Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn/Archive 2

Avoiding WP:OR original research in article text
This is a reminder to avoid stating unsourced conclusions in the article text. I do not mind some amount of speculation or discussion of likelihood of future events, so long as unsourced conclusions are not placed into the text. An early example was removing the "15-20 years" possible sentence and putting "25 years" or other conclusions. Please remember, in U.S. criminal cases almost any imaginable (or "unimaginable") outcome has occurred, due to the complex options provided by thousands of obscure precedent cases: in Texas, a man was given 10 years "probation" for murder or "mistakenly shooting a man to death". Other guys have been sentenced to 44 years and 55 years for possession of dusty crack cocaine pipes, after prior convictions, even though manslaughter typically gets 15 years and murder perhaps 20 years. Typically, U.S. court judges have some discretion to adjust years-in-prison sentences, despite laws of mandatory sentencing which might seem to be very strict. Even though the laws might seem to imply a sentence of "17 years", such conclusions are a type of original research, so should not be placed into the article text. The same concept applies to statistical analysis of opinion polls, or to conversion of tornado wind speed to kilometres-per-hour speeds. Try to quote the sources exactly, unless later sources clearly prove the earlier text as incorrect. Also, some U.S. judges can simply break the law and decide a case, which requires having the judge's ruling overturned in a higher court or leading to impeachment, disbarring, of a judge. Almost every "American freedom" has been legally violated by U.S. courts, based on some obscure technicalities. American criminal cases are far too complex to decide unsourced conclusions as being acceptable text. Try to find current, reliable sources. -Wikid77 20:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the problems which seems to me to be unique to this article is a tug of war to remove cited details, or change cited details to an original research summary. The OR and POV problem is entirely avoidable by using the best sources.  In this article we have the reliable media news accounts linked and the link to the District Attorney's web site which on this point is authoritative on the length of the sentence.  It is as stated, not merely imaginable:

A class B violent felony is punishable by up to 25 years in prison, a class C violent felony is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, a class D violent felony is punishable by up to 7 years in prison, a class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in jail, and a class B misdemeanor is punishable by up to three months in jail. patsw (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there new sources giving a range of years including the potential minimum sentence? -Wikid77 21:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Expanding details for NPOV-neutral coverage

 * (topic restored after deletion by User:RFC bot at 21:31 26 May, this edit.)

Rather than screening the 7 charges, as to which are most serious, I would include all 7 since that is not WP:UNDUE detail, unlike if there had been "38 charges". The 7 charges are:
 * "two counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree, one count of attempted rape, sexual abuse in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment, sexual abuse in the third degree and forcible touching." –source "IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn's Presidential Election Chances", ABC News, May 16, 2011, web: ABC94.

All 7 charges will fit within the article text. Also, I think it is appropriate to note DSK's plane ticket was booked in advance of the day, which was used as evidence that he was not trying to flee the country by grabbing the earliest flight at the time. -Wikid77 21:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Meta-comment?
I added this to the 'American reaction' section


 * On the English Wikipedia a consensus was reached not to name her in its article about the case whereas the corresponding article on the French Wikipedia had named her from the outset.

but Dr. K. deleted it on the grounds it was a 'meta-comment'.

Is there in fact a policy not to refer to Wikipedia? There is after all an article on Wikipedia?


 * I would wait until a independent reliable source reports on this asymmetry. There's no need for this to be rushed. patsw (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just saw this. I agree with Patsw. No coverage by RS indicates meta comment related OR. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, accepted. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Exchange of letters
In an exchange of letters, prosecutors questioned defense attorneys threats: Lawyers for Ex-IMF Head Complain of Leaks to Media. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting article since it touches on the prejudicial releases of information, but it also teases the reader with defense statement that the credibility of the alleged victim can be impugned but the defense chooses not to do so. The prosecution team replied "We were troubled that you chose to inject into public record your claim that you possess information that might negatively impact the case and 'gravely' undermine the credibility of the victim. We know of no such information." patsw (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The first and last paragraphs of American Reaction both refer to the same letters. These should be connected and edited for flow. patsw (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Consecutive sentences?

 * "if ... sentenced consecutively, he could face a maximum sentence of 74 years"

I was prepared to critique this as being most unlikely and went to the web, and discovered that I was wrong: The ADA himself indicated that they might seek consecutive sentences.


 * ...But Assistant District Attor­ney John McConnell said the in­dict­ment height­ened the flight dan­ger because Strauss-Kahn could face consec­utive pri­son terms if convicted on all counts...


 * patsw (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thus notable. An editor suggested it shouldn't be there. FightingMac (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Avoid stating alarmist conclusions: All this talk of "74 years" in prison, as a realistic concern, is unfounded speculation, and why? ...because it assumes the judge would make that ruling, and assumes the judge would not be politically aware of DSK's status, and it assumes DSK would not appeal the sentence, and thus it assumes that "74 years" represents some realistic notion. While speculating, note that an appeals court might overturn the whole conviction, and release DSK from custody, requiring the New York Police Department to re-file the case as amended for the reasons the hypothetical conviction was overturned. It is alltogether just too much speculation, and once the speculation of "74 years" is allowed, the concept becomes a "slippery slope" which leads to the further speculation of a "hanging judge" ignoring international politics and discussion of appealing the sentence, etc. Remove all the alarmist speculation of potential sentences and stick to exact quotes of the danger (with no added conclusions). I understand how drawing the line might seem confusing, but it is simple: do not mention "74 years" unless a source states it, and do not mention any future possibility unless a WP:RS source states the possibility as a realistic notion. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would add to also Avoid playing prosecuting attorney, by stating legalistic details that only a criminal judge could understand. Having 4 legal citations only compounds the obvious excess weight to professional level details. Example: "the most serious of which is Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree, a class B violent felony (two counts).[15][16][17][18]"--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is alarmist, then direct your outrage to Assistant District Attorney John McConnell who made this part of the public record. If there is a reliable source with legal expertise who has stated that consecutive sentences are impossible or improbable in this case, that would be a good balance. I looked for such a statement was not able to find one. patsw (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Meta comments
I got this comment on my talkpage and I moved it here because that's the best place for everyone to participate and comment.

Dominique Strauss Kahn sexual assault case
Hi Dr. K.

I saw you reverted an edit of mine in which I remarked that the English Wikipedia has reached a consensus not to name the alleged victim whereas the French one had named her from the start. You gave your reason as deleting a meta-comment where I understand from my kowledge of mathematics that a meta-comment would be some sort of self-referencing comment.

Is there a policy in Wikipedia not to include comments about Wikipedia? There is after all a page about Wikipedia itself.

A meta comment is a comment in Wikipedia about itself. As such it is pure OR and not covered by WP:RS. It is to be avoided since no reliable sources have covered it and it is about editors talking about themselves inside a Wikipedia article. In short, not good. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dr. K. I understand your point and on reflection I do agree. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you FightingMac. Keep up the good work. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The quantum uncertainty of Natasha Kiss's nationality
Natasha Kiss is the porn star who claims to have had sex with DSK. Presently her nationality is fluctuating pretty randomly between French and Italian but at the current collapse of the wave function (phwaaw, that was nasty) she's Italian and that's what her BLP says. If this is really so and the source is the UK's Daily Telegraph I'm a little uncertain whether she can have any place in the 'French reaction' section. FightingMac (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I assumed the interview was in Paris, and it discusses events in Paris. Suggest that a "European reaction" section be started, if you honestly find this interview so problematic as "not" being truly French that you add an uncalled-for unsightly tag to it, something I've never done to your cites. Letting the tag remain, considering the farcical "American reaction" section, essentially means you just got paid.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do at least think it's typically French, if not in all honesty your actual French. But I would countenance leaving the tags in because they're there to alert other editors who might have, odd thought, wholly different ideas to either you or me about Miss Kiss and cuddly DSK so blatantly cavorting in the section. What's your guess on what DSK's lawyers might think of it? And go on, do tell us all about the other women you mentioned ;-) FightingMac (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, blow me! there doesn't seem to be any French sources. Just three UK ones Telegraph, Mail and Sun. What to do? FightingMac (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Consider triage, if it's a real problem, or plain common sense, in the alternative: ie. first fix the "American reaction" which is overloaded with non-American trivia, with mostly French sources, some in French, and is clearly wrongly placed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's logical to have the American reaction to the French reaction be in the same section as American Reaction, otherwise you'd have to have two new sections: The American Reaction to the French Reaction, The French Reaction to the American Reaction. In essence, these sections explore the distinction between the two nation's societies, laws, and media culture. patsw (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Kantar Media factoid
The Kantar Media trivia does not belong in the lead since it's not anywhere else in the article. The lead is for summarizing the article, not adding new material, trivial or not, that requires a citation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Very trivial, not like Miss Kiss. It's in the French article. I'll look tomorrow morning to see what to do with it. FightingMac (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

