermore, every fact in this article comes from news media. There has not been enough time for any other source (peer-reviewed, etc.). And yet you selectively exclude reliably-sourced facts about the alleged victim's home country, while not challenging all the other facts. I'm honestly perplexed by your editing behavior.

Please read what WP:NOT#NEWS actually says. It primarily addresses what should or should not be included as an entire article, not merely the facts within articles. It proscribes as articles: journalism, i.e. first-hand news reports; routine news reporting on things like announcements; and who's who articles. Instead of who's who articles, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event (i.e. rather than creating a new article about the individual). Let's not exaggerate nor selectively apply this WP policy.

I don't really care whether or not citation is made to the reliable sources which allude to the IMF (and DSK's) power, and I have not added these to the article. I do care, however, that you continue to offer snide comments about editors or their arguments, rather than treating them with WP:Civility. Please stop. E.g., refering to a linked article within Wikipedia about Neo-imperialism#Neocolonialism allegations against the IMF as "nonsense" or "ludicrous" is inappropriate and unhelpful. In fact, as noted below, various reliable sources have drawn this parallel. E.g., in The Independent, "It's Not Only Strauss-Kahn Who Should Be on Trial. It's the IMF Itself."[6] And in the National Post, "Tartuffe takes down the IMF."[7] These are not WP:OR, they are published reliable sources. However, that is the topic of the thread below, and not this section on how we should characterize the alleged victim.

You seem not to respond to what I or others write. Above, I pointed out that her own attorneys have stated this information publicly. It does not breach her privacy.

This article is about the entire case, not just about DSK nor "DSK facing allegations of sexual assault."

Every source in this entire article is from news media. As noted, there isn't just one reliable source that includes her nationality, there are hundreds of articles from dozens of the most reliable sources. Why doubt the editorial judgement of the editors of these sources? We could speculate all kinds of good reasons why they might have included this information, but there is no need, those are Red-herrings. Most simply, this information provides context that virtually every editor has found worthwhile, and that readers of our encyclopedia will, also. FatTrebla (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the reader wants and expects factors of identity politics included, and that it would be a contrivance to omit most of this information, as reliable sources deem this information worthy of note and are widely reporting it. Bus stop (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And I think you should read articles before Wikilinking to them. The identity politics article is of no significance whatsoever here. Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@Andy: you might want to re-read various WP policies on WP:Civility (one of the WP five pillars), e.g.: WP:No vested contributors ("an atmosphere of mutual honor and respect for each others' work should be promoted"), etiquette, consensus, and assume good faith, among others.

In fact, User:Bus stop is right: identity politics is undoubtedly one reason why virtually all editors of reliable sources have included mention of her nationality or ethnicity, as have her lawyers. Your uncivil reaction to this ("no significance whatsoever," "take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere") suggests a POV on your part. FatTrebla (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

FatTrebla, I don't need lectures on civility, thank you. And neither do I need to be told what identity politics is, or why you or Bus stop may think it relevant. Can you provide a reliable source that states that our readers want "factors of identity politics" included? I doubt it. Given that we know nothing about the 'identity politics' of the alleged victim, any assumptions made about what they are would be totally inappropriate in any case (labels others attach to her aren't 'identity politics', they are just that - labels). Then again, I very much doubt that was what Bus stop intended. Instead, he was looking for another way to describe his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. WP:AGF does not extend to allowing Bus stop to hijack yet another thread with his agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—could you consider reviewing WP:TPG? You will find there that:

"Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor."

You may wish to also consider reviewing WP:NPA. There you will find such sage advice as:

"Comment on content, not on the contributor."

