Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

'Law of presumed innocence'

An editor has twice confidently revised 'law on the presumption of innocence' to 'law of presumed innocence' (60 Google hits) against the established British and American English and French collocation 'law on the presumption of innocence' (312,000 Gh). Indeed 'presumed innocence' is grammatical nonsense because then it would be a law on innocence rather than the presumption of it, which is absurd.

I am restoring the accepted and literate version.

In addition I should be grateful if my carefully considered inter-language links were restored and in general I ask editors to be more thoughtful in their revisions. It's edifying indeed that the article is now in the hand of editors who know, for example, the difference between 'which' and 'that', their user pages' proud boast, but one would rather like to see la preuve de pudding for it all.

Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see a revision now quotes "requires that no such polls be taken about someone protected by the presumption of innocence" and that's OK with me I suppose but it does seem unnecessarily quotative and it strikes me as mostly of an effort by a presumed editor to save face. What exactly one wonders is the problem with 'presumption of innocence'? This is the relevant law Guigou (there are several) Loi française du 15 juin 2000 sur la présomption d'innocence (for the desperately linguistically challenged 'présomption d'innocence' is hard French for 'presumption of innocence'). However, let it go, let it go ... sigh ... but you know in Hollywood they *really* have started doing other languages inside films, like the one by that director who can't spell properly about how Hitler actually got immolated in a French cinema along with the rest of the Third Reich - that was full of languages, some of them really classy and ancient, like Italian, and you had to somehow believe there was this Nazi officer who could speak them all fluently - ridiculous! it really spoilt the film for me.

I'm wikilinking 'presumption of innocence' - vive le graphe.

Since I'm here what's the deal on inter-language links? I've had a message on my talk page to the effect that I shouldn't be using them since other wikis aren't RS. Can that really so?

Banon digression

The digression into the alleged Banon assault has become too long, and is now trailing off into hearsay.

Nevertheless, the author admitted that while later claims of a sexual assault by French journalist Tristane Banon had tormented him, he concluded after interviewing several people, including Banon herself, that there was no proof of her accusation:"Strauss-Kahn is a great seducer? Of course! But he's not a raper."[28] However Banon's mother, Anne Mansouret, a member of parliament, has said that Strauss-Kahn attacked her daughter; arriving about an hour and a half later after the incident to find her daughter locked in her car looking "roughed up"

The cited source, CNN, explains the event, "[he] took her hand and grabbed her arm, according to Mansouret. Banon told him to let her go, and the incident ended with the two struggling on the floor, Mansouret said. Banon managed to escape the apartment and locked herself in her car outside, calling her mother."

The the problems are a least four:

• Off-topic and weight: Adding details from an alleged assault victim from her mother who saw her daughter locked in her car looking "roughed up" is a digression in the extreme. I honestly expect someone to come along and give the year, model, and car color, where it was bought, and for how much. In any case, in relation to the "support and opposition" section, this entire construct does not belong;
• Misleading phrasing: The sentence, "However Banon's mother, . . ." immediately following "he's not a raper," implies the opposite;
• Hearsay: The entire article about Banon's mother's comments are hearsay, and would probably not belong even in her article. No case has been filed, and the story would barely make it into a tabloid — not a compliment to advertiser-hungry CNN;
• Excessive details: The description does not really need to go beyond "her mother," and her name and profession over-extend the topic;

The sentence originally was limited to a quote from Strauss-Kahn's biographer about him only. Another editor attached the Banon material, which has now grown into a large digression. As a result, I suggest removing all the Banon material. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey yes, I agree. The opening sentence is digressing enough and coat-racky to the extent that sentence #2 was probably added for "balance". Support removal. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No, profoundly disagree with Wikiwatcher1. Would you please make quite clear what you want to remain, please. I've already made my objections to this content very clear. There must be balance. The biographer's remarks cannot be left unchallenged like that. The CNN source you took the material was careful to mention the mother's version of the events (I'm sure on legal advice) and so should any reference in a Wikipedia article to it. This is an issue I am minitoring very carefully and I will take to the adminstrators if necessary. Either cut the whole thing, I mean all reference to Taubmann's remarks as reported by CNN, or balance them as CNN did.

I'm taking time out from this article. I want to see the Banon issue resolved along the lines I suggest when I return. FightingMac (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by removing the Banon material, Wikiwatcher1? And keeping the biographer's remarks? But the point of introducing Banon was to balance his remarks. He said he was 'tormented' for two years by Banon's allegations. If you are to introduce the biographer's remarks like this you must then include that and that was all the point of my original edit of your content thus

"Strauss-Kahn's biographer, who interviewed many women that have known him, said that "these women described him as a sweet and charming man, sometimes engaging, but completely incapable of any violence" but admitted that claims of a sexual assault by French journalist Tristane Banon had tormented him"

and that would have been acceptable. But you chose instead to add yet more content valorising the biographer's opinion, whom I've stressed may well have a conflict of interest, and then it become important, as the CNN source itself sought to do, to introduce other opinion.