1. It is strange the L'Enterprise page which is touting this as the most publicized event links to the top level of Kantar Media which itself doesn't reference this. patsw (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at that too. FightingMac (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Assuming everything in L'Enterprise is correct, their measure of UBM (unité de bruit médiatique) ("unit of media noise"), is being calculated for the French media consumer ("Cela signifie qu'en moyenne, sur cette période, chaque français a été "en contact dans les médias" avec cette affaire 137,61 fois", écrit Stratégies.)(i.e. "each French person") That's not really an aspect of the sexual assault case but his media exposure. patsw (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is right reading closely and I've struck it. I have seen several sources remarking he's now the most famous person in the world but I didn't really pay any attention and since of course it's incredibly trivial, not like how he rates on the cuddly index, I don't suppose it really matters. FightingMac (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP
What, if any, are the concerns that the article violates the policy on the biography of living persons? patsw (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Emperor's clothes moment ... I haven't noticed any. FightingMac (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

On a matter unrelated to this article, but of interest to the editors of this article, Jimmy Wales discussed privacy this week and it was reported in the The Independent patsw (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Saw that. Thanks. FightingMac (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC: More Undue and Non-neutral POV status
Is there Undue weight and a non-neutral POV?Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC) I'm starting this new talk section since the article is stuck in the "Risk of article fragmentation" mode, and all the recent edits have restored the undue excessive details along with the fragmented material. There are some obvious problems that should be fixed:


 * The first paragraph in the Indictment section is extremely weighted to stressing what the penalties could be if he is found guilty, if he were sentenced consecutively; if the maximum sentence is given, yada yada. There is no justification for such an extensive detailing of possible outcomes. It creates an obvious bias toward guilt and thereby expresses a disproportionately negative POV:
 * "A neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views . . "


 * The very first sentence, with four citations, proves the point. The very first citation, #12, in the paragraph proves the point even more, by using a footnote to add minute crime report commentary as "alleged" by a victim, where such minute crime scene details would be disallowed in the article;


 * A meaningless section stub for "American reaction" is again in the TOC with a single common sense sentence. The rationale an editor gave for keeping this as a sandbox, fill-in-the-blanks area:
 * "Give the section time. I don't think its present content silly. That's your view. You can be quite sure I at least shall eventually add to it. I'll give you a date. June 10th."


 * Addendum: It has subsequently been newly-filled with trivia, with 4 of the 5 citations from French sources! One in French! Hence, a mockery of the problem. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Evidentiary material, as was mentioned earlier, should be avoided to not prejudice an ongoing case in the minds of a reader. This goal is being actively ignored, IMO. So much so, that many attempts by at least three other editors to correct them have been attacked as being "discourteous," or "vandalism." I suggest a RfC might help. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)




 * If I had meant WP:VANDALISM I would have said so. But you have been violating WP:NOBLANKING. FightingMac (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling removal of the formerly nearly-empty section box "blanking" is nonsense. Re-adding more irrelevant verbosity to create filler and clutter, and irrelevant "French-related trivia, is more of it. Especially after the hullabaloo of a single Italian phrase in the French section. "Blanking" assumes there was no consensus, however, as you well know, there was consensus, and there still is consensus. Blanking assumes there was no attempt to fix or preserve the content first. But there were both. The single uncited sentence was moved to a new subpage with public notice to improve it. Blanking assumes there was no discussion before the deletion, but there were thousands of words already rehashing this subject, which you must have overlooked. Essentially all of your red herring pseudo-objections and false accusations are very strange.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Especially after the hullabaloo of a single Italian phrase in the French section". In the 'French reaction' section you included a comment which appeared on an Asian website made by an Italian living in Beijing and I deleted it on the very reasonable grounds that it wasn't French reaction. I had already extended you the courtesy of keeping a comment from that source you had quoted in the "Political" section that I had deleted since it was a not a very notable speculation premised on the unlikely event of DSK still making it to the French presidency. I can add that your original edit had contrived, by design or accident I don't know, to make the truly comical suggestion he could use his experience of this case to added advantage in his presidency. So what about this Italian comment? Are you suggesting you have been unfairly treated? FightingMac (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was afraid I'd have to find an example of a red herring, but the comments did the trick. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't understand. Will you please explain what your problem is with deleting the Asian/Italian/Beijing quote you inserted in the 'French section'? Are you saying it was discourteous? Vandalism? A violation of your moral rights? That it should have been brought to the Talk page? What is your problem with it? Why do you brand it a 'red herring', if that is what you mean to do, when you brought it up here in the first place? Will you please explain. FightingMac (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said deleting it was a problem. It was a cite added to expand on your ""democracy in regression" addition, as it seems related. There's no objection to removing it. On the contrary, its removal contradicts your words, in that you now calmly accept the addition of multiple French cites, one in French, to the "American reaction" section. A complete perversion of expressed statements.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not my "democracy in regression" addition but Le Monde's and the section wasn't entitled 'Comment about French reaction' either. FightingMac (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In anticipation of another "Don't understand," reply, this is the kind of non-American filler you're adding to the "American reaction" section:
 * "The alleged victim was first identified in the French press by Paris Match on May 17 and other newspapers quickly followed suite including the prestigious Le Monde, considered the French newspaper of record. These newspaper reports, which eventually included photographs and details of the alleged victim's personal life, even descriptions of her physical attractiveness, . . ." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course that's not filler, Wikiwatcher. It's purpose is to lead to the next sentence describing the American reaction in numerous blogs condemning it.
 * Likewise I plan to document American reaction to Bernard-Henri Lévy's 'Daily Beast' blogs attacking American media's response to the allegations and of necessity I'll have to briefly describe it. Would that be filler too? FightingMac (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just looked at my copy and I see that it's not even a lead to the next sentence but a lead to the concluding phrase "were condemned in numerous American blogs". That's a violation of WP:QUOTE, FightingMac (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the article about the crime. The details of the crime are important.  If you want to examine the article for relevant comments why not raise an objection to de gros seins et de belles fesses ("big tits and a nice ass")? patsw (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To which I'd add that the most important detail is as yet we cannot state that there was a crime. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment also seems to ignore a "presumption of innocence" in the U.S. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Alleged crime' of course, but of course in legal circles it's routinely synonymous with 'crime case on trial'. But if you're going to come down on every single slip we're all on a hiding to nothing here. I must have added the qualifier 'alleged' to 'victim' half a dozen times or more in the various edits of the article without feeling the need to sound off about it in the talk page. What about Mayor Bloomberg unfortunate defence of the perp walk which I have offered as grist to his mill. Wouldn't it be more constructive to add to the section a report of that? Or even raise an objection to 'big tits and nice ass' as suggested above? FightingMac (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Added to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard patsw (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This article now has 21 occurrences of allege, alleged, allegation. If it needs to have 22 (or more) to make it clear to the Wikipedia reader the Strauss-Kahn has not been convicted or plead guilty, make the suggestion. patsw (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV notice
For the reasons stated at the beginning of this section, I propose putting a NPOV notice at the top of the "Indictment" section. There has been no attempt to repair the problems, and instead the problems keep increasing, with one editor suggesting (without opposition), that all 7 charges be described in detail, as they would in a courtroom. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree. For the following reasons:
 * An indictment is routinely described in Wikipedia articles on crime and the Wikipedia's reliable secondary sources prior to disposition. This is not a new matter that we are facing here.  I don't recall an indictment ever being suppressed in Wikipedia.
 * An indictment is an accusation. Accordingly some form of allegation allege alleged appears 22 times in the article, some form of accused accuser appears in the article appears 5 times.  The text properly presents the presumption of innocence, and if it doesn't the remdedy is to add content to better present the presumption of innocence.
 * An indictment is based on sworn statements and presented to a grand jury. It is not speculation or spurious.
 * An indictment is a public record.
 * (From WP:NOTCENSORED) Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and as such, its primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work; that is, it does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information on notable subjects.
 * Balance in articles like these is ultimately dependent on content appearing in reliable sources. If Strauss-Kahn's legal team is silent for a month, we don't achieve balance in the article by suppressing the indictment. patsw (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

