Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn/Archive 3

Michelle Conti (Natasha Kiss)
Seriously folks, why is this still here?

It's plainly libellous. That's why the American mainstream media haven't taken up on it. Their lawyers have told them that if Mr. Strauss-Kahn was to sue them, then they would have to prove the essential claim that Strauss-Kahn had sex with Conti and short of finding witnesses from other patrons of the nightclub involved it would go word-word against Conti to Strauss-Kahn. The Wikipedia policy guidelines say potentially libellous statement should be removed at once. So why hasn't it been removed?

POV isssues. This is not the only story involving sex workers and Strauss-Kahn. From the same source Wikiwatcher got his story above we also have this Kristin M. Davis story Kristin Davis: Manhattan Madam 'who supplied Dominique Strauss-Kahn with escorts'. The Telegraph falls short of the main story here which as far as I can make out comes from Russian sources (well blow me away all over again) such as this one Проститутки стыдят экс-шефа МВФ Стросс-Кана: доводил их до ужаса "животным" сексом ("Prostitutes accuse ex-IMF chief Strauss Kahn of treating them like animals") The "животным" - jeevotnim translates to "animals" there. The UK Daily Mail took it up here with Strauss-Kahn was an animal to my girls, claims infamous Manhattan madam.Needless to say this was another story the US media haven't picked up.

So there you have it. Two hooker stories from the exactly the same UK stables Telegraph, Mail, Sun. One of them says Strauss-Kahn is all cuddly when he has sex with porn actresses, the other that he is agressive when he has sex with call-girls. .

'

"Dominique Strauss-Kahn not 'a drooling dog', claims porn star"
 * As a result of the extensive publicity in France, women who have had intimate relations with Strauss-Kahn have offered personal impressions. French porn star Natasha Kiss, for one, claims that she had sex with him, but insists that "he behaved like a gentleman." She spoke during an interview in Paris:""He was very nice. He wasn't a randy old man or hungry for women as he has been depicted. . .He was very kind, educated, he didn't behave like a drooling dog as can often happen (with other men). He treated us with kindness, he cuddled me. I know men, and he was not the violent type. . . "He's just a playboy, that's all.""

You don't have to be Albert Einstein to figure there's some manipulation going on here 1 she isn't French 2 the interview wasn't in Paris (suggested hint: think an Italian city with four letters starting 'R') 3 All that 'As a result of the extensive publicity ...' 4 and to cap it all the 'playboy' is a bad translation of the Italian source 'libertino' which translates uncompromisingly libertine.

So come on community, underwhelm me - tell me why this is still here.

If it's still here end of day I'm going to delete it per WP:BLP and if it's subsequently reverted take it to arbitation or some similar dispute resolution process. I don't know what they are but I will find out and use one because this is just plain silly. It is absolutely disgraceful that Wikipedia is diminished and abused in this way. FightingMac (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should not be used in violation of guidelines. Try learning some rules: No personal attacks and Assume good faith, might help. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As per WP:CRUSH


 * Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs.  Even when such behavior is superficially civil it is just as harmful to the project, if not more so, than incivility.