(Personal attack removed) Either return to the edit I suggested above, or keep the mother's version in as it presently is, or best of all strike the whole thing, biographer + Banon + mum. FightingMac (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned in an earlier post about the originally added Banon material, "Unfortunately, you unintentionally ended the paragraph with an erroneous conclusion, that the biographer was left 'tormented.' But that was totally untrue, since the ' rest of the story' proves the exact opposite! So I fixed your mistake by adding the missing details."

I will trim to the biographer's sentence as it was first included. This is the 2nd time that misleading material has been attached to the end of a sentence, using a "but" or "however," to imply an incorrect conclusion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Which bit of the biographer's remark "But her accusations tormented me for two years" do you think totally untrue, Wikiwatcher1?

What your edit does is insert unopposed the biographer's personal opinion. The CNN source you cite has this disclaimer at the end

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Michel Taubmann. David Koubbi, Tristane Banon's attorney in France, said last week that they were considering whether to file a complaint against Strauss-Kahn. Anne Mansouret, Banon's mother, told CNN last week that said she arrived about an hour-and-a-half after the alleged incident in 2002 to find her daughter locked in her car and looking "roughed up."

(Personal attack removed). You cannot selectively quote sources the way you do here. FightingMac (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not say the biographer's statement was "untrue." I was only referring to the misleading and incomplete quotes that were attached later, which presented an erroneous conclusion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, must say I agree with Fighting Mac, this delete totally unbalances the section and reads like a puff piece for this oversexed teddy bear that we have all come to know and love. The addition of "but admitted that claims of a sexual assault by French journalist Tristane Banon had tormented him" is fine and balances out the gushing and non-neutral POV statement that comes immediately beforehand. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Captain (and beautifully expressed!) I meant to add this as well which puts the 'legal' case as best I can (perhaps we can hear from our resident self-appointed legal expert Bbb23 on the matter should he care to condescend?)

From WP:QUOTE

The quotation should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source.

(Personal attack removed)Fix it. I'm away this weekend. It had better be fixed by the time I come back if you want to avoid me elevating the issue. FightingMac (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not the biographer's "opinion." This was his "conclusion" after numerous interviews, as stated in the source. If you want to know "who" all the women were, you should read the book. Assuming that a biographer's research can be somehow "balanced" with a woman's mother's statement about seeing her daughter looking "roughed up" in a car, is an obvious problem. Biographers avoid giving their personal "opinions" in their books.

BTW, that WP:QUOTE guideline you added is exactly the problem with the two previous digressions, as explained above. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). Fix it. FightingMac (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's fixed. The entire add-on text was already deleted: Nevertheless, the [biography] author admitted that while later claims of a sexual assault by French journalist Tristane Banon had tormented him, he concluded after interviewing several people, including Banon herself, that there was no proof of her accusation:"Strauss-Kahn is a great seducer? Of course! But he's not a raper. The anecdotal hearsay by her mother doesn't belong anywhere, not even on CNN. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not fixed. I invite other editors to provide a suitable edit, failing which I shall deal with this when I return weekend. FightingMac (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have major issues with but admitted that claims of a sexual assault by French journalist Tristane Banon had tormented him; it's puffery, it ostensibly mentions the claims made by Banon but then undermines them totally, it then says it "tormented" him (which is just playing to the sympathetic). Not a fan. FightingMac; you need to calm down, some of your edits seem to be getting fraught and not a little pointy (for example tagging a word in a quote as "clarification needed" and women, who are clearly identified, as "who?"). Just take a deep breath :) I don't support any mention of Banon, per the idea of WP:BLPNAME. She made a claim some time ago, which was not officially filed or taken any further. For the privacy of both parties it does not seem worth mentioning here (especially if all we are going to get is a he said/she said situation). That said; concerns over the remaining text are sensible, how about changing it to: Michel Taubmann defended Strauss-Kahn, saying that during his research for a biography of the politician he had concluded that Strauss-Kahn was a "great seducer", but not violent towards women. This pushes the burden firmly onto it being his opinion and avoids the flowery quote, but still expresses what he thinks. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a different perspective, but I think it's unnecessary and risky. By adding that the author "defended" him, we cross the line firmly into editorial conclusions. The same would be true with any other opinions, especially without more context. Those kinds of changes would almost reverse what's in the sentence now — his description of the opinions by others, with cite and quote in a summary form. So I'd leave well-enough alone at this point. But I agree that the tags don't belong on quotes or sourced material which refers to a book with the details. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this, ErrantX. Regarding your suggestion that would be a little more acceptable but for encyclopaedic accuracy the phrase "great seducer" should be sourced to 'Le Journal du Dimanche which famously used the phrase 19 October 2008 reporting the Piroska Nagy scandal (for example this source) and if we are using Taubmann at all then it absolutely has to indicate his reservations about the Banon case. Period. Otherwise the source is misrepresented. I'm surprised you don't see the reasonableness of this. Personally I don't think Michael Taubmann is either notable enough or trustworthy enough to be worth citing. The 'who' template quite legitimate, routine for this kind of weasel quote, and the 'clarification needed' because 'a sweet and charming man, sometimes engaging' doesn't really make sense in English (repetition of the sense of 'charming'?) and 'engaging' looks to me (I speak with some experience) as a mistranslation of some form of s'engager implying pressing, committing, that sort thing, and certainly not English 'charming, interesting'. I suggest a more likely translation would be 'sweet and charming, if at times somewhat pressing. ....'. So the template is an absolutely legitimate request. It illustrates perfectly the difficulty of citing second-hand foreign sources (why I always prefer to offer the original when quoting foreign): I see this every day.