More unsourced evidence cut
Per earlier comments about using extreme caution in posting evidentiary material, especially when questionably sourced, I am removing another bit of gratuitiously posted evidence-related commentary: "" Strauss-Khan may have been injured in the course of her escape." (Foxnews)"

The Fox article it was picked out of, an example of tabloid fodder, is loaded with "The sources said; he said, she said," and other blatant hearsay. If the original uploader wants to restore it pending other comments, I won't edit war over it. But for that kind of selective commentary relating to evidence, some boldness seemed reasonable.
 * Delete:--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. "May have been..." is speculation we don't do on WP.TMCk (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverted I am reverting this. The content is information related by police sources to Fox News under the Jana Winters byline.  For News is a reliable source.  The story was picked up by many other media outlets and not denied by spokespeople for Strauss-Kahn.  Some basics here: it is relevant and it is verifiable in a reliable source.  As I have mentioned above, the neutral point of view is not achieved by deleting content until there's a balance between the fact and opinion implicating Strauss-Kahn and exonerating him.
 * If we can get some precision about what tabloid fodder is before we edit, maybe we can have a consensus. A defensive wound obtained in the course of a sexual assault is not particularly titillating.  I am cautious and I would delete tabloid fodder.  patsw (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * patsw (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral doesn't mean a word count that balances content implicating Strauss-Kahn with content exonerating Strauss-Kahn. patsw (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source relied on for your commentary included similar evidentiary statements which resulted in a police "denial" that it was true, and a subsequent news blackout of the case:"Strauss-Kahn leaks trigger official US clampdown", May 24, 2011. (misprinted date,) and "Leaks trigger Strauss-Kahn news blackout", New Zealand Herald. A French TV news broadcast before the blackout.  If a key portion of the article has already been discredited by the police, why add anything else from it? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A very specific article with the correct date has a different story, namely, police spokesman, Paul Browne had no comment in response to the accusation made by the Strauss-Kahn lawyers, the D.A.'s office declined comment as well. So since the release of the complaint on May 26, there has been no denial, as far I can tell.  Even if there were an actual denial, then that would be noted in the article.  The content isn't invalidated by the denial.  This may be a game of plausible deniability as well. patsw (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, but it's untrue. In the U.S. at least, there is a thing called a "right of free speech," but not one for a "duty to speak," except in a courtroom, under oath. Hence, if someone reads a slanderous statement about themselves, they can sue for defamation, but never have an implied obligation to counter the original slander. To assume "tacit consent" to every lie that's published, or else it becomes a truth, would be ridiculous in the extreme. A good example of that perversion would be the French broadcast linked above. Note how the rookie reporter blatantly concludes that "indeed it is true," simply because of no denial of a published rumor. It's also part of a very nasty game that tabloids have historically played to sell papers and ads. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have been misunderstood. My point is that the Tuesday May 24 report of the denial by police which appeared in AFP apparently appears no where else.  The May 24 reports from the major U.S. news media outlets (CNN,CBS,NBC,Fox,NYT...), all of which agree on the essentials, lack a reference to a police denial -- indeed, the May 24 CBS/Associated Press report added that the police had no comment, which is consistent with May 26 no comment about which I do not believe there is a dispute..  patsw (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have been misunderstood. My point is that the Tuesday May 24 report of the denial by police which appeared in AFP apparently appears no where else.  The May 24 reports from the major U.S. news media outlets (CNN,CBS,NBC,Fox,NYT...), all of which agree on the essentials, lack a reference to a police denial -- indeed, the May 24 CBS/Associated Press report added that the police had no comment, which is consistent with May 26 no comment about which I do not believe there is a dispute..  patsw (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have abstracted out the policy question raised in some of the editing of this article and created a section in the appropriate policy talk page Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources regarding the inclusion of news leaks. patsw (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The misdated Google/AFP story has the correct date here on Yahoo (Tues. May 24). This is dated before the disclosure of the letter from the Strauss-Kahn legal team on May 26, and obviously is not a response to that letter. patsw (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewording "according to anonymous sources"

 * 1) Fox News was not alone in claiming to have obtained this account from law enforcement sources.  Versions of this account appeared on May 24 on several other sources I linked in the previous section.  Fox News' claim to have this as an exclusive is an obvious exaggeration.  Listing each of  ABC, AFP, CBS, CNN, NBC ... is overkill for the summary style of the article.
 * 2) The law enforcement sources are personally known to the crime reporters for these news media outlets.  They are not "anonymous" -- simply not identified by name to the viewer/reader.
 * 3) "The woman" is vague.  In this context she should be identified as the alleged victim as elsewhere in the article. patsw (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Broken references
This edit broke references. Please restore them. patsw (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Current concerns
Some views: These are just my hurried thoughts. --Errant (chat!) 13:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to quote detail of the alleged incident from the court documents. It probably qualifies as a BLP violation to be so detailed at this stage. It's also largely irrelevant.
 * however, when multiple charges arise for a single criminal event, the maximum sentence is generally limited to that of the most serious charge; total speculation & unrelated to the case. Pointless to include.
 * No one has been able to expand the American Reaction section so far; what is currently there I left as a placeholder to be deleted as we filled it out. But I haven't been able to find anything substantial worth using - so is it time to cut that for good? Stating it has been covered in the media is simply stating the obvious :)
 * the most serious of which is appears to unsourced, from checking the sources (although the ABC one is currently dead). The only secondary source tagged onto it simply notes that they are serious charges and does not pick out any of them as "most serious" etc. (also that whole paragraph needs a bit of TLC).


 * Disagree blanking 'American reaction' section. Please do not do this for all the reasons I give throughout this page. If you want content then Mayor Bloomberg's defence of the perp walk in the face of French outrage is obviously notable. If I have time tonight I might provide it myself. My own position is that I will provide content myself later but I would like to see contributions from other editors first. I don't watch to fall into the OR trap providing my contributions and for that matter, regarding any publication I might make of material elsewhere, I don't want to be accused of plagiarising content I contributed in the first place! FightingMac (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I repeat that an 'American reaction' section is a very natural one to have in the article given that there is already an increasingly comprehensive and genuinely useful 'French reaction' section. I see nothing wrong with having a blank section or an essentially blank section and that is ordinary Wikipedia practice you see everywhere. The French article had a blank 'Legal' section last time I looked. To say the exisiting remark is 'obvious' is looking at from the near distance. From a historical perspective the content might very well begin '(blah blah) generated intense interest in mainstream media and the newly emerged social networking internet sites (blah blah)'