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


 * I am deleting the Michelle Conti edit forthwith. On re-examining [WP:BLP]] the policy concerns 'contentious' material which it most certainly is (as well as libelous of course). Although not particularly new to Wikipedia I am new to this kind of behaviour and may not have handled it very well. I apologise if I have offended you, Wikiwatcher, but I am quite certain I am interpreting Wikipedia policy correctly in this case now. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit is based on faulty rationales and is being reverted. This is not a WP:BLP issue; would suggest dealing with earlier "contradictory" edits, including begging for "perp walk" images, and stated notice of your intention to restore French tabloid taxi-driver quotes against consensus, among others. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have referred your revert to the BLP Noticeboard here. I'm not prepared to enter into a fruitless edit war with you, Wikiwatcher, and I did give you notice above that I would seek a dispute resolution process if there was a revert. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, please chill out with the reverting, what is the specific content in dispute here - note the Sun and the Daily mail are not a reliable source for anything contentious or controversial ands disputable. So - please post the disputed content and the supporting citations here for evaluation. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Off2riorob. You can see the content at the noticeboard. This section I started has been up here all day and the comment involved was then in the article, as is the original content quoted here. It's true that the Sun and the Daily Mail are regarded as only 'somewhat' reliable sources. The Telegraph, however, is normally regarded as a RS. But the real issue is that the content is undoubtedly 'contentious' and should therefore have been removed immediately. I should have done that myself but I assumed good faith and in any case I'm inexperienced at this sort of thing. It was only when I returned after a break that I began to understand the issues involved. I can add the content is unquestionably libelous, which is why the American mass media haven't touched either of the two stories quoted above and one of which is the content that has just been restored by Wikiwatcher1. BTW one doesn't really do "chilling" at my age ;-)FightingMac (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see a porn stars comments/claims to be a good addition at all. There must be a lot better comments than that - the issue is - don't add all and sundries opinions and unconfirmed claims - they are worthless and just trivia. please take care with content inserted to the article and this talkpage - the issue here is per-judicial and we would not want to be used and cited as to affect the trial outcome. This article is already bloated with press speculation and opinionated comments from people that have nothing to do with the trial and case' Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's right about porn stars but the policy issue remains that it's contentious and should be removed immediately. Can I just add that the article is about the 'alleged assault' and while that certainly includes the legal process it also includes such things as media reaction. Wikiwatcher1 himself commenced the 'French reaction' section. When I essentially remarked it was an agenda pushing, and not very well written, exercise to  Right A Great Wrong all the aggrevation began. ... FightingMac (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - trim all the reactions as much as possible - or even completely - they are used cherry picked by users to push POV and opinion into the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the content - this is not a soapbox for feminists and anti-sexists and porn stars. Keep it real please. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I restored the content (none of it supplied by me incidentally) per WP:NOBLANKING one of our most important policies. Of course it's hugely notable. I can mention (but shan't) two ongoing affairs right now involving high public figures in France which would have been unthinkable pre-SDK assault allegations. It's a sea-change, a Kuhnian paradigm shift, the French are going through and I ask you not to interfere with its encyclopaedic documentation. Thank you FightingMac (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NOBLANKING is just an essay. This is not a soapbox for anti rape groups and feminists and anti-sexists either. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, NOBLANKING it's one of our most important policies. And the article isn't being used as a soapbox for feminists and antisexists. ::::::Flinders, I see an enigmatic comment from you on my talk page. For some reason I can't reply to it (it doesn't show up when I try to edit). I'd be curious to know what your position is? FightingMac (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Its an essay, read it at the top. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a policy statement in essay form. Read above the top.
 * "Blanking sections violates many policies"
 * Are we done yet, Off2riorob?
 * See - This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. It is not a Wikipedia policy. - blanking content that has no place in the article is a beneficial removal - this article in about allegations of a sexual assault - and should not be a feminist soapbox. Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You used Twinkle to overcome the 3RR rule, Off2riorob. But the right to use Twinkle is predicated on the assumption that you understand Wikipedia policies, which I question in the circumstances. I shall investigate our remedies. In the meantime I note here you have blanked succesively 3 times the "Feminist and anti-sexist" section on the basis of your claim that it's a feminist soap-box which you merely repeat each time as justification. FightingMac (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you having a larf, that it is a good idea in a trial article related to a rape allegation to add a feminist opinions section? Clearly it is not - add their opinions to their articles if they are notable. Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not add any feminist 'opinion' at all. I did do some copy editing and wikilinking of names. That was the extent and I did mention to Wikiwatcher1 at one point that there was no feminist remarks as of yet. But I do fully support the section and I'm very sorry to see you, apparantly an experienced editor, blanking it all without the slightest attempt at reaching a consensus. FightingMac (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous deletions with poor rationales
There are some obvious problems with recent input from Off2riorob:
 * Digressive discussions and edit warring: This section and BLP notice refered to Michelle Conti's interview. However, the digression and edit warring over the feminism sections is off-topic and is focused on uninvolved editors. This subject should be discussed with the original editor(s) who added that material;
 * You should consider wielding the 3RR warning sword for such obvious warring, as you have done in the past;
 * Hope you can also read the "American reaction" issue below, which is much more serious;
 * The only contentious issues were pointed out to FM: Try learning some rules: No personal attacks and Assume good faith, might help. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 10:55 am, Today (UTC−7)
 * Your rationale for deleting a well-sourced interview is erroneous: unconfirmed dubious claims from a pornographic actor. As you well know, this article is loaded with quotes from people who never met DSK. So deleting an interview by someone who knew him personally is not acceptable. It is not "unconfirmed," "dubious," or a "claim," unless you wish to state clearly that The Telegraph is not a RS. Nor should the profession of the person interviewed be used to imply lack of credibility in their statements, which itself is a form of implied libel. Nor is the interview "contentious or controversial and disputable," as you assert without any attempt to support that kind of conclusion. Of course, the irony here is that FM has been adamant at pushing the French tabloid comment by a taxi-driver
 * It's contentious and it shouldn't be in Wikipedia and that's that. No American media has taken it up because it's libelous. FightingMac (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional opinions that "There must be a lot better comments," is meaningless as a rationale; and had you read the discussions earlier, your conclusion that a highly relevant interview is "worthless and just trivia," you'd realize that your comment is pure OR. One true statement that you did make, however, that all the "press speculation and opinionated comments from people that have nothing to do with the trial and case" has bloated various sections of the article. Yet you have made no attempt to correct it.
 * Per above, your comments and rationale for deleting an interview from a RS is unwarranted, seems to lack a neutral POV, and will be restored. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the worst as I have seen - yes there is probably more that should be removed but I am only a single contributor. What interview are you talking about - the one with the pornographic actor that is unsupported by anyone else at all? Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you have clearly not read much of this discussion. However, you apparently support having 1,000 articles on WP devoted to "female pornographic stars", yet see no contradiction in your comments. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read more than enough and all that all need to assess this content. I do not care about the number of porno stars articles as long as they are wp:notable. If you can get support at BLP noticeboard for your desired addition I will add it myself. Off2riorob (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You do understand that even with the hundreds of typed words you've added, you've failed to support even a single rationale for deleting the interview except your personal opinion? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The one from the pornographic actor, are you joking? ask at the BLPN for other independent opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not joking, just shocked! You tacitly support the addition of a French tabloid's "tits and ass" quote to the article, truly libelous, and expect someone to believe you think the interview is less valuable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific and less accusatory. I do not support any tits and ass inclusion to this article - please provide diffs for your claims and comments. Off2riorob (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your very first comment on this talk page, "Hi guys, please chill out with the reverting," was preceded by mine to FM, "This is not a WP:BLP issue; would suggest dealing with earlier "contradictory" edits, including begging for "perp walk" images, and stated notice of your intention to restore French tabloid taxi-driver quotes against consensus, among others. " I assumed you read what you were responding to. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not 'contadictory'. I merely want to improve the article. FightingMac (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And if that's you who keeps removing my 'image requested' template for an image of the DSK perp walk, will you please cease and desist. I'm perfectly entitled to ask for one. FightingMac (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your just posting nonsense - if you have an issue with content currently in the article either post the content or post the diff for discussion or evaluation. Off2riorob (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] Rather than fall into an infinite loop discussion, I'll simply repeat what I said above, that the problem is, "You've failed to support even a single rationale for deleting the interview except your personal opinion? " All of your comments so far are argumentative and opinions only. Why are you commenting here if you can't add anything constructive to the primary issue? That "feminism" stuff is not what the BLP issue was about. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say BLP excludes it as unsupported controversial accusations from a dubious source. I though I said that already and suggested you post your desired addition at the BLP noticeboard with its supporting externals that you are desirous to add to the article and see if there is support for your desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether anyone is able to dispute, with any substance, that a published interview mention meets "guidelines": Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), and No original research (NOR). An editor does not require "support" for adding new and relevant material, as you imply. And as a BLPN editor, you have made no attempt to add substance to your deletions. Personally, I don't think a rationale of "So what?" is very substance oriented. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "So what" was just the opening edit, there has been a lot of expansion since then - and still no support for your desired addition. Please try to approach this as two editors enjoying themselves and in some lightweight manner trying to improve the article, there is no winner or loser and this is not a competitive situation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. When an outside editor drops in and, using slapdash rationales, starts deleting large chunks added with the time and effort of "serious" editors, it's not about "competition." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

[outdent]] Despite consensus at BLPN that the Conti material should go, Wikiwatcher1 re-added it. Can't delete because of 3RR rule. Can someone edit please. FightingMac (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The original longer quote, which you translated and added, was a main issue. This Telegraph cite was abbreviated by about half, and is incorporated into the context. There was no "consensus," as there was no vote, just a discussion. It was abbreviated to avoid an ANI complaint for your censoring material. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Opinions of feminists and anti-sexists

 * User Off2riorob's blank of the feminist material

Off2riorob's Twinkle of the feminist material is opposed by me and I will restore it as soon my 24 hour 3RR curfew is up.

I do appreciate very much Off2riorob's input the Conti affair above and thank him for that, but he's just flat out wrong to say the feminist material is merely soap-boxing and I hope he will take account of the views expressed here before blanking again.