The above might apply to edit summaries as well such as:

"is there any article that Bus stop won't troll?". Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:TPG yourself, Bus stop - I'd advise you to take particular note of these suggestions: "Stay on topic", "Stay objective", "Be concise", "Keep the layout clear" (which includes not blue-linking lengthy quotes just because you think it looks pretty), "Keep discussions focused", "Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums", "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts". And with reference to you in particular, I suggest you read the section about editing your own comments - your endless revisions to your posts make replying practically impossible sometimes, due to edit conflicts. Try writing your posts in a text editor first, and only posting them when you are satisfied. When you have sorted that lot out, we can start talking about your attitude to WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the other policies and guidelines you routinely ignore. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(od)I think arguments that run along the lines of how is it useful to add biographical detail about the victim are incorrect. It is not our place to determine whether or not these details are relevant to the charges faced by DSK. Rather, if the media appears to consider them important enough to talk about them, then that should be enough reason to include them in our article as well. On the other hand, arguments that focus on her privacy are stronger ones and material that compromises her privacy should perhaps be left out. --rgpk (comment) 20:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

One dimension that seems to be neglected is that related to a nation's laws and customs. The fact that the event took place in the U.S., what is considered acceptable or cited by other country's media should be handled with caution. Every country's reliable media will have a different perspective on any kind of crime. There has been a continual reliance on non-U.S. media, especially French and British, to try to get the article to conform to their views, even the tabloid-sourced comments of a French taxi driver. So there's no reason, if we use such open guidelines, why someone's translation from Asian, African or South American sources couldn't be likewise added. But if WP is meant to respect national boundaries, along with a nation's laws and customs, more than cyberspace, then some guidelines should be revised and reconsidered, IMO. It could even effect WPs overall concept of "consensus." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Some people here are unfamliar with our approach to biographical information of living persons; which is understandable. But you need to listen to those of us with th experience in these areas. The accepted and usual approach is restraint for figures who are not public - and to resist detailing anything about them unless it has wide ranging significance to the topic. For example her ethnicity seems to be mentioned as important above in relation to some theory on neo-colonialism. This sort of material is not really relevant to the article; not every view or theory on the events here is of particular relevance. Even worse it is pure coat-racking, and anyone suggesting adding such nonsense should take a long hard think about what they are trying to achieve.

The bottom line is; what does detail on the victim achieve? What does noting that she has a 15 year old child achieve? How is it relevant to the event?

On articles like this it is common for people to want to try and write biographical information about non-public people involved in the event, you need to avoid doing so. Our biographical policy asserts a strong presumption in favour of privacy - in fact is specifically says This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions.

At this stage information about the alleged victim is of minimal importance to the content; if it becomes so over time we can work it in carefully. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@User:ErrantX: you, AndyTheGrump and a few other contributors here seem to be adopting ownership of this article, in a tag team approach. No one, no matter how skilled, and regardless of their standing in the community, has the right to act as if they are the owner of this article. Claiming that other editors' lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it is a proscribed form of ownership. Alleging that other editors are unfamiliar or have no hands-on experience with BLP is a form of ownership. (E.g.: "you need to listen to those of us with experience in these areas.") Telling other editors not to make changes without your tag-team's approval is a form of ownership. (E.g., "do not re-add this information or you will end up blocked.") Repeatedly reverting to protect a certain version is a form of ownership. Patronizing other editors is a form of ownership. (E.g., "Some people here are unfamliar with our approach to biographical information of living persons; which is understandable.") You and AndyTheGrump might want to take some time off from the editing process on this article. Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later.

This is not a biographical article about DSK. That's the Dominique Strauss-Kahn article, from which this one was deliberately split off. Reference to living must persons must still adhere to BLP policies, but this is not a biography of DSK, nor even a subset of it. It has much broader implications, significance, and attracts a different readership (e.g., people interested in the protection of hotel service workers, etc.).

No mention is nor should be made of the alleged victim's name, we all agree.

You fail to address the fact that editors of almost all the reliable sources used in this article include mention of her nationality or ethnicity, and most include her age, religion, and parenthood. As Wikipedia editors, we do not need to ascertain their reasons for this inclusion. (ErrantX and AndTheGrump want to shift this speculative burden onto other WP editors, and then smack down any example offered -- but this is not our role.) If the editors of the top dozen reliable sources all feel this has wide-ranging significance, then it is not up to you to over-rule them and determine that this is "not really relevant to the article." (This is POV, by selectively removing what reliable-sources consider to be relevant.)