 * Is there an agenda about not having an 'American reaction' section I'm missing here? Why on earth for heaven's sake is such an unexceptionable matter generating so much controversy? FightingMac (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Court Documents The Wikipedia is an encylopedia. An indictment is public document and reflects the due process of the State of New York applicable to all criminal defendants -- sworn statements and the evaluation of a grand jury. The amount of detail in the article is minimal and sufficient. patsw (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Limited to the most serious charge I disagree. It is relevant because the reader may not be familiar with the sentencing practices of New York State. patsw (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blanking American Reaction I disagree. What is obvious now on May 26, 2011 will not be obvious in 2031. If I wasn't spending so much time adding back deleted material, I (or other editors) could work on improvements to this section. Since we are not dealing with discrete events here like a poll demonstrating a belief in a conspiracy, it requires more effort to summarize. patsw (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Serious is calibrated by the details of the indictment. A felony is more serious than a misdemeanor.  A "Class B" felony is more serious than a "Class C" felony. patsw (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Errant X, I saw your template 'not in citation given' and I've removed the citation since of course I can't defend your challenge. I'm looking now for a RS to cite the remark that's there buit since it's 'obvious' it shouldn't be challenged and doesn't really need one. FightingMac (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @patsw; I refer to the detailed quotation which contains a lot of detail on the allegations/events. This is un-needed because it is not specifically supporting any content and can be otherwsie easily accessed by clicking the link. Serious is calibrated by the details of the indictment. A felony is more serious than a misdemeanor. A "Class B" felony is more serious than a "Class C" felony; this is original research and needs to be cited. r.e. limiting the charges; if/when he is charged then we can make that point. Right now it is speculation and unrelated to the historical reference (it is an example of the sort of stuff perfect for Wikinews coverage)
 * @FightingMac; the fact it was covered in the media is obvious. The thing that needs to be sourced is that it has generated intense interest, which is more an analysis of the coverage. --Errant (chat!) 14:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously challenging 'intense'? I'll settle for a blank section if I can be sure it won't then be deleted. I'll do Bloomberg's perp walk remarks tonight. I do take it that the community accepts that's notable and encyclopaedic? That's not rhetorical by the way. I would like to see response now and here from any who might challenge it if I'm to spend time doing this.
 * I can add that I fervently agree with Patsw's remark that we could be generating more content if we didn't have to spend so much time returning content and dealing with discussion. It's quite unfair. I do get WP: BLP quite a lot. I've read it attentively and all I'm trying to do here is contribute to an article about a case that fascinates me, and an article by the way that on the whole I didn't support. I would have preferred to be doing this when it's all history, but here we are and I am doing my very best to make it as good as I can. Indeed it's unfair. FightingMac (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe NPOV troops will show up if the characterization gets too imbalanced teeter tottering between Saint and Monster. The biographical article has reverted to almost a hagiography, which couldn't have happened if the split didn't exist. Trust the process and don't get burnt up. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mac; I know it sucks. I don't think much of the content I wrote for this is left in the form I wrote it (if at all), that is just how it is for articles like this :) you have to shrug and move on. And yeh, unfortunately "intense" is the concerning word - because that's a value judgement of the coverage and is not something that could easily be discerned. --Errant (chat!) 18:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We had an edit conflict here and unfortunately the remarks I made got lost. But basically I said just that about moving on. I did in fact sign off in the parent BLP a couple of days (I want to get on with translating  Dutch Canon of History into English, quite a big project) and actually I want to do that more than this DSK business, commited though I am to that. But when I looked back I saw WP:NOBLANKING violations and contributors' moral rights trampled all over and I wasn't minded to just let that go. To IP user before, thanks and indeed it's a big issue. The split was a really bad idea I thought and I didn't vote for it. I'm prepared to cut my losses it, make a chapter of it all on its own in the book ... :-) I'll get this 'American reaction' section off to a start and then let go.
 * I thought you might say that about 'intense' ;-( ...


 * Is there an argument being made by anyone that media coverage of Strauss-Kahn is not intense? Is this disputed?
 * If there is a consensus among editors that the media coverage of Strauss-Kahn is intense, then any editor is free to find a quote, supporting that. Requiring hourly checkins to see that content that has been added in good faith is still in the article.  We don't have a WP:DEADLINE.  I'm going to make a good faith effort to summarize the American reaction. patsw (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Patsw, If you're doing that I'll hang fire on Mayor Bloomberg and the perp walk (which was frankly not necessarily the happiest of defences of the perp and one which I though the saint brigade might have picked up, but there you go ... one tries one's best).


 * I don't really want to contribute anything further before the next hearing but I'm not going to tolerate WP:NOBLANKING violations and I'll be checking. FightingMac (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * NOBLANKING is an essay, and in my experience is not something that is widely accepted. Your content is liable to be scrapped at any time; not to be harsh, but a better essay would be JUSTDEALWITHIT :) As it is, in this case, none of the issues raised on NOBLANKING seem to be violated :) --Errant (chat!) 18:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Feminist reactions as an integrating section
I separated out the feminist reactions and created a new section for them because there was a statement available by both French and American feminists about presumed innocence. Their combined statement and the separate section seemed to make a good lead up to the subsequent two national reactions views. It goes some of the way towards making all the reactions less muddled. Whiteghost.ink 22:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Feminist section clearly does not belong right after "Indictment and pre-trial," and before "French reaction." It looks like a total digression of the article subject and flow. It's also mistitled, since "Associations" would not be capitalized, and the word itself is unnecessarily focused, since the subject is "feminism" and "anti-sexism," supported by cites. It should go within the "French reaction." In addition, being above and separate from the "French reaction" section, the chronology of the events become incorrect as it implies that the feminist petition happened immediately after he was arrested and charged. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. This section and its heading is better now - I was trying to make a start on "de-muddling" all the information in the reaction sections. Whiteghost.ink 00:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

denied allegations

 * - He has denied all the allegations, and his attorney has characterized the forensic evidence as "not being consistent with forcible encounter"

This in the lede early on, I think at Wikiwatcher's wish, and that's fine with me. But I'm just worried it frankly doesn't read very well. Or am I being too critical? I mean in all seriousness, I think someone reading this would find it rather odd and the effect would be quite the opposite of positive for DSK. However that's just a personal opinion. And can someone with razor sharp grammatical skills decide whether that comma should be there. My guess it that it shouldn't. FightingMac (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The common-language term used in the article body by experts and summarized by the Reuters headline is that he "may attempt a consensual sex defense." That makes it readable and clear. There is no need to use precise legalistic quotations in the lead. It obfuscates the key details, and I know you wouldn't want to do that.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really follow this, Wikiwatcher. I certainly wouldn't want to obfuscate the key issues, details or whatever. But if you're going to quote what his attorney said, whether directly or indirectly, then you have to quote him correctly and what thje attorney said concerned the forensic evidence so I've added that. But with or without 'forensic' I think it's still prejudicial to DSK because it's thrust in your face straight away and most people have developed and cultivated instincts about things like that. Trust me on this, Wikiwatcher. It doesn't read well. However I'm not going to involve myself in an edit war over it. But 'forensic' has to stay. What's your take on the comma? FightingMac (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it. It's a fine comma. But a simple word, from the article and cites, reads better in a summary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, resolved. Lost you on your second there, though. FightingMac (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikiwatcher, I've looked at the lede again and I'm sure it's not wise. I think it's damaging to SDK and I ask you to edit it accordingly.


 * My own recommendation would be to remove the phrase 'and his attorney has characterized the forensic evidence as "not being consistent with forcible encounter"' entirely and content ourselves simply with "He has denied all the allegations."


 * I would do this on my own but I sense I would merely get myself into an edit war with you and I've given more than enough of my time to this article and must move on.


 * I am quite sure in my mind that that second sentence in the lede reads almost comically in its sudden reference to the evidence and consequently harms Mr. Strauss-Kahn. Since I'm here, and about to go, I should also advise you directly that your inclusion of the Miss Kiss story quite plainly prejudices Mr. Strauss-Kahn's interests and I ask that you remove that directly.


 * I shall look back with interest from time to time. FightingMac (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My addition a while back was "He has denied all the allegations, and there is speculation that he will claim that any sexual encounter between them was consensual." This is essentially a summation of the body text, with multiple cites there using similar phrasing. Some cites used it as the story title, and those kinds of statements are usually one of the first things U.S. readers look for, to get both sides of the story. Typical TV style also. For every crime story, you'll find either a denial or motive early in the story.