(Personal attack removed)

As for Banon (Personal attack removed) the fact is that if Baumann did indeed interview her she certainly wouldn't have said SDK was charming. Kenneth Thompson (the complainant's attorney) has referred to her and she, or her mother, might yet play a part in any forthcoming trial.

Not heated, not even angry, just ... well, committed. (Personal attack removed)

I would like to see Bbb23's comment here failing which I shall assume he has no views.

I shall return to this issue Monday evening. FightingMac (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is the balance supporting the Sofitel maid?

Whatever the Wikipedia rationales and the processes that led here, if the article ends up biased (as now) then it needs re-writing. This section now reads like something written by the DSK defense team. There are 147 words supporting him (from a half-dozen people, including his wife, ex-wife, ex-lover, and unnamed "close friends"). There are only 30 words supportive of the Sofitel maid, and these quote only Marine Le Pen. English-language readers may not know that Marine's father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, is the far-right National Front (France) founder who was convicted of anti-Semitism and of physically assaulting a Socialist politician. DSK is Jewish and a Socialist, casting doubt on Marine's critical comments. (Another 50 words are neutral, reflecting on France, citing Debre and Kahn.) The Sofitel maid, by all known accounts (4 Sofitel guards, the NYPD, and NY prosecutor) was traumatized after the incident, in tears and cowering. She has taken leave from her job, moved out of her home, and is in semi-seclusion. A little support for her perspective would lend balance. E.g., this article now oddly excludes any mention of the Piroska Nagy case. The IMF investigated Nagy's complaint and concluded that DSK had excercised poor judgement (though not abuse). Nagy wrote that DSK was “a man with a problem that may make him ill-equipped to lead an institution where women work under his command.”NYT For readers who don't follow DSK, they'd have no idea from our article about this prior incident. Regarding Tristane Banon, why not just quote and link to either of the two publicly-broadcast interviews with her: [1] and [2]? (Click CC for English subtitles.) Why use a secondary source (Taubmann, etc.), when you can go to the primary source? Trestres (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Trestres, I quite agree with your observation. It seems that any discussion of evidence that corroborates the housekeeper's account is oddly lacking. Her account of the incident was reported immediately and consistently, she has stopped working and sought treatment, her modest background and devoutly religious beliefs argues against the defense claims that she might engage in a consensual sexual encounter with a complete stranger, especially while at her job that, in her own words, she can't afford to lose. All of these facts are relevant to this incident and tend to support her version of events. I'm a little surprised that these are not included. Ronnotel (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Taubmann quote not representative of CNN source. Taubmann not RS, conflict of interest

Concerning (Personal attack removed) Taubmann edit, I intend to cut it because his use of the CNN source is not representative of the source and a violation of WP:QUOTE as documented above. If it is restored, either as it is presently or in any similar form, I will balance it by remarking that Taubmann said he was tormented by the Banon allegations and devotes the final chapter of his book to them. If then further weight is added to Taubmann's opinions, especially with a comment such as 'a great seducer but not a raper', I shall add as a balancing edit Anne Mansouret's statement, noted in a disclaimer in the source and a subject of another news article by CNN, saying Strauss-Kahnn did attack her daughter. Should that subsequently be struck out, or the edit otherwise reverted to an earlier unacceptable form, I shall elevate the issue.

This source confirms Taubmann is Strauss-Kahn's official biographer. There is thus plainly a conflict of interest involved in citing Taubmann.(Personal attack removed)

Regarding the templates I have inserted the 'who' because we do not know who these women are that he interviewed. In one source I have seen he describes them as 'his sister, his first wife, Helen Dumas, former girlfriends and his wife Anne Sinclair'. That doesn't strike me as a very representative sample and needless to say only an official biographer would have had access to any of these. It's unclear from the source whether he interviewed Banon for the book. All he says in reply to a direct question is that he 'talked' to her. I think it unlikely that Banon would have granted him an interview and, in any case, plainly wouldn't have said Strauss-Kahn was incapable of violence. The 'clarify' template questions the adequacy of the translation of the quote itself, which really doesn't make much sense in English: "... a sweet and charming man, sometimes engaging ..." involves a double repetion of the sense of 'charming' at 'engaging' and I think it very likely that it is a mistranslation of some form of French s'engager and it should read " ... a sweet and charming man, sometimes pressing ...".