BLP says the material must be neutral, verifiable, and not original research. The minimal characterization of the alleged victim proposed here has been publicly stated by her own lawyers (a fact you fail to address), and it does not violate her privacy nor harm her. It is not sensationalist nor titillating. It is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic, as evidenced by her lawyers' statements, NYPD statements, and the preponderance of editors in reliable sources. To avoid mention even of her nationality is contrived, as User:Bus stop points out; it's the other extreme from including every detail. Some balance is required. Readers not familiar with this case will benefit from some understanding of why it received so much attention, and this does not all have to do with DSK.

Mentioning her nationality, religion and parenthood, as publicly released by her lawyers, is hardly coat-racking. There are reasons why there is a separate article about this case, and there are reasons why the editors of all reliable sources include this information about her (often in the lede paragraph). Please note that this information (and their various reasons for it) do not fit any of the examples of WP:Coatrack articles, including: All About George, A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing, Some Famous Dude Did It so It Must Be Good, The Mono-Topic Fringe Biography, The Criticism Gambit, The Attack Article, Isn't It Funny, and The Flea. None of these apply. Including some amount of widely-sourced background information in an article about a legal case is not coat-racking.

Deriding other editors' coments as "nonsense" is uncivil and not helpful.

At this stage, summarizing the information about the alleged victim which has been agreed on by virtually all editors of reliable sources is central to the content. If it becomes less so over time we can remove it carefully. FatTrebla (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Deriding other editors' coments as "nonsense" is uncivil and not helpful.; if you took a moment to read my comment I refer to this whole "neo-colonialism" issue (in general) as nonsense, not any other editors comments. So please reconsider this accusation. Accusation of ownership, tag teaming and patronizing suggestions that we take some time off are usually frowned on as, well, patronizing. Can you drop the accusations and discussion of the motives of other editors and concentrate (as I have done pretty much exclusively) on the content discussion.

but this is not a biography of DSK, nor even a subset of it; this has all but zero impact to how BLP policies apply. Besides what is being discussed here is not DSK's biographical material, but the alleged victims.

My view is this; we don't always record everything that reliable sources record when our policies favour not doing so - in this case we have a strong presumption in favour of privacy, of a much higher standard than some elements of the press employ. This is a widely accepted approach employed on other BLP event articles.