 * As for the Miss Kiss quotes, they were from major U.K. papers. No doubt other papers will include it. The article already quotes his two wives. So I don't see why this highly relevant and intimate detail should be left out. Can you explain clearly why you think it could "harm" him, considering other women he's apparently had affairs with, are calling him a "gorilla," etc.? Note that in his bio, a tiny sentence summarizing his other "allegations of sexual misconduct" has five cites. The kind of excess detail that could harm him by undue weight is closer to the front of this article - per snippet:
 * "These two counts are punishable by a sentence of up to 25 years in prison.[17] If he were sentenced consecutively, he could face a maximum sentence of 74 years on all counts; however, when multiple charges arise for a single criminal event, the maximum sentence is generally limited to that of the most serious charge.[17]"
 * That's one of the reasons for the RfC. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wikiwatcher. Looking back briefly but I don't expect to stay long for now. I would say the article is fine presently but I am surprised that media coverage in so unrepresented and I will be restoring and adding in due course.
 * Regarding your first remark that would indeed have been better (I didn't edit it). Nevertheless I think the current opening paragraph in the lede is adequate.
 * Regarding Miss Kiss, The only mainstream media to report this remains the UK "Telegraph", "Mail" and "Sun". No other paper has come near it, on legal advice plainly. The source here is a pornographic actress, "deep source" indeed. Are you really claiming that's a RS? On that ground alone it should be removed. You refer to the French journalist Tristane Banon, who called him a 'chimpanzee in heat' (not a 'gorilla') on a television program in 2007, but that claim isn't sourced in the article and indeed would be quite inappropiate here. Referring to Miss Kiss' allegation is quite plainly harmful. The defense might contend Strauss-Kahn never uses prostitutes. How do you know? As it is we know they refused to comment. My suspicion is that you're advocating a point of view here ("Strauss-Kahn is a very nice man who would never stoop to rape") and it isn't satisfactory. I ask you again to delete this remark. You've substantially rewritten it but it won't do. And of course it's not 'French' reaction, however typical.
 * As for the 5 references citing Tristane Banon in the BLP, that's just the kind of build-up you sometimes see. I'll go across momentarily and trim to a couple. FightingMac (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The first mention of Michelle Conti in this Talk page was yours, "Natasha Kiss is the porn star who claims to have had sex with DSK," and after the Telegraph and other U.K. papers included it, you felt that "it's probably in Le Monde somewhere." Whether he actually was sexually involved with her is speculative by you, and it was not me who assumed re-publication by other papers. However, a search for "Miss Kiss and Strauss-Kahn" in English gives about 324,000 results, so the story is not a secret. I assume from your opinion that you don't think she should be described as a "pornographic actress," so if you want to delete the first word, that's fine. But explaining her voluntary decision for  "speaking out" in the context of her meeting him "on several occasions in a private club in Paris," is relevant and logical.


 * If you read the article, you'll note there are many, many quotes by others, none of whom claim to have known him that personally, and most with no context commentary. If anything, those quotes should be expanded to add context to explain why their opinions matter. We have lengthy quotes by unknowns, with no clear context: "We don't know what happened in New York last Saturday, but we do know what happened in France in the last week."  The article includes many conclusionary quotes by others, such as Le Pen, Debre, Guigou, Lang, etc., but all without commentary context. Conti's voluntary interview is essentially the only one with a totally neutral POV, it seems. All of her comments directly relate to personal impressions of him and relevant to the key issue of this entire article: violence.  It's the only interview that deals with that issue. Hence, it's unclear why it would be the only one you don't like. Are you really that worried that it might hurt Strauss-Kahn? In any case prostitution in France exists, and only now is  "France considering making prostitution illegal". If anything, maybe Conti's quote could include details about sexual attitudes in French society, to put the interview in more context. This was only a portion of her interview.  BTW, is it in the French Wiki? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What's on the record
The defense attorneys have had little to say on the record. This is to be expected since they have to prove nothing and the prosecution has to prove its case to a jury beyond reasonable doubt. So why did Branfman state the heading of this section? At the May 16 bail hearing, after the presentation of the items which the prosecution will bring to the trial to argue against granting bail, the defense attorney denied the allegations as expected, and here is where the discretion of the defense is engaged: Branfman said "not forcible" to persaude the Criminal Court Judge Melissa C. Jackson that a defense was possible and to grant bail to his client so that it can be prepared.

As far as I know there was nothing further on the record on their defense strategy from May 16 through May 26. Even when you go to speculators on the possible defense strategies, this "not forcible" strategy is always mentioned. I have not seen the idea of Branfman actually presenting a conspiracy defense being discussed in reliable sources. I don't believe a NPOV issue exists with respect to mentioning Branfman's May 16 statement in the lede and in the text. patsw (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of synthesis
Per WP:SYNTH I removed, twice now, essentially similar versions of DSK's visit to the doctor, although the original version was worse SYNTH-wise. "The following day an uneventful visit of Strauss-Kahn to the doctor was reported on in local newspapers and local television newscasts."

This paragraph was added immediately after some "circus came to town" comments in the previous paragraph (On May 26, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer announced “The circus is in town"...). The introduction of the removed paragraph: The following day an uneventful visit of Strauss-Kahn to the doctor was reported... is not reported by the RS but rather it was manufactured to fit with the "circus came to town" paragraph just above it at the article. This is a clear case of WP:SYNTH if I ever saw one and it implies that the visit (called "uneventful" for good measure, even though no RS source calls it this way) was part of the "media circus", which advances a synthetic observation, not found in RS. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also another example of "filler" which has been mentioned many times earlier. The entire section was originally a single-sentence shell, and is being gradually expanded with trivia, not great for an article.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikiwatcher, can you clarify what you mean by "[filler]"? Is there a Wikipedia policy on "filler" and what is it? FightingMac (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Dr. K. Firstly 'not guilty' (no way) and secondly would you care to give an opinion of the status of 'Miss Kiss' (and tell it to the world if the money's right) edit? I am curious? Would you be inclined to agree it's not RS and potentially libellous? FightingMac (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Improvement suggestions
Based on a number of various sections' revisions, mostly good, there are some new changes that could help keep the article clear. These are a few that I think will help:
 * The lead has a new summary statement that can be simplified. It contains some synth and possible opinions not supported in the body;
 * There is some repetition of details, ie. "bail amounts" (4 x), and "bail bond" amount (2 x);
 * The French and American reaction sections have some unnecessary and repeated statements of obvious facts, such as "Immediately following the arrest, there was speculation in mainstream media and social networking sites such as Twitter that . . ." and repeated, "The case has generated intense interest in American mainstream media and on social networking sites such as Twitter." Adding comments like "such as Twitter" and "social networking sites" repeatedly is trivia and states the obvious. The same is true of repeating "media frenzy," (2 x) and "media circus" (2 x);
 * The "American reaction" sections is little more than filler of newsy minutiae and trivia, much of it unrelated to the American reaction, and loaded with repetition and redundant statements;
 * The "Resignation and impact" section has an unrelated topic fork added discussing other nations' calls against European domination of the IMF, etc.;
 * The "French reaction" section seems to have some topic forks with an excessive list of names of French personalities, but the context of the issue is buried in the details. The phrasing should be reversed somewhat, with the overall context explained and then the supporting details following. The context of described events in France must be made clear, since this is the English WP, and we shouldn't digress into French politics, if we can avoid it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh really? ... should French Revolution go up for AfD, for example? FightingMac (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Soup, beautiful soup,  soup of the evening ... FightingMac (talk)

Introduction
I tried to summarise the reasons the case is notable (and becoming notorious) in the introduction in such a way that whatever happens, the beginning still makes sense regardless of what stage the proceedings have reached. Varying legal claims will be outdated as matters take their course but the reasons for its significance are likely to remain. There are going to be so many legal points made, as has been noted, and it will be "news" for quite a while. However, beyond that it should be an encyclopededic entry, not an ongoing list of claims and counter claims (which is why I removed quotes from his wives but left the references to them). Also, I hope that setting a calm tone for the article would help give dignity to the people involved and balance to the article itself. Whiteghost.ink 12:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mean all that stuff from the celebrated Francesco Sisci ("this might change the world") etc.  my own opinion is that it's naive, patronising, embarrassing, I suspect agenda-pushing or advocacy ("SDK was saving the world and look what we've done to him") and above all quite unnecessary. Do feel free to "trim" it. FightingMac (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is notable, promise
Currently we seem to have the views/opinions of a large number of people. Some of them are just posturing for air time and we should really cut them. Conti, for example, is just irrelevant - vague and "claimed". And her massive indented quote is fairly undue weight (I'm cutting it now). Reporting of Le Pen's comments needs a copyedit to make them neutral. I'm not sure that Lang is of much relevance, just expressing an opinion. We need to be careful of the feminists section so as not to simply soapbox their views (as they are doing to the event in general). Their views can be dealt with, along with their actions, better (it is, after all, only a side show).