 * But that's still edit warring I'm told so I shan't do it. But it's the still the case that I haven't received equal treatment here. It seems to me that it's the blanking editor who should face the full rigour of the 3RR rule and have to explain themselve and receive consensus for their action. Surely that's just? FightingMac (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The DSKL affair is very notable for the feminist movement in France. If we are to have a "French reaction" section at all then it should surely include feminist reaction. Indeed The French article has a section on it.

Disinterested observer here, not soapboxing me. None of the content was added by me and my editorial input restricted to copyediting and wikilinking. FightingMac (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding wikipedia policy I accept I was unduly valorising WP:NOBLANKING. It would be good to decide what Wikipedia policy guidelines are relevant and accepted here, and I find this at the subsection 'Problems that may justify removal' in 'Editing policy', 'a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow'. Can we agree then this is our standard?


 * Given that, then the only relevant thing I can find there is 'What Wikipedia is not, describing material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia', and there I expect not a soapbox is what is claimed, and in that I expect 'Advocacy' is what is singled out for attention.


 * But the feminist section was not advocating anything at all. It was simply documenting some notable events, of which especially notable were the demonstrations and petition again sexist remarks in French media following DSK's arrest and the relative disregard for the alleged victim's rights as contrasted with the outpouring of sympathy and support for DSK. It really is not an exaggeration to say the DSK affair represents a watershed, a whole paradigm shift, in the way gender relations are perceived in France.


 * Surely Off2riorob is not disputing that's notable and should be documented in an encyclopaedic account of the ongoing process? The article is not just about the trial.


 * I would like to see his rationale explained here before he blanks the restore I propose to make.


 * Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to remember this person is currently innocent. Adding a load of opinions of anti rape groups is not a NPOV position - add the content to their articles not here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First of Off2riorob I do object to your 'you need to remember ...". And you are flat out wrong to characterise this as just a load of anti-rape opinion. You see this as an article just about the trial but it's not. It's unfortunate that the title ends 'case' but that 'case' means 'affair' and not 'trial' (you have trials about 'sexual assault', not 'sexual assault allegations') and even if it were just the trial, it's certainly legitimate to include the circumstances of the case: see the quite unexceptionable crime article on the Ethel Proudlock case I recently contributed - will you be deleting the reference, for example, to her Eurasian ethnicity because it's not relevant to the trial? The sister (hah) French article calls it an 'affair' and includes feminist reaction.


 * But what is so breathtaking about your delete, Off2riorob, is its quite fantastic disregard for the facts of the matter. Indeed you must be buried in one of Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom!'s mastabas above not to know what a sea-change in French perceptions of gender relations this affair has precipitated. I shan't repeat pointlessly, except to stress the content was just recording events and was not any way 'soapboxing'. Regarding NPOV, the content can be thought of returning balance since other reaction was certainly sexist - Lang's comment, Paris Match's repeat of a coarse description of the alleged victims physical attractiveness etc., in short precisely the sexist reaction that provoked the petitions and demonstrations.


 * Let me propose a simple funtional test of the adequacy of your edit, 'before' and 'after'. I'm sure this kind of test has been proposed before, I don't know, for the time being I'll call it the Fula student test: a high school student in Guinea is tasked (right now) to write an essay on the affair. She turns to Wikipedia in the school library: how does she fare 'before' and 'after'? Well, 'before' she learns that there are groups of women in France who are protesting against institutionalised sexism in France, 'after' she doesn't. Which is the better outcome, Off2riorob?


 * I cordially suggest that it's you who needs to 'get real' and I ask you to restore the material.


 * I want to raise the question of equality I alluded to above. What makes you more equal than me regarding the inclusion of the feminist content? Even if you are an administrator (are you?), surely it should be you posting here concerning a proposal to delete good faith content, explaining clearly why you think it's soapboxing and not encyclopaedical documentation?


 * I shall look at Wiki etiquette but unless I see very convincing arguments from you or your supporters regarding 1 the non-notability of the content 2 it's soap-boxing nature 3 the Fula student test I mention, I shall in due course indeed restore the content. Of course I thank you for your time (but equally I think I'm entitled to observe that I now have to spend time as well that I really do feel I shouldn't have to). Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Responses to FightingMac's and Off2riorob's comments and edits:
 * I did not create the "French reaction" section - fact #1. FightingMac's statements:
 * "If we are to have a "French reaction" section at all
 * are wrong on all accounts, argumentative, and another in a long string of violations, this one against AGF, civility and Avoid personal remarks.
 * I did not add any material to that section, and most of it was added with cites by User:Sue Gardner as stated on the BLPN page (fact #2)
 * My main contribution to that section was to rearrange the material in a more readable way, as explained here, and acknowledged as an improvement;
 * This entire digression to the "feminism" subject has the elements of a transparent red herring —unrelated to the BLPN issue;
 * User:Off2riorob's first contribution to this article was to blank a large section, edited by previous "serious" editors, with the rationale of so what?. His next blank was of the interview material he came here to read, and likewise deleted that interview in a RS, with the unexplained rationale of "remove unconfirmed dubious claims from a pornographic actor;"
 * The original BLPN notice about the interview in The Telegraph being "contentious and plainly libelous" has not been supported, and even questioned by editor User:Bbb23, "I don't understand why Mac thinks the material is libelous."
 * The interview he deleted has obvioius relevance to this article about an alleged "sexual assault," more so than the other quotes. If there is no honest attempt to explain its removal very soon, it will be treated as censorship. In addition, since it's directly related, the BLPN editors' apparent decision to ignore the blatant violations of ethical behavior, will likewise be questioned. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't threaten. Seek support at the BLPN for your claims - as yet no one supports your desired addition. Also - I suggest you focus on the content and reasons for its inclusion rather than focusing on me so much. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Off2riorob. Борщ... FightingMac (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

About the content - The feminist and anti sex opinion section starts - French and American feminist associations declared " [just] as Strauss-Kahn is to be presumed innocent until his guilt has been established, his accuser is entitled to respect and her word should not be in doubt until proven otherwise". - this is an external to a very opinionated feminist website and has no place commenting in a primary way in this article - that the victim should be assumed to be telling the truth until evidence is provided to show otherwise? Opinionated comment from a self published anti rape group - hello? In a pre trial article ? Not really.Look how many articles this feminist website is used as a citation on wikipedia so far - none, zero - Has any reliable quality secondary publicatation found this feminists groups comments worthy of reporting on - No? They why should we. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I did see that and I let it go because Wikipedia policy on primary sources focus on OR and not soap-boxing. Question: how can you be sure a majority of Wikipedia users reading that didn't also let it go? Well you can't be sure can you, Off2riorob? But you indeed can be sure, can't you, that not of one of them did nevertheless think it serious enough to do something about it with an edit. Until you came along of course and kicked the whole thing into touch,voilà. Why didn't you just change the reference to something like this if it niggled you that much under the sporran?