Regarding this biography, I gather that in fact the last chapter, "The Trumpets of Rumour", some dozen pages long, is entirely devoted to the Tristane Banon allegations and in it he documents, as I suggested above, reports of DSK as being 'too pressing' in his approaches to young women. That he says there is no proof of Banon's allegations is not to say the attack didn't happen and in fact is to say absolutely nothing about a rape case because we all know that in the vast majority of these cases there is indeed no proof. Here's Katha Pollitt, that queefing douche-bag of drivelling titillation as is common ground on this Talk page, on the subject in The Nation: "When all else fails, there’s the old standby, wheeled out whenever a famous or powerful man is accused of rape: why would he rape when women were lining up to have sex with him? “A seducer yes, a rapist no,” said DSK biographer Michel Taubmann. Like he would know." And right, like have you checked out Taubmann's photo in the CCN piece? Who in god's name for the love of heaven would give such an obvious loser in the great evolutionary game, which predicates our essential survival (I mean there is some actual point in fucking, nice though it may be I don't deny), any credence whatsoever in sexual matters?

The biography was only published on May 5 and I couldn't find any mainstream reviews as yet (which believe me is not much of an advertisement for a book in France where anyone can write one and everyone does) but I did find this from Éric Verhaeghe on Atlantico (which Tristane Banon incidentally contributes to on youth affairs).

He notes that, although the biography is for the most part properly balanced, Taubmann does depart from his usual position of reserve in the last chapter devoted to Banon when accusing her of involvement in dark family going-ons of a sexual nature and in clumsily attempting to valorise DSK as a faithful husband who discovers his irrestible seductive powers late in life: "Flicking through these unintentionally comical pages, it's hard not to agree with the criticism of the U.S. press on a kind of French media complacency towards our political elite."

For the rest it's a sober account of SDK's political life and stances, which the reviewer cordially rubbishes.

Given therefore that the concluding chapter is entirely devoted to Tristane Banon, it is quite unacceptable, and wholly unprincipled, not to mention Banon when reporting Baumann's comments on the rumours concerning DSK. I can add I've seen another source where he says he is inclined to believe the allegations are a plot, he implies a Russian plot, and flatly dismisses the Banon accusation as une affabulatrice ("a fabrication"). I should think that probably reveals his true lights. NPOV?

(Personal attack removed)This was the comment of Kenhubert

• "Fairly typical of French journalism: always fawn around the great and the powerful and reflexly believe what they say. If this were an isolated incident, he might be right, but there are more and more women coming forward who make much the same allegations about his aggression. Can he also explain what possible motive Banon might have for making these claims, unless they are true. She appears to be the last sort of person who needs the publicity, but the first sort of person who might want justice. But then it took an African immigrant and the American legal system to start the wheels moving. Never in France, especially when haughty nonentities like Taubmann refuse to give credence to what seems like a very probable crime."

(Personal attack removed) In fact Anne Mansouret is a member of parliament moving in the same elitist circles as Strauss-Kahn. Banon herself is a best friend of one of Strauss-Kahn's daughters and a god-daughter of Strauss-Kahn's second wife. The allegations, censored and ignored by mainstream media in France, were picked up by emerging media, AgoraVox, an on-line citizen newspaper and broadcaster and Atlantico, a news website inspired by The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast, and have gained widespread resonance amongst the young in France. (Personal attack removed) FightingMac (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning Banon herself I'm not sure she should be mentioned in the article and have refrained from introducing her directly myself. I do think it's something that should eventually be discussed. The French article does refer to her, discussing the early legal process. I considered doing the same myself but decided against it eventually because in fact there was no RS identifying her as the subject of interest mentioned at the first bail appearance. However Kenneth Thompson has now made it clear that indeed she is a subject of interest to the prosecution and my own feeling is that she should be mentioned on those grounds. I'll open a thread to discuss later this week, or of course another editor might care to now.

She ignored the query and responded by restoring with some additional material in poor English (she appears to be French). Dr.K., an experienced and respected editor it seems from his talk page and evidently keeping an eye on the proceedings at the time, deleted the poor material citing WP:UNDUE but crucially allowed the content on Banon and Nagy to stay. (Personal attack removed) Esthertree appears then to have sought help from the Help desk and I haven't followed the history further. I don't think she has reappeared in the article. (Personal attack removed) FightingMac (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This section has been redacted to the point of incomprehensibility. I do think it's important so I shall restore the last four paragraphs without identifying the user involved, henceforth 'Personal attack removed' (Par). I'll add a diff as recommended by WP:NPA#WHATIS

However reference to both her and Piroska Nagy were made by Esthertree early on in the article. She attempted to add the content May 29. The first time it was deleted by Par on the grounds it was copy-paste from the main article. Par then went to her talk page and posted this query at 01:05.