You fail to address the fact that editors of almost all the reliable sources used in this article include mention of her nationality or ethnicity, and most include her age, religion, and parenthood; reading the sources then none of them seem to establish the importance or relevance of any of these things. so, no, I still do not support this as relevant information in light of our favouring privacy. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Relevant or not, WP RS guidelines and the media do not override the Privacy laws of the United States. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you mention privacy laws of the United States. There is nothing in the privacy laws of the US that bar discussing the victim of a sexual attack. As far as I know, even the non-mention of her name is more a self-regulated media rule and has nothing to do with the law. BTW, I note an extensive biographical piece on the victim in this mornings New York Times. It makes little sense to me that we're going around trying to decide what is relevant or not relevant rather than focusing on what others (reliable source anyone?) deem relevant or not relevant. --rgpk (comment) 15:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect: There is nothing in the privacy laws of the US that bar discussing the victim of a sexual attack. In fact the U.S. was the first country to create a "right of privacy." Why not catch up? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the paragraph you quote below (under 'undue') explicitly states that there is no law that bars naming the victim in a rape attack. While there is a right to privacy in the US, it mostly applies to data collected on individuals by the government and not to this sort of situation. Anyway, no one here is arguing that we should include the name of the victim and all I'm saying is that generally public information that the media is already reporting is worth considering for including in our article and, more importantly, we should not be in the position of deciding what is relevant and what is not relevant. Let reliable sources answer that question for us. If reliable sources generally consider something worth reporting, we should include that material in the article. If not, we shouldn't. --rgpk (comment) 20:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the statement is also not true: While there is a right to privacy in the US, it mostly applies to data collected on individuals by the government. . . Any individual can sue any other individual, group, business, newspaper, TV, or web site, along with government bodies, to enforce their privacy rights if they are violated. The non-governmental aspect of privacy rights makes up most cases in the U.S. That's probably one reason why, according to Time magazine, U.S. media are more likely to self-censor, something "that baffles many British journalists." They even noted that the U.K. "has some of the most aggressive and gossip-hungry tabloid newspapers in the world." (Time, May 24, 2011) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may, I'd suggest that the reason all those mainstream media sources listed the accuser's basic biographical details was to establish her credibility as a witness. This entire case will turn on whether a jury believes her account of events, especially since now Strauss-Kahn's lawyers are claiming that any sex was "consensual" [8]. She is much more credible as a 32-year-old mother of a teenage daughter who is known to be a devout Muslim, than if she were for example a woman with a history of prostitution. Her credibility is of interest not only to general readers trying to get a sense of whether to believe her account or to believe Strauss-Kahn's lawyers' account, but also to anyone with any interest in theorizing about how the trial will unfold. Establishing whether or not she is credible begins with basic biographical details (all those snippets quoted above) and continues with acquaintances attesting to her good or bad character (which was the point of that New York Times piece cited above that interviewed friends and family in Guinea). I understand and appreciate the argument that Wikipedia should refrain from revealing all but the most important details out of respect for her privacy, but those details are of interest not merely for the prurient but also for anyone curious as to the likely outcome of the case, which I feel establishes their relevance for inclusion. --DiegeticShadow (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well this is really the crux of the matter; for the purposes of this article it is irrelevant whether she is credible, or if the allegations are true/false or... etc etc. We're interested in recording the significant facts of the case - there is no need to biograph the alleged victim just to make sure she appears credible (FWIW a lot of the material was being used to discredit her, as much as to support her). --Errant ^(chat!) 21:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's absurd to claim that her credibility is irrelevant; in fact it will probably turn out to be the most important issue in the whole affair; the facts of her background will also be a key issue in the case. That your pushing POV is clear from your concern that info might be used one way rather than another ("material was being used to discredit her, as much as to support her"); someone who was honest and neutral wouldn't give a damn but would want everything that might be relevant included. Efforts to censor info from readers that is widely available in the us media is contrary to the basic purpose of wikipedia and no more nor less than repressive tyrannical promotion of personal POV ; any deletion of properly referenced widely disseminated info can not possibly be anything else. The presumption should ALWAYS be in favour of info and against its suppression without clear justification Wran (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Whether the alleged victim's credibility is relevant in any trial has no bearing whatsoever on what we write here: this isn't a trial. As for your comments about 'repression', 'tyranny', 'suppression' and 'censorship', this is frankly ludicrous. If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant, I think you'd not be using them. The simple fact is that an online encyclopaedia has a different perspective on what is relevant to an article compared to a newspaper. Without DSK's involvement, this article would never have existed - all we are doing is attempting to preserve a little privacy and dignity for someone who is only being discussed at all because of circumstances beyond her control. This is established Wikipedia practice, arrived at by consensus. If you don't like it, you can post your comments on the case elsewhere - so where is the 'censorship'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is so insane it's hard to know where to begin: everything about the victim may well be of the utmost relevance as hundreds of media articles have repeatedly testified. You are not protecting anybody: everything known about her, of which I included only the most important details, is easily available to any reasonably intelligent and persistent person (even her name by the way is in wiki material, though you don't seem to have noticed it); your only making things difficult for the uninitiated in the hope that they won't take the trouble to ferret out the truth, so you can shove your point of view down their throats. Any damage that might conceivably be done to her has already been done, so your notion about preserving her privacy is even more ludicrous than your other inanities. As has already been pointed out to you: "You seem not to respond to what I or others write. Above, I pointed out that her own attorneys have stated this information publicly. It does not breach her privacy." It's also been pointed out to you previously that you are either lying about or unable to understand (which is it?) wiki policy. The basic issue is simple: either you believe in helping people by providing ALL relevant info so they can freely make their own judgments or you censor it to promote your own point of view; you are clearly favouring censorship in an utterly arbitrary and tyranical manner, including lying about consensus when the editors are 9 to 3 in favour of inclusion. Wran (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I see at least two obvious problems: First, this article is not a newspaper: Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event . . .; Second, you apparently want to use that disallowed personal information to express your personal opinion: It's absurd to claim that her credibility is irrelevant; in fact it will probably turn out to be the most important issue in the whole affair; the facts of her background will also be a key issue in the case. Neither one of those immediately apparent reasons would support a rationale to republish personal details, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why such comments should be permitted on a talk page, and have reported this to AN/I: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wran AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why the personal abuse and misrepresentations engaged in throughout this discussion by AndyTheGrump should be permitted on a talk page, and have reported this to AN/I: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:AndyTheGrump reported Wran at AN/I) Wran (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Undue?