 * I happened not to add any content here, but as well feeling affronted I do also feel violated. I spent time copy-editing some of its references, for example Jean-Luc Mélenchon. I did that because I'm doing my little bit for the graph here in very unfamiliar territory (ditto) as I suspect are quite a number of other relative newbies attracted by this case. What you did was a lot more than just niggle me under the sporran, Off2riorob; it socked me squarely in the proverbial proximities and it wasn't fair and it was quite unnecessary, while god know how many breasts (must use the correct medical terms on Wikipedia) it got right up in the other not-very-well-represented-on-Wikipedia (and whose fault is that?) lot.


 * I would want to see your remarks on the three areas I note above 1 non-notability 2 non-soapboxing 3 the Fula student test before I concede. I would also like a response to my query about editorial equality. FightingMac (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC) (added) regarding your emark about so few Wikipedia articles citing the group I would say that's very probably something to do with being a new group formed entirely as a result of the DSK affair. FightingMac (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks I appreciate you efforts and discussion development here, I am signing off and very busy indeed tomorrow (an unusual day) - if a consensus arises then feel free to move with that - Over the next 24 hours I will be unavailable or with only very limited comments - best regards - Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers Rob. It can wait. No hurry. I've contacted Sue Gardener and Whiteghost on their talk pages (the contributing editors most of this content) and I hope they will add. Have a good day tomorrow. I did very much appreciate, whatever our diffs here, your input on the Conti content which you summarised much better than I could. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your input may not be needed, luckily, if I link to these discussions at the ANI. It seems that nothing new of substance has been added regarding the censored interview, and everyone's rationales are stated clearly. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lord, you're not going to waste administrator time on this! Enough already with this censor stuff, Wikiwatcher1. From WP:TEDIOUS
 * Characteristics of problem editors
 * One who accuses others of malice
 * You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts".
 * This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. And in the case of biographies of living individuals it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution. If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the talk page in the first instance. FightingMac (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Taking a break here too. I'm not pushing out the boat all that vigorously about the feminist content and I did think questions of weight arose after Sue Gardner et al had had their go at it (earlier input was from a rather sweet IP I copy-edited but it all went pear shaped when the POV brigade arrived). If the original content providers don't show up here then I'm cool.


 * I shall look back Monday to see what's up. BIG day Monday of course and we all need to be at our very best for our boy in the dock!


 * To tell the truth I'm not at all sure I shall necessarily want to continue with the article after Monday. It's not about winning. It is about cooperating and if that latter simply cannot be achieved then I'm out of here and I'll leave the community to make their judgements about what was a genuinely good faith attempt from me to make this article work, for everyone and especially for the Fula students I valorise above. FightingMac (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Rob: you might like to look at this just in from the respected commentator about French affairs John Lichfield at The Independent Strauss-Kahn affair prompts backlash against French sexism. Looking back Monday but really if the content providers haven't shown up to defend their niche then I'm not going to bother making the effort for them (I mean I am realistic). But I would be genuinely curious to hear from Sue Gardner (I've invited her to restore my Paris Match edit she deleted so unfathomably, to me anyway, in all its original breasts and buttocks glory, strictly in her private capacity of course and not as Canadian journalist I mean). Have a good day today. FightingMac (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that if this case started such a campaign against sexism in France then this paragraph should stay in the article. ("More than 25,000 people, including [several notable persons] signed a petition started by French feminist groups", "Carla Bruni-Sarkozy expressed support for the campaign on her official website", "a group of several hundred men and women protested against what they called the "unabashed sexism" of politicians and commentators who sprang to Strauss-Kahn's defence" – is this really that insignificant?) I also don't think that it's a valid argument to delete well-sourced information because it is "opinionated". Try to see it in context. If I understand the circumstances correctly, the comment deemed "opinionated" was a reaction by those feminist groups to the victim-blaming stance of French media. Also, that sentence is not POV and it does not say Strauss-Kahn is guilty. It basically says that at this point it is his word against hers and presumption of innocence applies to the alleged victim too, she shouldn't be accused of making false claims of rape. – Alensha   talk  20:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, Alensha. Of course I agree and I take this to be a statement of support for including a "By feminists and ant-sexists" subsection. I don't see response from Sue Gardner, the Canadian journalist and Wikimedia personage, who deleted my "Paris Match" paragraph documenting the kind of sexism that was being demonstrated against. I have now restored that paragraph in a new "Media coverage" subsection on a WP:BRD basis as described in the next thread and I ask that she contibutes there. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

1 French media coverage 2 Importance of impeccable regard to WP:BLP
1 I've added a 'Media coverage' subsection in the "French reaction" section and I've restored on a WP:BRD basis, as I said I would, the revised "Paris Match" edit I had provided following Wikiwatcher1's delete of an earlier version on the basis of a 'consensus' reached over a couple of hours by a handful of users in the early hours of the morning in America. If Sue Gardner, a Canadian journalist and Wikimedia personage, still wants to strike it, of course she may but she must join the debate here to explain her motivations and reach a compromise. I repeat the only purpose of the edit is to document that "Paris Match" outed the complainant and reported sexist remarks about her. I can add that at some point in the future I will try and restore the original 'tits and bums' version.

2 Can I draw attention to this detail appearing in a newspaper report today Media the front line as sides in Strauss-Kahn case set for a dirty war:


 * Portraying the victim of rape as a promiscuous woman who invited attack is the oldest trick in the world. In theory, a New York statute known as a “rape-shield law” ought to protect [the complainant]. But both sides in this dirty war of words are likely to deliver their lowest blows through media leaks rather than in the courtroom.

Just looking in. Have a thoughtful weekend out there ;-) FightingMac (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 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, by way of contrast, a taxi-driver's approving, but coarse, description of her. Other French newspapers quickly followed suit in naming her, eventually adding photos and details of her private life, including the prestigious Le Monde, considered the French newspaper of record..


 * Needless to say I hope to see Sue Gardner's take on this when I return Monday (likely late. busy). FightingMac (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The rationale for deleting that particular paragraph was because it was possibly libelous or contentious, off-topic, and from foreign language sources. The subject was already discussed many days ago. Why rehash the same trivia? Consensus was to leave it out.


 * Delete --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no vote here.
 * 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.
 * FightingMac (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Outdent.