Sorry to bother you, but your first edits are extremely well done for a new editor. Can you tell me if you are using a secondary account, and if you are, why? Thanks. --Par (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

She ignored the query and responded by restoring with some additional material in poor English (she appears to be French). Dr.K., an experienced and respected editor it seems from his talk page and evidently keeping an eye on the proceedings at the time, deleted the poor material citing WP:UNDUE but crucially allowed the content on Banon and Nagy to stay. Par then deleted that content a second time, on the grounds again it was copy-paste, at 01:39. Esthertree appears then to have sought help from the Help desk and I haven't followed the history further. I don't think she has reappeared in the article.

I invite the views of the community here on this behaviour of Par's. FightingMac (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Banon again I've considered more and on reflection shan't open a thread on her just yet. I am a little bit uneasy about that since my Fula student coming to this article doesn't learn of her allegations but I do think it's unavoidable so long as she isn't identified unequivocally as of interest. The French article is wrong to cite her I think.

As for Par, this personal attack stuff doesn't really raise a whole lot of sympathy in me. There is a list of attacks at WP:NPA#WHATIS and we're nowhere near there.(Personal attack removed) FightingMac (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh and we can't have my passionate defense of Wikipedia redacted either because that's going into the book ;-) ... sorry. This was how that final paragraph originally went before I added comment 'Concerning Banon herself ...'.

Par is plainly contemptuous of Banon and her mother Anne Mansouret. He has no right to carry this prejudice over into his edits, seeking to diminish their significance. In fact Anne Mansouret is a member of parliament moving in the same elitist circles as Strauss-Kahn. Banon herself is a best friend of one of Strauss-Kahn's daughters and a god-daughter of Strauss-Kahn's second wife. The allegations, censored and ignored by mainstream media in France, were picked up by emerging media, AgoraVox, an on-line citizen newspaper and broadcaster and Atlantico, a news website inspired by The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast, and have gained widespread resonance amongst the young in France. It is by no means at all too much to say that to slight and trivialise them in this way goes against all that Wikipedia stands for, against its very heart and essence, and I ask fellow editors to defend the integrity of our encyclopaedia against Par's POV advocacy and CRUSH editing. FightingMac (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

In my draft I added 'I fucking mean it' for some reason and then thought better of it. But I do, Par. I really, really do. Imagine. FightingMac (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like my opinion, I think it's time both you and WW1 seek mediation. I don't mean to be uncivil, but this drama has become a bit tiring, at least for me, I won't speak for other people. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no need for mediation here. (Personal attack removed)

What's the deal with you by the way? I never see you add content to the article. Why do you bother? Regarding the newbie bite of user:Esthertree I refer to above, I noticed you joined in on the Talk page with a comical (but I don't mean amusing, far from it) dig at her English (the verb is dévaster). Why did you do that? (Personal attack removed). Why did you join in?

Get this right, Flinders. This is about a trial which threatens to put a wealthy and powerful man behind bars for the rest of his life and he's going to defend it on a no-holds-barred basis for his very life and not for his reputation, which is irreparably destroyed. (Personal attack removed) Well, no doubt. His attorney has made that clear, but everyone with a brain-cell I know interested in this case is using it to think that might not be enough and that other issues will need to be raised as well. I'll be here tirelessly to swat away POV advocacy when that happens, as I hope you will be too as I am sure you will want to. But we have to start drawing a line in the sand now. Ce pas plus loin. I know you are young. I ask you to consider at least the possibility you are a little bit naive as well. I would appreciate it if you were more constructive. FightingMac (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Fighting, just for your French, one would say ça ne doit pas aller plus loin (this mustn't/it shouldn't go any further) or just assez, c'est assez (enough is enough). BTW, do you live here ;-p CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Captain. I was being a touch ironical perhaps with Google there but I frankly admit to being extremely challenged by French. Yes right about where I live ... not usually here honest. I am genuinely embarrassed about the thousands of words I've generated on this talk page. The bad news I'm afraid is that I'm prepared to write a few more tens of thousands if that's what it takes. Well I can spare the time. I spend most of my nights and days twiddling my thumbs waiting for my super little computer to spew out stuff for me I don't understand anyway. The Baumann edit was an absolute disgrace. The bottom line as I note in the outdent below is that Banon vehemently contests the version Baumann gives in his book and was consulting with her lawyers (the book only appeared May 5) about it when the whole New York room attendent business blew up. She must be absolutely crucified by the whole business. I do fear for her. Thank you for the supporting remark you made above. I did appreciate that. FightingMac (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey FM, just having a laugh too, I accidentally got involved in DSK and ended up getting warned over edit warring one night as I (alone) tried to prevent three successive (and very insistent) editors polluting the article and trampling all over BLP guidelines, inserting libelous, scurrilous or just general trivial detail to the article, despite having requested assistance from the BLPN and another user who was consensus against the inclusion of such material. As per my suggestion over at Errant X's talk page, I really do feel that something needs to be done about BLPs "in the news", particularly when the news is scandalous or controversial - think OBL, DSK, Julian Assange, Knox, Giffin shooting and Palin, Weiner and sexting, death of Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and so on. Personally, I think random IPs could/should be barred from adding their two cents worth and policy should be more rigourously enforced.