(and before this causes aggravation; a lot of people are expressing an opinion on this event, we need to pick who to record based on a) who is of relevance and b) who is an expert in these areas. Mostly, though, we should avoid those commenting for the hell of it). --Errant (chat!) 18:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you copyedit Marine LePen's remarks to make them neutral! She's notable all right. Currently more popular than Sarkozy. The point was that originally there were two paragraphs summarising political reaction and they were rather good and representative of the whole spectrum of French party politics. conflated these with feminist reaction and now another editor has thought to mke it quite clear to others similarly challeneged just what kind of reaction we're talking here. For some reason Marin Le Pen now gets to head the field after DSK's wife (such a brave woman, my heart goes out to her). That's distinctly odd but there you go: Wikipedia is democracy. FightingMac (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Notable as an opinion, but not a reason to selectively cut a quote, which apparently bothers you: unduly lengthy indented quotation. I suspect she is just jumping on the bandwagon Supporting that OR (speculation, what "bandwagon"?) rationale with more opinions that her comments are "irrelevant - vague and "claimed." And her "massive indented quote is fairly undue weight," should be discussed and supported first. Otherwise, it is an unsupported OR blitz. The quote is prima facia relevant, not lengthy, not vague, not "massive," not undue, and published in RSs. In fact, most of your observation could, and should, be said of the worst-case scenarios needlessly embellished to the "Indictement" section:
 * "the most serious of which is first-degree criminal sexual act, a class B violent felony (two counts).[11][12][13][14] These two counts are punishable by a sentence of up to 25 years in prison.[15] If he were sentenced consecutively, he could face a maximum sentence of 74 years on all counts; however, when multiple charges arise for a single criminal event, the maximum sentence is generally limited to that of the most serious charge.[15]"
 * And you could add "overciting" and OR to the list of problems, the most notable being ignoring a presumption of innocence. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahem, I was light heartedly referring to the opinions of the people we are quoting ;) Anyway; take care with your reverts. You added back the word "claim" and restored stuff I have moved (not removed) to a more sensible section (as the content was general reaction, not to his media treatment). In terms of the Conti quote - it's just a lot of stuff and nonsense, claiming her 15 minutes of fame. Why is her claimed meeting with Strauss-Kahn of note? Why is her view of him especially relevant or interesting (I am sure we could find a whole string of people saying how lovely he is)? Why is that long quote, given a lot of prominence via the indent, of particular interest or importance (other than to stress that, you know, he's a decent guy)? It's a pile of hot air IMO. And I entirely agree on the indictment section. --Errant (chat!) 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear; has any RS established the relevance of her view (other than it being a juicy soundbite to add to the case reports)? If that5 exists then cool, we can rework the section to be decent. Otherwise I think it falls under editorial discretion on who to quote - and in this case it should be cut. The idea to gently establish is that some people think it unlikely he has done this act - I could be convinced a sentence about Conti might work, if her relevance could be more solidly identified - not to create a quote farm of largely irrelevant specific opinions (always bad practice of the highest order). --Errant (chat!) 20:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the revert, there were intermediate edits that weren't checked enough. This published interview was a stated response to the current allegations of a "violent" crime. Her observations were focused on his not being of a violent nature. The entire quote is needed, since otherwise she would be offering a personal conclusion without context. This is not about a string of people saying "how lovely he is", and that kind of sarcasm implies an added (possible) rationale for your deletion, which doesn't help. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, no other rationale than it is a load of rubbish. I don't think we need the whole quote, and I don't really understand your explanation for why it is needed :S It's fine to quote her conclusions - I just don't think they are relevance. I simply do not see what relevance her view has. --Errant (chat!) 20:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone's opinion without context would be wrong. The context is necessary for stating someone's conclusion. Why isn't his wife's opinion, or Le Pen's, etc. also a "load of rubbish", as they did not have any context commentary? The irony of this is that her quote is possibly the most neutral one in this entire article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If this is Miss Kiss (and $$$ tell) again I've already made the the only two points needed 1 It's not RS 2 It's a libel (no American media touching it of course). Gentle irony to the effect it's only typically French doesn't hit the g-spot. FightingMac (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * oh, and it's not 'pornographic actress' (another disgusting libel) but 'porn star' or 'actress in pornographic films'. In keeping with the gravitas style you affect, I shall edit it with the latter, unless of course I suddenly feel enboldened at the time. FightingMac (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * whoops, sorry. By all means revert, but do try to be literate FightingMac (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory editing
More contradictions? This (below) is the kind of truly "libelous" material you are Fighting to get put back in an encyclopedia. French tabloid trivia, in French, that you restored, after a minor change, with "Please do not revert" as your rationale. Material that could legally put a publisher in jeopardy and consensus has overwhelmingly condemned:
 * "On May 17, Paris Match published the name of the alleged victim. It reported that there were conflicting accounts of her physical attractiveness. It said that Strauss-Kahn lawyers were surprised to find her très peu séduisante ("very unattractive") but quoted a taxi-driver as saying she had de gros seins et de belles fesses ("big tits and a nice ass"). --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Contractions? No libel, no consensus except the one you claimed after two hours in the small hours of the morning in America. Please do not remove the templates I've added to your Miss Kiss edit. They are there for the attention of other editors. FightingMac (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Total libel and overwhelming concensus. Your defense to keep a French tabloid's defamatory trash in the article is, "It happened. It's notable." Disagree with those low standards. "Contactions" should have been "contradictions," I never sed I cood spell.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (let's start to bring the indents in, and try to relax our grips on the other's necks, fellas) I do believe that myself and two other editors were in favour of not having that content in the article for various reasons. Though, as I said, if it were to be included at all, it would be in the context of evoking X and Y reaction. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 03:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Trimming question
I think the "feminist" section, with related events, is fine and logical. But I wonder if the petition description warrants the name-dropping list of French people: ". . . including TV hosts Christine Ockrent and Audrey Pulvar, comedian and actress Florence Foresti, journalist and writer Florence Montreynaud, Jean-Luc Mélenchon (former socialist, leader of the Left Party), and Benoît Hamon (French politician, member of the Socialist Party), have signed a petition started by French feminist groups including "Osez le féminisme!" (Dare to be Feminist!), "La Barbe" (French pun, The Beard but also Enough!) and "Paroles de Femmes" (Women's Words)." It's not easy to read, IMO, and I think concrete statements are better. If someone else wants to trim the list and add some more context, I'd support it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lot's of stuff is hard to read. That doesn't invalidate it. What do you mean by "trimming"? I see you use that word when you make your non-WP:PRESERVE edits. What's the Wikipedia policy on "trimming"? Unlike a newspaper or journal there's no restriction on space in a Wikipedia article. I shall make a copy edit to help with readability. FightingMac (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A "porn star" and a "gentleman"
No, that's not the title of an upcoming movie. Two problems with the new descriptive terms:
 * There seems no pressing need to use the slang term "porn" just because a newspaper used it for a catchy headline. Her bio does not use slang, and my understanding is that slang is not preferred by encyclopedias except where necessary. In any case, the article text stated, " the star of numerous pornographic films."
 * The revised quote by her is more accurate regarding the "gentleman" usage, as I was first quoting a subhead. However, the new one-sentence paragraph, "She said she nicknamed him 'Gengis Kahn' without explaining why," does not fit any context and is meaningless trivia. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Italian phrase translation
If we need to have the entire Italian quote,
 * mi attirava proprio perché si comportava da gentiluomo nonostante i rifiuti

then we should translate it in full, since it seems like an awfully verbose way to say "a gentleman." Does anyone know Italian?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

✅. With appreciation to FightingMac. It reads well now. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"French reaction" section
I think that the French reaction section could use some work. Currently it includes reaction from DSK's wife Anne Sinclair, French politicians and commentators, and feminist response to the initial reaction from French public figures. I think that probably Anne Sinclair's response belongs elsewhere in the article, since she is responding as his wife rather than as a representative of French society. And, the feminist response deserves its own section, since the anger about comments made in defence of DSK is not confined to French feminists. Sue Gardner (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not a separate Feminist section, undue weight and you will be accused of soapboxing. Of course the French demonstration and petitions should be part of "French reaction". I've included an excerpt from Katha Pollitt's already famous 'Dear France, we are so over' op-ed in the American reaction section and you are welcome to include representative views from other feminists, always bearing in mind WP:UNDUE. Incidentally I think it's quite appropiate for DSK's wife Anne Sinclair (a noted TV celebrity in France in her own right) to lead the section. FightingMac (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. Seems like a good idea. The section has already expanded into different sub-topics related to the French reaction, and could no doubt expand much more. Maybe you could come up with some sub-section ideas and list them, along with some other section ideas. BTW, the "tears" cite is in the BBC's Hugh Shofield, footnote #34. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In spades "The section has already expanded into different sub-topics related to the French reaction ..." including the libellous (so libellous American media won't touch it) remarks by an Italian porn actree supplied by you (and the Wikipedia servers are in Florida?)