Regarding 2, despite a consensus reached at BLPN by experienced editors


 * The more recent of his two previous wives, Brigitte Guillemette, said it was "unthinkable and impossible that he would have raped a chambermaid."[37] Although he's been considered a womanizer and a "great seducer," others who know him insist he "isn't capable of violence" around women.[38] Michelle Conti, who claims to have known him intimately, states that he behaves like "a gentleman" around women, and agrees "he was not the violent type," adding that "he's just a playboy, that's all."[39][40] The widow of Italian novelist Alberto Moravia, who has also known him intimately for years, has said that "violence is not part of his culture."[41] These opinions are supported by Strauss-Kahn's biographer who interviewed many women that have known him, and writes that "women described him as a sweet and charming man, sometimes engaging, but completely incapable of any violence."[42]

FightingMac (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A number of people close to Strauss-Kahn have publicly supported him. His previous wife, Brigitte Guillemette, admitted that she did not deny her husband was a charmer but it was "unthinkable and impossible that he would have raped a chambermaid."[37] Angelique Chrisafis, writing in The Guardian, reported that those of his friends who support him, claiming he is incapable of violence, admit that he is "a great seducer" who brazenly seeks serial sexual conquests.[38] The widow of Italian novelist Alberto Moravia denied that a book of poetry of hers describing a sadistic lover was about Strauss-Kahn, as was reported in the Italian press, and added in an open letter to Corriere della Sera, " ...violence is not part of his culture. He likes sex, so what? This does not seem to me to be a crime."[39] Strauss-Kahn's biographer, who interviewed many women that have known him[who?], said that "these women described him as a sweet and charming man, sometimes engaging, but completely incapable of any violence", nevertheless admitting that claims of a sexual assault by French journalist Tristane Banon had tormented him.[40]
 * Note that much of the content is not actually 'French'. FightingMac (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that much of the content is not actually 'French'. FightingMac (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Resignation and impact
"Resignation and impact" reads like a school essay from a not very adequate student. Improvement sought, failing which I will do it myself. Who is it who keeps adding this almost comical content? FightingMac (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The celebrated Francesco Sisci out a great improvement ;-). Hugely appreciated. Pinnochio nose theory of history IMHO. FightingMac (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Case history
I'd like to combine some of the early history of the arrest, indictment, prosecution, etc. For example, that he was initially denied bail but later released on bail doesn't need to be articulated. It's fairly common in an initial appearance for a judge to deny bail and then later have bail granted. I realize that the tendency on Wikipedia is to act like a newspaper and report each event as it unfolds, but once we get past the recentism, we should combine/eliminate as appropriate. Also, the name of the first judge is hardly of any interest to anyone. Once we have a trial judge - if we get to that point - we could include the name, but, otherwise, it's just a trivial detail.

Unless anyone has objections to my proposal, I'll go ahead and do it, but I'll give others a chance to voice their opinion before I take any action.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. Removing trivia and summarizing is always smart. Hopefully you can also read the "American reaction" section, which has become a trivial pursuit dumping ground, IMO.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (smile) I haven't gotten to that. Case history is less stressful.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My own feeling, based on what I've seen from you here and of your edits, is that you're not intellectually mature enough to take on the task. I put you down for one of those teenage lawyers you see all over the internet. There was a lot of discussion about how to present the ongoing proceedings. Have a look at the French article which is very detailed and certainly mentions Judge Melissa Crow (and while you're at it you might like to look at their section on  feminist reaction). At least make an effort to contact the original contributors for their views. They'll be back Monday I expect. But as I say, I don't see you up to the task. I think you're naive as well. I don't doubt your good faith but I just don't think you're sufficiently grown up. Sorry to be so blunt but a lot of comfy-hugging goes on at Wikipedia and a little bit of direct advice early on might avoid tears later. I ask you to examine your motives and if you're young and inexperienced, as I frankly think you must be (so I hope and trust anyway), I think this is probably something you shouldn't be doing for a while. There's no Wikipedia policy on trimming or summarising. Quite the opposite because there are no space constraints.  FightingMac (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage changes
I made some changes to this section, mainly in an attempt to conform what we said to the sources. Another editor removed some of the material, which, of course, is more controversial than what I did. Just so it's clear, I heartily approve of the changes made by the second editor. The stuff about the cab driver, etc., was over the top and trashy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not OTT Bbb23 but simply documenting what Paris Match reported. You can't selectively quote from a source like this. If your'e going to mention that PM commented on her lawyers' opinion of her physical attractiveness, which I certainly think is notable, then you have to note the nature of the comment as well as noting it chose to report a taxi driver's opinion as well and I'm editing back accordingly. The PM report was singled out for criticism at the time because 1 reporting the lawyers' negative opinion of the complainant's looks was regarding as a crude attempt to discredit her story ("DSK couldn't possibly have fancied that ...") 2 it was a stunning example of the kind of institutionalised sexism that led to the protests and the soul searching presently going on in the French media. I'm going to restore appropiately and I ask you to be more reflective in your edits. The appropiate person to make the kind of edits you seek is Sue Gardner who made the original delete and who I have invited to contribute her views. I ask you to defer to her. Why have you opened a whole new thread on this? FightingMac (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The changes should probably be noted at the BLPN discussion, linked in previous section, to avoid confusion by future editors reviewing. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Mac, I don't think you should add it back in without first reading the ongoing thread at BLPN. We're trying to cut down this material, not build it back up. I don't like the lawyers' comments, either, which I've said at BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well a certain someone has ballooned the "friends' support" stuff about a 100% since I last looked. I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't quite so naive. But I'm done here as noted above. FightingMac (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Article photo
I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but shouldn't we put a photo more related to the case, or at least one where he doesn't look so happy? The current one is very weird as it looks like he's proud of what's he done (or happy with what's happening to him). I'd suggest we remove it until we get a more appropriate one. Laurent (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is his BLP and not a smear campaign re. the accusations.TMCk (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a biography and it has nothing to do with a smear campaign, it's just about consistency. The article is not about Dominique Strauss-Kahn, but about "Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case", so we need a picture that specifically illustrates the case. Look at other similar articles, for instance John F. Kennedy assassination or the Watergate scandal - the top pictures are not just about the presidents but are directly related to the events themselves. So again, if we can't have a picture related to the case, I think we should have no picture at all. Laurent (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a forked out sub and part of his BIO and his smile in the pic is no reason to remove it. If there are other images related to the case available just go ahead, load them up and add them to the article.TMCk (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The photo should stay. If there's another photo of him that's available under our license, then let's see if it is an improvement. patsw (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should have at least one photo. A photo identifying Strauss-Kahn in the past is better than no photo at all, though a current photo could be even better depending on what it shows.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