I got sick of reading "hey but if it's out there in RS, we must include it" totally ignoring WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia is not just a bunch of random stuff collected from the internet, BLPCAT, WP:EGRS, NPOV and so on. I found it frustrating that people seem to blatantly ignore plain English or try to twist it to suit their own personal agendas, and also, like on this talk page, people totally ignoring detailed and well-argumented replies, sidestepping and just being basically, IMO, pointy.

I think recent events have shown that even RSs get it wrong, there is too much precipitation, no fact-checking, unfounded rumours go round the world in 80 seconds thanks to Twitter and so on, think poisonous cucumbers from Spain kill people in Germany, think fake gay Syrian bloggers etc. etc.

Just to finish up, well the Baumann edit without the counterbalancing Banon remark was, like I said above, puffery for our cuddly bear, also the porno actress quote was really out of order and unbalanced too; sick to death of people's obsessions with race, nationality, religion too. What difference does it make if she's from the Seychelles or Venezuela? And the "he's a Jew, let's tag him" brigade, IMO, both pro- and anti-semite, is wearing too. You know the "fat rich powerful Jewish guy in charge of all the world's money" abusing "the poor black female subaltern" just seems to tick so many boxes on the "I told you so" Z*^@ist conspiracy theorist agenda.

So, just seems a shame that one or two editors have to ceaselessly battle to keep the BLPs (and their forks) clean, and, hell, it takes a lot of time when one could be wikifying articles about cetaceans or somesuch other amusing pastime. Kudos, I have set my parrot's eye on this page and its related article. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@Mac:Huh? I think you misunderstamd what I mean by tiring. When I say tiring I mean it is frankly annoying to see constant sniping between the two of you over the period of an entire month in two different articles. It has nothing to do with entertainment and I am not sure where that idea comes from, but creating bad faith and an uncivil environment that disrupts the ability of editors to act cooperatively to improve the article. I am talking about mediation between the two of you to put an end to this behaviour everywhere. Think of this as being in a meeting room discussing content of a book or newspaper article and you have two fellows constantly at each others' throats over everything they say.

I mostly like to comment on the content of the article and help out with putting things in rather than adding the content (as I'm usually late in finding new stuff) except in cases where someone has removed something that shouldn't have been removed or vandalised. In other articles I do make more additions to the actual article content. With Esthertree, I was giving the explanation that was in the article history which was. It was not a dig at her English nor was it comical, it was actually an explanation and apology expressed in the politest way possible in the French language, which I thought was the person's native language. Devasté (forgot it was with an a) in this context is devastated, it means I am devastated as a way of expressing sorrow, and that is generally how you say sorry in French (sometimes just as devasté, it's similar to "es tut mir Leid" in German, which is "it does me injury"). So I said "the English of the addition was a little bad, I am very sorry." I think this is why it is encouraged to use only English on the talkpages. I didn't join in there btw, that was up top because she had asked up in the first topic. I had been contributing long before that afair, of course I could be confusing it with the BLP article on the man himself where this has also been going on iirc.

The problem is that you feel you are getting rid of POV advocacy diligently (and you are in many cases), but it can appear to others like you and another editor are going head-to-head against each other (why is WW1 now Par btw?), especially if it has been over such a long period of time. It gets to a point where it can be a bit disruptive. Now we both know that age and actual experience have no real connection, mate, except in cases where people use all their time in a worthwhile manner. =p Though I'll admit, that just like everyone else, I know nothing for sure and if I said I really did, I would be quite naïve indeed. =p In terms of POV, I'm going to look at him as a man on trial, of whom I have no real opinion about (focused on other things), thus helping me to maintain an NPOV and be able to spot instances of POV pushing and deal with them accordingly. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Esthertree was asking the Par ("Personal attack removed"), (Personal attack removed) Thank you for your explanation. Noted. FightingMac (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@Sir WMFP, sorry to be a French bore, but I think you'll both find that "Oh I'm sorry" in French is je suis désolé - "I am desolated". Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell, you're right. xD I lost so much knowledge in one semester. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Who in god's name for the love of heaven would give such an obvious loser in the great evolutionary game, which predicates our essential survival (I mean there is some actual point in fucking, nice though it may be I don't deny), any credence whatsoever in sexual matters?; I'm nopt going to respond to the whole of that comment in any detail, because I can deal with it in general terms. What you have said there is a huge problem; it is not our place to decide things like this about a source. And I am concerned with the argument that because he devotes a chapter to Tanon that means anything he then says must be placed into the context of that. Such things are taking our editorial work too far.