 * His wives' comments could be moved to a section called "Reactions by past and present intimates," to separate them from the generalized "French reaction" section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wikiwatcher1: I think something like that makes sense. I've put more suggestions on how I think this article could be improved below; I've just seen your suggestions too, although I have not read them yet. I'm offline for the next day; will check back afterwards. Sue Gardner (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Sue. Could you restore the Paris Match remark about them being the first to publish the alleged victim's name and make sexist remarks on her physical attractiveness back again per WP:PRESERVE and as courtesy to the editor who provided it in the first place? I'm not suggesting it was you who deleted it but it did get deleted as a result of the makeover you suggested. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Both your comments above seem to be in direct opposition to each other. You express shock at reading a comment by a porn actress, which WP has a major category for, with close to 1,000 others (female only), but see no problem with pushing to cite, in an encyclopedia no less, some French taxi driver's course, "tits and ass" comments about his impression of the maid's features. You prefer his comments over a personal friend?  Have I entered the Twilight Zone? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your addition of the Conti material has gone to a BLP noticeboard and has been resolutely rejected by three very exprienced editors at the last count on grounds of contentious as per WP:BLP as advanced by me and, yes, I was also concerned that it was damaging to DSK. My Paris Match edit was to document sexism in the French press. No idea what the Twilight Zone might be (TV perhaps? never watch). I wasn't expressing shock at reading a comment by a porn actress - yet another straw man fallacy from you. FightingMac (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sue, I checked the History. It was you who blanked the Paris Match edit. But it was precisely to document sexism in the French press. Can you restore it please. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for this article
I think this article needs quite a bit of attention. It's really important that it be well done, because we're talking here about very serious allegations, and both the main players deserve to be treated with respect and restraint. I will try to do some restructuring and clean-up later this weekend, but if anyone else has time and is interested before I can get to it, here are some aspects I think need help:


 * As discussed above, the "French reaction" section should be split up. I think that both "French reaction" and "American reaction" could be restructured into something like this: 1) Reaction to the arrest (friends, family, prominent figures), 2) Media coverage of the arrest (international, and including social media), 3) French anger at DSK's treatment in the days following the arrest, 3) Feminist anger at sexism of commentators and politicians defending DSK, and 4) Rumours of conspiracy. (Not those exact words as labels/titles necessarily, but those general concepts.) I think that would cover everything significant, and would be less muddled than what we've got now.


 * A very small thing, but we should fix the style inconsistencies. For example, French phrases sometimes appear as italicized, and sometimes are in quotations. I don't know the correct style: does anyone here know? And the citations seem really messed up to me, but I don't know how to fix that.
 * No style recommendation for foreign language phrases I can find but it's conventional in many publications to italicise them. I include the original when there are nuances that can't easily be translated. FightingMac (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Earlier versions of this article went into a fair amount of detail about the alleged assault, which has now been removed. I think it's worth having a conversation about what level of detail is appropriate. Both sides obviously are doing what they can to spin the media with what they are releasing/leaking, so we would want to be cautious. To that end, here is the statement of charges against DSK, which is probably the best available source for what the alleged victim says happened. An official document, it is more credible and authoritative than other sources we have been using, which mostly seem to be pretty tenuous, being mainly (1) journalists' quotes of (2) unnamed sources, who are themselves possibly just repeating what they've been told by (3) other unnamed and unknown people, who themselves (4) were not present when the alleged assault took place. We need to be conscious of the fact that media have an inherent bias towards sensationalism, which is being exploited by the two sides involved in this case: we don't want to unthinkingly repeat stuff that's more spin than fact.

Sue Gardner (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you feel about including the viewpoint that "international travelers in hotels; especially powerful ... men expect hotel workers to provide sexual services"? That was news to me when I read it, and frankly I'm still fairly astonished. But if it's true and can be verified with a reliable source, it would seem to have more than a little bearing on the context of this case. 99.58.31.20 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to believe that a university professor could write something so dumb. There's a big stretch between a concierge providing prostitutes to their clients, and the idea that "men expect hotel workers to provide sexual services". Laurent (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Err... well it's a blog and even if she is a prof it does not mean her opinion should be put in. I'm also not entirely sure this is a serious blog. O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 14:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yes, it's not notable. But notice an obscure source from an Italian (not related, or otherwise invloved with, to the celebrated Miss Kiss, I trust) director of a culture insitute in Beijing and writing in the Asia Times Online and has quoted him at various times in no less than three different places including the French section. Sometimes people get fixated on a particular source it seems ... FightingMac (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only is she a professor on the topic, but she has working experience in the industry she is commenting on. A search on the topic suggests that the peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY literature supports her assertions: Sharma V.K., and Khandpur S., (2004) "Changing patterns of sexually transmitted infections in India" National Medical Journal of India, 17(6):310-19,  (review.)  Are there any reliable sources to the contrary? 99.58.31.20 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussing cultural differences becomes a slippery slope, ie. "France debates the return of bordellos" (3/18/2010), although prostitution itself is not a problem: "France considers making prostitution illegal" (4/14/2011.) Before the U.S, had a formal constitution and legal system, Napoleon was simply trying to make France a "model for the regulatory approach to prostitution," a way of life for the previous 1,000 years. As of today, 70% of the French population wants to legalize brothels, including half of the female population. The U.S. and France may share the same ocean, but not other philosophies.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * et alors? ...


 * Sue, you mentioned "2) Media coverage of the arrest (international, and including social media)" but that's all been deleted now. Can you fix please since you led on it? Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Still not seeing a fix of 'media coverage' here, Sue FightingMac (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"American reaction" section now corrupted
It seems that the section has become overwhelmed with lengthy opinion pieces and has expanded the "media circus" that has been criticized. The section reads like a compilation of blog summaries. Initially, when created, the section was loaded with trivia filler, eventually cleaned. Now it's become a muckraker collection of personal opinions: When a section called "American reaction" is used as a dumping ground for opinions by unrelated persons, on the pretext that they were cited by the Daily Beast, The Nation, etc., it can reasonably be described as "corrupted." It turns a relatively balanced and factual article into an opinion collection. Replacing trivia with opinion pieces has again undermined the article, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy's spirited defense of his friend . . .;
 * American feminist Katha Pollitt remarked, . . . [discussing Levy's opinions, with a massive paragraph of her commentary];
 * New York novelist Jay McInerney [commenting about Mayor Bloomberg's comments, who was commenting about the French reaction, that was in response to . . . ] ;
 * American-born British journalist Janet Daley remarked . . . [followed by a ridiculously long paragraph of her opinions]
 * Citing France's Slate opinion site ;


 * The remarks for the most part document American reaction to French criticism of the perp walk and the news hounding of DSK. I invited you to contribute remarks yourself but you chose not to and when I returned after a break of some days they still hadn't been contributed. There are no blogs cited. All the persons cited are notable, even eminent, and all have Wiki BLPs unlike the not celebrated Francesco Sisci, Director of the Institute of Italian Culture, Beijing, who is cited by you twice in the article (most recently as 'a political analyst' which he is not), and attempted a third time, in connection with valorising conspiracy theories of the events, in "French reaction"!


 * You have expressed your opinion of the "American section" many times. As per WP:CRUSH


 * They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.