--Image of wrong person removed --

The smiling photo is odd, nobody would smile when being accused of a serious crime. What about this one? – Alensha   talk  18:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This would be replacing a decent photo of the man with a bad (kinda funny looking) one that is from the same time period as the existing one. Doesn't make sense and again, him being smiling is no reason to remove it. Maybe he smiled when he was arrested so would you also refuse such picture to be added?TMCk (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Besides: It doesn't seem to be him.TMCk (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt the average person will think the photo was taken at the time he was "being accused of a serious crime." Even if they failed to read the caption.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "The smiling photo is odd, nobody would smile when being accused of a serious crime" I have not been able to find any photos, but as I found while researching perp walk, John Gotti used to smile serenely at the media while being walked past them in handcuffs and his $2,000 tailored suits (and was acquitted at many of the ensuing trials). Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the better solution is to write a short section on Strauss-Kahn (i.e. background) and put the image there. Having it in the lead it misleading and generally frowned on in such articles. I don't think we desperately need an image to illustrate the article. --Errant (chat!) 18:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Smiling looks odd" comment a fair one I think. Originally the article ran a frightful one of him looking haagard and tired at the first bail proceedings and I replaced it because I thought it portrayed him in a false light. I'll see if I can find one with more gravitas in Wikicommons (and suggest it here) but the xisting is (or was when I replaced) the same as in the French article. FightingMac (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why the change of heart? Earlier you "begged" for the kind the French hated the most:
 * 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 . . .  --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No change of heart, Wikiwatcher. You entirely misunderstand me. Firstly I replaced the lede photo with a nice one for the reasons gave (which were indeed in good faith sincerely held). I want the perp walk picture because, now or in due course, I shall be contributing (along with others I expect) media and network reaction to this case. Why haven't you contributed something on Mayor Bloomberg's perp walk comment yet? I did invite you. I mean if you're really not interested in doing it (why not?) I shall do it myself. Or do you think it's trivial, "filler", something to be "trimmed" unilaterally by you the moment you see it? And what about this news ban you mentioned? Still waiting to get to the bottom of that. FightingMac (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a 2009 picture of him with Bob Geldof in the 'Economic' section? It's entirely irrelevant, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.158.227.198 (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Libelous or contentious additions
There is a BLP Noticeboard discussion about material that has been the subject of edit warring, and the subject of earlier discussions on this Talk page. Comments would be useful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's you who's edit warring. FightingMac (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are both as bad as each other, I suggest you both stop editing this article before the situation deteriorates and restrictions are required. Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, I shall. What was your opinion of his restore of the Conti material against BLPN consensus? Am I really as bad that? Are you going to allow back "feminist and anti-sexist reaction" you took it upon yourself to blank?
 * Done here.FightingMac (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC) (added) See here for an overview of what I contributed to this article and a defense against the charge I am a POV pusher. FightingMac (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the feminist material, although I haven't thought about the merits of it, but I don't see the Conti material.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * '"Michelle Conti, who claims to have known him intimately, states that he behaves like "a gentleman" around women, and agrees "he was not the violent type," adding that "he's just a playboy, that's all".' and reported by me to BLPN and subsequently deleted by another editor. You don't see the feminist material in the article because Off2riorob blanked it. But I'm done here. Enjoy the article. FightingMac (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Currently, I see nothing in the article about Conti, but I do see a reference to feminism.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It was removed by Mac. The material was cut to less than a third of the original text, as explained at the BLPN section, but still deleted. It's worth noting that until FightingMac started contributing, one commenter to this Talk page wrote, "This is probably the best and most neutral article I've read so far of a very sensationalist case." (User:soulscanner, 5/23/11) And if either of you take a minute to read earlier discussions, you'll discover many repeated attempts to clean up problems with the article over the last few weeks, and most of them were supported. There is no edit warring going on, but simply discussions over contentious filler sections, trivia, etc. Sad to say, but an outside editor stopping by and threatening to ban editors for their discussions seems out of place. In fact, the irony here is that the only recent edit warring was between that outside editor, User:Off2riorob, and User:FightingMac. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, WW. Of course, no editor on Wikipedia is infallible, but I do have a lot of respect for Rob and his judgment. Although it's not my call, either, I would prefer to look forward rather than backward at this point. I also don't see a problem with a neutral article about a sensationalistic case. In fact, I think it's a good thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's very deep and thoughtful of you young Bbb23. I do think you need to withdraw from this and grow up a little in the ways of the world. FightingMac (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WW1's 'removed by Mac'. No it wasn't. Just reported to BLPN and quoted on talk page. Another editor removed it. It will be back (but I won't). FightingMac (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

{{rpa} FightingMac (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"American reaction" digressions
The following paragraph seems out of place, both within section "American reaction," or anywhere else in this article. It was removed but restored. The problem is that it will invite more such irrelevant filler digressions which could clutter up the article. In this particular example paragraph, we have an opinion by a feminist commenting on a French philospher's opinion about the accused's treatment after arrrest. I think it should be deleted to keep the article on the topic.

"Referring to the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy's defense of his friend Strauss-Kahn in the Daily Beast,[62][63] the American feminist Katha Pollitt remarked in The Nation," ... let's not forget Bernard-Henri Lévy, whose pretentious drivel has to be the worst thing you've [France] exported to us since pizza-flavored La Vache Qui Rit. Lévy can’t get over the way the New York justice system is treating his friend: 'I hold it against the American judge who, by delivering him to the crowd of photo hounds, pretended to take him for a subject of justice like any other.'"[64]" Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

removed - self opinionated and tangential - anything such as this tabloid style opinionated titillation is not notable and not fitting for this article. Where did you guys get the idea that all and sundrys opinions is what this article is about. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the information doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Off2riorob. Wrong Rob. Just plain wrong. You're totally out of your box here and it's embarrassing to read. The Nation, where Pollitt's piece appeared, is not a tabloid but America's oldest weekly journal, roughly equivalent to the UK's New Statesman. I think it demeans Wikipedia that an editor given the tools you have uses them to advance his own prejudices like this. FightingMac (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Put aside Rob's phrase "tabloid style" and your contention about the journal, why is the material relevant to the article? Even if someone notable comments in a worthy journal, that doesn't automatically make it relevant. It's opinion and it doesn't belong in this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For the reasons below @WW1, Bbb. Replace 'opinion' by 'reaction' and reflect. If any reaction belongs in the article this is it. Katha Pollitt is a very notable figure in American public life. All the content I added (and as I say I don't plan to make any more edits to the article, I mean I'm realistic about sharing the toilet seat) referred to notable persons, unlike the Beijing bloggers and Italian porn stars.