FWIW I think we can safely say DSK has the support of his biographer; I tend to agree to cutting quotes etc. I also do not want to see any more Tanon stuff unless it becomes directly relevant (though given that she has said she will not be appearing as any form of witness that seems unlikely), because it becomes a BLP issue to tangle it up (as much as the gutter press wants to do so).

Ideally we need to reduce that section of the quote dump and find a source that simply overviews the support/opposition to DSK in a way we can summarize effectively.

And once again Mac, chill out. It is not worth getting stressed over, this is only an article. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello ErrantX. On thing I think we can safely agree on is that the biographer is in DSK's pay. I'm sure that's what the French think. They do know all about books seeing how everyone writes one soon or later over there. Perfectly fair comment about the biographer. Beg to differ.

I've already said you're entitled to your views about Banon and I've agreed that she shouldn't be introduced unless named by the prosecution as a subject of interest. However Taubmann's book was written to spin DSL's political stance and to take care of the 'unbearable lightness of his being', Taubmann's description of DSK's cuddly little difficulties, and in particular to take care of the Banon problem, which was a huge hurdle. Any reference to it has to include a reference to Banon, as the CNN source quoted took direct pains to do in both its disclaimer and in its summary (certainly on legal advice I'd say). I don't think we need to do anything more with that section as it stands now. The stuff about Carmen Llera is a misrepresentation of what's that all about but it can stand, there's a fair source quoted. The preceding sentence about friends saying he is incapable of violence doesn't really have a fair source, just one of the very many speculative pieces that have appeared questioning why his wife Anne Sinclair, a hugely popular French TV personality of old, continues to support DSK. The relevant sentence is just this: "Those of his friends who defend him, saying he isn't capable of violence, admit he is a "great seducer" who brazenly seeks serial sexual conquests". Par for the course I'd say, that. Wouldn't you?

I happen to believe this is worth getting stressed out over. Can't knock commitment.

But I do understand your remark about the 'quote dump'. Don't think you're going to have any luck finding a source. FightingMac (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There's this from Reuters which includes the following from Taubmann:

"Evidently, it could harm his career if it proves true that he has committed these acts, but if he manages to clear himself of this then it could be beneficial to him.

"If he's falsely accused, that could benefit him because the French don't like someone being wrongly accused."

The celebrated Francesco Sisci himself couldn't better that. I did especially appreciate the bit about it possibly impacting his career if found guilty. Use by all means :-} FightingMac (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] Just to finish up here (I did say I'd deal with this Monday evening) here's a link to the Le Figaro piece mentioning that Banon has contested, through her lawyer David Koubbi, the version of events that appears in Taubmann's book. Par was very well advised by me indeed not to repeat his libel. FightingMac (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

the housekeeper is...

I have boldly added this simple factual detail about the housekeeper, it is widely reported and I have added a BBC citation to support it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The housekeeper who is an immigrant from the West African state of Guinea is ....

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13519035

note - I boldly added it and I can see there is no consensus on the talkpage and Andy has objected on the BLP noticeboard thread already, I have no objection to it being removed, if requested I will remove it myself to allow for more discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really objecting as such. I was just pointing out that 'reliable sources' don't determine content - they provide it. I think this level of detail is probably acceptable. What we don't need is religion, marital status, children's ages etc, etc. The article isn't about her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I also do not support adding additional detail about her at this time. I just added this simple detail, that should not be seen in any way as the opening of the floodgates. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree both of you above. Boldly punctuating it right would be good as well ;-) FightingMac (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW is anyone going to respond to my request last thread about interlanguage links? Here's the note sent me on my talk page:

"Please stop doing this, external wikis are not reliable sources and should not be inline linked like that, thanks."

but I simply can't find anything to support this. What does the editor mean by 'external wikis'? I can find this which might support at first sight, but the ' external wiki' in question is 'wikiislam'. Surely other wikipedias (specifically what we are talking about is the French wikipedia) are not to be considered as un-RS. That does strike me as nonsense. Does the French wikipedia consider the English wikipedia as non-RS. Why do we have article links between the two? Inter-language links such as I was using and what was objected to here?

I do mean it when I say I want clarification here. This is like informal. FightingMac (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

From WP:RS "...Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose". It follows logically from this that other Wikipedias cannot be cited as WP:RS either (If they could, they could cite us, and we could cite them, creating circular references). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, Andy. Thanks for this, which I hadn't noticed before and whose point I do acknowledge. However I don't read that at all as addressing the question of interlanguage links. These are not necessarily used as RS supporting some assertion in the article but as a service to the reader. Thus in the Tristane Banon article I helped translate, there was an interlanguage link to Michel Taubmann, Strauss-Kahn's official biographer. It wasn't been used as a citation sourcing anything about Taubmann (these were sourced by references to the news website Atlantico and the French newspaper Le Figaro). Yet Off2riorob removed the inter-language link.