 * I ask you to remain constructive and cooperative in your remarks. FightingMac (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No doubt. So please keep your verbal revolvers in their holsters when commenting here. Better yet, leave the holsters at home. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As per WP:CRUSH
 * Civility does not mean that editors cannot disagree. Academe is well-known for spirited debates and disagreements and these often point the way to progress. The key principle is "stay on topic"; that is, arguments should be on the merits and not personalities. Editors should bear in mind that a disagreement with their point is not an attack on their honor. FightingMac (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And easy 'on the pistols at dawn stuff' there, Wikiwatcher1. FightingMac (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Improper physical description of victim
The following paragraph should be deleted. The U.S. is not France, and American standards of publishing etiquette would rarely accept statements like, from a weekly tabloid quoting a taxi driver, to be republished during a widely-publicized court case. In the U.S. the publications would probably get sued. And the editors who keep adding such discourteous material to a Wikipedia legal case should remove it as to not jeopardize WP. Note that there is currently a news blackout of the case for those very reasons: "On May 17, Paris Match published the name of the alleged victim. It reported that there were conflicting accounts of her physical attractiveness. It said that Strauss-Kahn lawyers were surprised to find her très peu séduisante ("very unattractive") but quoted a taxi-driver as saying she had de gros seins et de belles fesses ("big tits and a nice ass").[55]" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ... I will never ridicule the New York Post again. Agreed though, this garbage doesn't belong here, just like her name. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 03:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Keep. It happened. It's notable. The article isn't naming her because that's the Wikipedia consensus which I've always supported. What news blackout and is Wikipedia bound by it? But I'm not terribly committed to it. American blogs such as Professor Will Huhn's I cite in the American section simply report the fact that Paris Match reported the name and noted it included a coarse description of her appearance and I should be happy enough with that. But please get a consensus here first before you do any editing there. Do American standards of publishing etiquette accept stories like the Miss Kiss one you have contributed to the French section? I haven't seen that repeated in the American press yet. BTW why is that not 'trivial' as I take it you must believe is the case because of the very high standards you expect of others? FightingMac (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove and destroy with fire - Here is a big problem I have with that section. I don't mean the curse that is coming next to be uncivil as it is not directed at anyone in particular and is rather just an expletive for emphasis, but who the fuck cares what a New York City cab driver (or a cabbie from any other city for that matter) thinks about her? I mean that seriously, who? It's just plain silly to put in some random guy's opinion in the article or a very unprofessional comment by the guy's attorneys. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 03:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Flinders. It's notable because it was one of the sexist remarks that prompted the petition against sexism supported by amongst others Carla Bruni-Sarkozy herself. And it happened (and likewise this isn't directed at anyone or anything in particular), shit happens. And you can't squeeze it back. FightingMac (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Then put it in that context, it should not be there at all unless we talk about it in the context of her reaction. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 04:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Better yet, just stand behind your words: "Let les internautes go to the French page for saucy titbits, I say." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not trying to satisfy prurient or salacious taste. I'm just recording something that happened, that is notable. I mean we can put in the 'decent obscurity of a learned language', forgotten all my Latin myself but someone might be able to help. I'm surprised you so wilfully misunderstand me here, Flinders. You know jolly well I support the alleged victime's privacy. We shared comment about on the talk page of the parent article. Do you really think that if I'm nice on the point of protecting her identity I'm nasty on the question of her looks. Come on ... FightingMac (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove quotes about physical attractiveness. It isn't informative or encyclopedic, and it perpetuates the nasty view that sexual assault is somehow understandable when women are attractive.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the point is Dragons that's precisely the view that Paris Match, a cultural icon, was perpretating and shouldn't that be recorded in an encylopaedia? Wikipedia's not perpretating the view. It's simply reporting that French media are perpetrating the view. FightingMac (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We can discuss French attitudes and reactions without being crude ourselves. This is crude.  Discussing the French treatment of her identity is significant, but I think the quotes about her appearance make us look trashy without adding much to the conversation.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your rationale can be seen as (unintentionally) gaming the system, the U.S. system. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The paragraph has been removed. It's given verbatim up top, so future editors can still chime in and replace it if they feel a taxi driver is worth quoting in an encyclopedia. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You've allowed two hours for this debate, Wikiwatcher. What time is it in America where I assume most of this debate is going on? Midnight, that sort of time? I've edited out the tits and bum to reflect Professor Will Huhn's blog I cite in the 'American reaction' section and I once again ask you to stop violating WP:NOBLANKING in this way. It's very high-handed of you and I do consider it vandalism in the ordinary sense of the word outside Wikipedia. Is this how you generally edit Wikipedia? FightingMac (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you enlighten us on the news blackout please, Wikiwatcher? FightingMac (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Strauss-Kahn leaks trigger official US clampdown", May 24, 2011. They have a misprint on their date, which says the 18th. Another, with the right date: "Leaks trigger Strauss-Kahn news blackout", New Zealand Herald. I presume WP is on the U.S. court's watchlist. A French TV news broadcast before the blackout.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated paragraph
"On May 17, Paris Match published the name of the alleged victim. It reported that there were conflicting accounts of her physical attractiveness. It said that Strauss-Kahn lawyers were surprised to find her très peu séduisante ("very unattractive") and quoted a taxi-driver's approving, but coarse, description of her figure.[57]"


 * Delete: No real improvement, and still not worthy of having, here or anywhere. Why is WP publishing a taxi-driver's opinion, sourced from some French tabloid? This kind of stuff should never be acceptable, even if she were a movie star. But to demean and embarrass a possible sex crime victim this way? This is the only description of a young poor Black immigrant, working as a maid, that WP can find? It hurts her and it hurts WP's reputation, IMO. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it worth noting that according other translations, the French phrase can also mean "far from tempting." This creates some related questions: why is the translation in the current paragraph, which is still in the article, quoted? Who was quoted? Was the translation accurate? Why did it have to come from a foreign language source, when there' enough English language sources for details? Who cares about a single subjective opinion? How is it relevant to anything? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete - One thing we need to do is think about about the reader. The reader will have the same reaction we do and wonder why a cabbie's opinion is being mentioned at all. As I said earlier it should only be in if it is also said that that story in the Paris Match prompted action by Madame Sarkozy. Otherwise the reader will most likely ask the same question others have asked. "Why do I care about a cabbie's opinion?" You (Mac) said it is notable because of Madame Sarkozy's reaction, and you (Mac again) know that, but does everyone else? Tell the reader why it is notable. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 13:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Flinders. I said it was notable because it was one of the sexist remarks that prompted a campaign by feminists supported by Madame Sarkorzy and I know that because it's notable and sourced. FightingMac (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (added) A straw man fallacy there, Flinders. I'm embarrassed to see it coming from you. I repeat it's notable because one of the issues here you might have noticed, assuming you haven't being lying face down in the inner chamber of an Egyptian mastaba (Wikiwatcher, that's not a snide comment there about wanking, honest, not that there's anything wrong with it of course, in moderation anyway and I'm planning one myself when I'm through here this evening) all this time, is that the French media remains overtly sexist. Would you please do me the courtesy of addressing direcly my point here should you care to respond. Thank you.FightingMac (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Didn't see this bit here. Apologies for using one, but I do still think that it should be put in the context that the description by this cabbie (clearly a douche imho) is one of the remarks that prompted a reaction by Madame Sarkozy and this campaign. I'm just concerned about having all the dots connected as the saying goes-basically saying in the article that these prompted the campaign. Sorry, but I'm not up to date on the details tbph; I've not been paying attention to this story as much or much of any news lately. I was more focused on various video games (AC:Brotherhood, EU III, etc). =p Also, Flinders Petrie is by no means in a mastaba, but in two places. (I know you were joking, but it was a nice opportunity that needed to be taken). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 03:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was surprised to see that a sentence like this can be encountered in a Wikipedia article about a criminal case. It enforces the false belief that rape is about sex when in reality it is about power and aggression. (Even kids and very old women get raped, which shows attractiveness has nothing to do with it.) Also, people have different tastes, we don't know what does Strauss-Kahn find attractive. The alleged victim's description does not belong to an article like this. – Alensha   talk  18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Alensha. I do get that quite a lot about power and aggressiveness. The point about inserting the remark, warts, tits, bums and all, is that it supports the view that the French press support a sexist, or least a non-egalitarian view, of women and indeed connives at the sort of abuse of power you mention. Of course it's very notable. FightingMac (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Paris Match 'tits and bum' remark I'll be making a WP:BOLD restore (if not already restored) initiating WP:BRD when I return to continue my additions to this article. I trust that on that occasion Wikiwatcher will not declare a consensus reached after two hour of debate in the small hours of the morning over in America by a handful of users. FightingMac (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a "leaks" blackout, Wikiwatcher1, whatever its headlines say. And this has nothing to do with the NYPD leaks. More straw men from you. I repeat the point of my edit was to document sexism in the French press and to record simply that Paris Match was the first to make public details about the alleged victim. FightingMac (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)