 * Katha Pollitt's 'Dear France, we are so over' essay is already famous. It is representative of American reaction to Bernard-Henri Lévy Daily Beast pieces, which was robust, as well as representing American feminist attacks on French feminism, and that is balanced by the references to Irène Théry's Le Monde pieces in "French reaction". As one who oppose Rob's blank of the 'feminst and ant-sexist' section you should be please.


 * Since I'm not here could you please explain why this latest addition of yours below is so wonderfully neutral?


 * Strauss-Kahn's biographer, Michel Taubmann, who has interviewed many women that have known him, said "these women described him as a sweet and charming man, sometimes engaging, but completely incapable of any violence." 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."[40] FightingMac (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get into who did what to whom. I haven't reviewed the entire French reaction section except to glance at it. I think the Taubmann material doesn't belong in the article. It's trivial.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about an "alleged sexual assault and attempted rape of a housekeeper." This is a serious allegation of a "violent" crime in the U.S. (In some countries women don't even dare report it.) Any RS and V material relating to the the accused and violence is more than "trivial," at least in the U.S. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, all you're really saying is that reliable, verifiable comments, no matter what they are, should be included. In this kind of case, lots of people are going to have lots of opinions. Thank goodness we don't have to report all of them, even if the newspapers do. One of my favorites in these kinds of cases is, "Oh, he was such a quiet person. Who would have thought he would do such a thing?" That usually comes from a neighbor. As if anyone really knows what others are capable of. But newspapers report it because it sells papers.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23. I agree too that the Taubmann material doesn't belong. For a start there's a conflict of interest (he's DSK's biographer fhs ...) But it's not about who did what or not to whomever. It's about the tone, which of course isn't neutral (or perhaps you think it is - care to comment?) WW1 is a WP:CRUSH problem and I see no future for this article if contributing editors can't recognise that. He will spit in your soup over and over again, partly because while it may be your soup it's his spit so that's fair but above all mainly because he just enjoys spitting. And when you leave in disgust he will piss in it, exactly as he's doing now. ErrantX is right I think to call for extra vigilance, if I understand him correctly, for sensitive BLP articles like this. FightingMac (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * @Bbb23. A comparison of a neighbor's opinion with that of a writer's published biography, is not in the same league. They're not even on the same planet. My only suggestion having read comments long enough, is to acknowledge the rampant gratuitous attacks and violations to assume good faith and sarcasm. You and Off2riorob have ignored such blatant violations of civility, even when carried on at the BLPN. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @WW1. Taubmann is DSK's official biographer. He got paid for it. Conflict of interest obviously. The rest just spit. FightingMac (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Gee, it's wonderful that the two of you agree on so much. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Patronising, Bbb. So totally over and out here now. FightingMac (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

[outdent]: this is not the first time that Wikiwatcher1 has violatd WP:BLP by reverting a delete on BLP grounds. He was warned less than two months ago in the most uncompromising terms against that behaviour. In November 2009 he was given a warning by the very same user Off2riorob here for 3rr warring at Roman Polanski where  he exhibited much the same behaviour as he does here.


 * ... nice warm comfy toilet seat for you to squat on there Bbb, and you so young and innocent ... FightingMac (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that piece of content is opinionated drivel and is out of scope for inclusion. Find a source that details the feminist reaction and we can summarise it. And stop blooming adding masses of quotes and opinions to form an articles, it's really bad practice. --Errant (chat!) 09:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It will be a while before we can find anything beyond newspaper sources that details feminist reaction. Katha Pollitt would be a primary source meanwhile and the issue really one of OR. On a Fula student test I think she should be in rather than out. I'm deleting all my blooming content forthwith. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Can I ask you to do something for me now ErrantX? Find something which isn't opinionated drivel which instructs our Fula student that in the US, by and large, there wasn't much sympathy for the French reaction to the perp walk. Share the pain a bit. FightingMac (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm picking at it slowly. This article will probably work as a basis for the feminism stuff. Plenty enough to build a summary. --Errant (chat!) 12:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't have to delete the content, I usually don't support deleting stuff much! I was just suggesting not adding any more and working to swap out the content - sorry, was pee'd off at another article this morning and let the frustration show here :) --Errant (chat!) 12:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I already cited Lizzy's Guardian piece way way back when I was over getting some neutrality into his advocacy of French outrage. It's number 35 in the current ref list. The bit that struck my eye was
 * In the hours and days that followed the arrest, a string of friends and Socialist allies stepped forward to defend a man they insisted could not have done such a thing. Jean-François Kahn, a well-known journalist, said he was "practically certain" that what had taken place had not been an attempted rape, but "an imprudence… the skirt-lifting of a domestic". Jack Lang, a former Socialist culture minister, wondered why, when "no man had died", Strauss-Kahn had not been released on bail immediately. Philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, meanwhile, raged against a legal system that had treated DSK like "any other person". "Everybody," declared the philosopher, "is not everybody!"
 * and where I got "skirt-lifting" from (but Boy Robbie insists on a really boring footnote sort thing for stupids). FightingMac (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a content proposal: ''The case prompted response from feminists in both the US and France, who criticised French coverage of the allegations and apparent dismissal of the woman's claims. The reaction led to a rally at the Pompidou Centre on 22 May.'' It's not perfect and needs a couple of other sources to massage the content, but it is a start point. --Errant (chat!) 12:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine with me. I'll find you another source next couple hours and add it here but I don't usually notice event sources, rather idea sources like the drivelling Katha Pollitt. As for me I never thought to add feminist reaction because I knew it would come in eventually (RioRob's remark on his talk page that I am POV pushing feminism is simply rubbish). The French reaction section was looking quite good but was very far from complete, lacking, for example, feminist input. I don't see what's wrong with the content RioRob blanked. I'll be curious to see what happens to yours if and when you add it. FightingMac (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Broader Implications of Case
The case has generated a huge amount of publicity, in part b/c DSK was head of the IMF and the IMF wields enormous power worldwide, especially on poor countries. We might want an article section that covers reliable sources who make this point. It is not simply because DSK is rich and the alleged victim is a hotel maid. E.g., an article in The Independent, "It's Not Only Strauss-Kahn Who Should Be on Trial. It's the IMF Itself." Or in the conservative National Post, "Tartuffe takes down the IMF." Across the board, both conservative and liberal reliable sources feel it is important to note that the victim is from Guinea or Africa. Yet somehow a few editors here on Wikipedia seem to feel this information should be censored, and other editors seem to go along with this avid POV. It strikes me that this does a disservice to readers of an encyclopedia; it is worthy of inclusion in the article. FatTrebla (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Though I consider the IMF to be one of the most evil, disgusting and destructive organisations in the world (they're also completely devoid of morals); I don't see how it would be relevant to his case in any way. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 04:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't unerstand, FatTrebla, regarding name and origin. Neither of the sources you quote say the maid comes from Guinea or Africa and in general Anglo-Saxon media have been scrupulous about not reporting any details of her except in a vague hear-say way. I have included in the 'Arrest and pre-trial selection' a remark from the maid's attorney which makes precisely the point you make above in your first. I don't think a section devoted to it is needed but you're very welcome to contribute one and see how it fares. FightingMac (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hasty reply (busy day), apologies. First source: "If Strauss-Kahn is guilty, I suspect I know how it happened. He must have mistaken the maid for a poor country in financial trouble. Heads of the IMF have, after all, been allowed to rape them with impunity for years" (the point being that her country of origin matters; Guinea being a poor country). Second source: "The alleged victim was an African immigrant single mother." Virtually every reliable source who has written on this story has at one time or another identified the alleged victim's country of origin and age. (This is completely different from printing her name.) WP is not news, but look at the treatment of many other aspects of this case, including the false, inappropriate and salacious detail that she allegedly suffered anal-rape, which is based on a misinterpretation of only a few bad news stories, and yet has survived the editing of the same people who have censored her nationality (or ethnicity). Regarding including the alleged victim's nationality or ethnicity in this article, if one looks in well-known encyclopedias on articles about rape or other violent crimes, the ethnicity of the assailant and the victim is routinely included, especially if their ethnicities are different. Encyclopedias often build on the discourse created by major newspapers and other reliable sources, because they shape the social context in which such a crime or trial is portrayed. So the widespread inclusion of the alleged victim's ethnicity in all major reliable sources is in fact relevant for including it here (even though WP is not a newspaper). Bloomberg: "The woman ... is a native of Guinea"; CNN: "attempted rape of a 32-year-old Guinean maid"; BBC: "The woman came originally from the West African state of Guinea"; the Telegraph: "The woman is a 32-year-old Guinean immigrant" (lede sentence); the New York Times: "The woman, 32, a widowed immigrant from Guinea", and in NYT columns ("The young woman escaped horrors in her native Guinea"); ABC News (in 14 different stories); Fox News--several times; the Wall Street Journal (in 15 articles); News One for Black America puts it in their headline: "African Woman Accusing IMF Head Of Rape," "The West African maid who was allegedly assaulted by Kahn..."; the Los Angeles Times: "the woman is a 32-year-old single mother from West Africa"; Reuters: "a 32-year-old widow from West Africa"; the NY police: "a police spokesman ... described the victim as 'female, black, 32 years old,' "; and thousands of other articles -- they all identify her native country or ethnicity. FatTrebla (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The celebrated Francesco Sisci
Can I open a discussion here as to whether this gentleman (Director of the Institute for Italian Culture in Beijing) is sufficiently notable to have his opinions noted in the lede and again later in the article (and originally a third time PCCTL valorising conspiracy theories in the "French reaction" section, which I did manage to get and keep struck on the gounds 'not French').