I do propose to pursue this issue and would like to see a good explanation from Off2riorob as to why he's removing these inter-language links.

Regarding Off2riorob's bold edit, which I do support incidentally, there is a small POV issue involved in placing it where it is. That's because Kenneth Thompson has been widely reported as planning to introduce 'class-struggle' as part of the defense. I'm inclined to think introuducing the housekeeper's immigrant status just here tends to strengthen that view. Shouldn't it go earlier? At the beginning of 'Arrest and pre-trial proceedings' perhaps, thus:

On May 14, 2011, Strauss-Kahn was arrested in connection with an alleged sexual assault on a housekeeper, an immigrant from the West African state of Guinea, at the Sofitel New York Hotel in Manhattan earlier that day.

I suggest that's better (BTW @whoever "alleged sexual assaults" is silly and naff). FightingMac (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't like putting a description of where the housekeeper comes from earlier. What's mostly relevant at the earlier point is her position at the hotel, not her birth place. More information about her arguably becomes more relevant (I'm not convinced that it is) when she hires attorneys.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not and my POV remark is quite valid I think. Agree with you about info, but after the US tradition of withholdong names of rape complainants it's simply a question of Wikipedia policy of which I expect two matters will be of primary importance 1 the issue of her being notable for just one thing and that not of her volition 2 the usual caveats about categorising ethnicity and religious affiliation. There may be other issues but that's how I see it panning out. But I'm not sure I shall be able to involve myself in any debate further on because a possible conflict of interest may arise for me now: I shall have to take counsel.

Regarding 'sexual assaults' in the first sentence of 'Arrest and pre-trial proceedings', that's plainly wrong because any ordinary native speaker of English (I mean a literate one) will take that to mean a string of sexual assaults over a period of time. Sources differ over how they describe the allegations but I suggest something like '... was arrested in connection with the alleged sexual assault and attempted rape of a housekeeper ...' would be better or you could also have something like 'was arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting a housekeeper' and an examination of sources should point you to other solutions. The point is of course that 'sexual assault' is a charge in its own right, distinct from 'rape'. I'm surprised that a fine legal mind such as yours hasn't noted the problem hitherto.

Where did 'housekeeper' come from, incidentally? Strictly speaking it's not correct. I favour 'room attendant' myself.

I've put a long opinion on the vexatious question of interlanguage links on the talk page at Tristane Banon. Does your mate Off2riorob often do that BTW, follow editors across article pages I mean? One isn't really flattered and he appears to have brought with him another editor equally sadly misinformed about the function of interlanguage links as well as the nature of translations. It is unwelcome.

A propos life outside the internet (no, really) this amused recently. FightingMac (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

FightingMac—you refer to "categorising ethnicity and religious affiliation"[3] but this would not be applicable to material under consideration for placement in the body of the article, which is what we are discussing. Bus stop (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop (great name :-)). Yes, 'categorising' wasn't a good choice of word, since that's specific to Wikipedia systems of catgeories, info-boxes and so on. But people have already tried to insert details of ethnicity and religious affiliation and I think this might become an issue. There are reports out there which suggest that a defense of consensual sex (read "commercial sex") cannot by itself succeed and the defense will have to suggest something like a plot (very workable) and that's where I can see problems arising. The editors here will have their work cut out I think. I'll be curious to see how it pans out (assuming it does go to trial and isn't made to di$appear). But I've already suggested to Bbb23 that the parties in this case will seek to use Wikipedia to do their mud-slinging. He says not. I say he's naive. We shall see. FightingMac (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanish article

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

Putin translation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead image rationale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DA's July 1 letter

This is one case where a primary document is fine to link to: the DA's letter acknowledging doubts about the witness' credibility.[4] She <redacted - ATG> about her actions immediately after, and <redacted - ATG> on her asylum application to the US. One the other hand, her attorney (not surprisingly?) stands by her charges:[5] "DSK then grabbed her vagina with so much force that he ... bruised her vagina. When she went to the hospital later that day the nurses saw the bruises that were caused by DSK's hands and the DA has those pictures... After he'd finished she got up and ran for the door and started spitting DSK's semen out all over that hotel room. She spit it on the wall and the floor. The hotel staff and police saw that she had done that. The medical and forensic evidence supports her account, he says. [...] She was raped in Africa by soldiers, he says. She was afraid to tell the prosecutors that the rape did not occur in connection with the asylum application, he says, but she was raped in Africa. [...] She was very concerned that her young daughter would also have to endure female genital mutilation. She was desperate to prevent that from happening to her baby girl and so she came to America." Ugh. This sounds messy. Btw, her attorney also says she will soon waive her right to anonymity. More messiness, for WP. Bon chance! Trestres (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court appearances

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to rebalance article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(my bold).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW how are you getting on with law Guigou?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under U.S. law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DNA samples and body examinations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some references for example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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