There is a paragraph, with five citations, devoted to describing nothing. Although, when compared to the heated debate above, undue might be too polite a term.

On May 17, Paris Match published the name of the housekeeper.[58] Other French newspapers quickly followed suit in naming her, eventually adding photos and details of her private life.[59][60] On June 14, the New York Times followed other English media in running a detailed story on the housekeeper's background, while continuing to withhold her name.[61] In the United States, the media does not normally identify by name persons making an accusation of rape, although rape shield law does not oblige them to avoid naming such a person.[62]

Can someone summarize the basic "non-fact" given in that paragraph to a few words, although even a few words might be too many. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, tried compacting it, lost one ref, see what you think. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"English" isn't well defined in there as it could be read to mean "in England" (which is not accurate, and make the next part of the sentence disconnected). It tried to fix that. Otherwise seems fine. Tense is a bit "off" but that will work out in time. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I had doubts, but a bit of a drive-by edit, I'm still trying to do my tax return and keep getting bored so I wander over to wikiland :). Anyway FM's been giving it a bit more of a bash so it looks in better shape now (apart from one little thing that I'll modify). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete suggestion. The entire paragraph, which keeps expanding and again moved up to give it more significance, is ridiculous on its face. The fact that the name of the accuser was not published could be summed up into one concise phrase, although the phrase itself would still warrant a "so what?" tag if it existed. On the other hand, I do have more respect for Time magazine. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the paragraph in question has moved around a bit and been rewritten. Can somebody either rewrite this bit or lose it completely?

• In the United States, the media does not normally identify by name persons making an accusation of rape, though rape shield law does not oblige them not to.

With three negatives in such a short space, it makes for confusing/clunky reading. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The last part (the phrase after the word "rape") is unnecessary, and to some extent OR. I've taken it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Good, twas the does not...not to that was bothering me. Cheers. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A *lot* of UK people imagine that rape shield law does oblige newspapers in the US not to name rape complainants. That's because that's what the law is in the UK. But in the US it doesn't. Every attempt to has been struck down in the Supreme Court. I'm reverting Bbb23's edit on the ground it's US-centric.

But we're not saying anything about the rape shield law to make it so-called US-centric. We're just saying that normally the U.S. media doesn't reveal the names of sexual assault victims. Nothing incorrect about that. It's the addition of the rape shield law phrase that makes it all unnecessarily confusing. I think you ought to continue this discussion rather than reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, my request went unheeded, or, more likely, Mac just hasn't seen my comment yet. Anyway, he restored a slightly different version of the phrase. I've edited it to make it (a) more coherent, (b) removing addition about UK as it's unsupported by cited source, and (c) to remove reference to rape shield law, which is an incorrect characterization of the US media's practice. Rape shield statutes are evidentiary statutes used in trials.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see. But your final edit is fine with me. As long as it indicates that there isn't anything in US law actually to stop them from naming the victim, because many readers outside the US would think there is and in that sense it was US-centric when I saw it without it. It's a shame we've lost rape shield law but that's just you dumbing down Wikipedia again. The graph will survive, bigger than you or me :-). FightingMac (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)