In fact I think that whole 3rd paragraph in the lede should be struck. It patronises the reader and it strikes me as distinctly agenda-pushing: "DSK was saving the world and now look what we've done to him" sort thing.

I would like to see it go. FightingMac (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikiwatcher1, when quoting the great man, will you please give his name and description thus, "Francesco Sisci, Director of the Institute of Italian Culture in Beijing" as he is not notable and has no BLP and please also notice that he blogs in Asia Times Online and does not write in Asia Times, which is defunct. FightingMac (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we retire Francesco yet? He does look pretty silly there in the lede seeing as no-one really knows who he is or has heard of him before. Deep though his thought surely is? FightingMac (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lightbulb thought! Unless the world beats a path to this thread to support Francesco I'll delete, say 48 hours on. OK? FightingMac (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Done by Wikiwatcher1. FightingMac (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

DSK will enter plea today
On June 6 Ex-IMF chief due to answer charges in NYC sex case. I added this source in a footnote to the article. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers IP there. Thanks. But I did revert another IP who replaced 'raper' with 'rapist'. In fact the source does say 'raper' and that's right because a 'rapist' is strictly speaking a raper convicted of rape. Perhaps the IP was agenda pushing.


 * RioRob is threatening me with a BAN if I continue to edit here. I'll be elevating my response beyond a mere BLPN. FightingMac (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When you're obsessed, you're apt to shun the least worst way of dealing with a situation. A reader comment at the nytimes said today's Le Figaro had a DSK legal analysis about that. To avoid, "why does this always happen to me," down the road, I don't expect you to take this advice. As an IP I won't be around to say, "I told you so," when you don't. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't follow this, IP. I'm obsessed? Something bad going to happen to me ( meh, déjà vu that all over again)? I'll look at your NY Times ref momentarily. If you were the 'rapist' contributor, bottom line is that I just restored what CNN actually said and WW1 accurately quoted. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Cynthia (if it's you), that was very naughty of you ;-). I'll look at the Le Figaro article out of curiousity. But I'm afraid I don't think it's going to be like that, not really. There was a good NY times review of the issues The Strauss-Kahn Case: Sizing Up a Legal Clash’s Many Facets here today. Still can't quite follow the 'why does this always happen to me' stuff if you're feeling chatty. Not in the Russian mafia are you by any chance? Someone after me with a pot of tea sort thing? Just curious. FightingMac (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you like it so much, find a place for it in the references:  As to your accusation, be assured that I'm not in Paris, whereas Cynthia is. You are mistaken in the rest, also, but it's like convincing Palin that Revere didn't ride to warn the Regulars - a hopeless communication problem.  - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Cynthia, I looked at the Le Figaro article and, yes, it's absolutely fascinating. Thank you so much. I've archived it in the Wayback Machine and in my notes. I missed on it. But it's a hopless POV no-no in Wikipedia, even on a talk page, and I suspect you've had an adminstrator message pointing that out. Take care, they can block IP addresses the bastards. Welcome to add to my Talk page regarding any flying teapots you've noticed heading my way but can't offer email owing to sad borscht problem alluded to above. Take care now and have you seen the section about feminist opinion on this page which needs support if trheir opinion is going to make it back? FightingMac (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, and to prove that what an editor called "brazenly violating BLP," is no more than a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing, this is the forbidden sentence they feared seeing in the article:
 * Michelle Conti, who claims to have known him intimately, states that he behaves like "a gentleman" around women, and agrees "he was not the violent type," adding that "he's just a playboy, that's all.[39][40]
 * Scary stuff indeed ;-) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a brazen violation of BLP and you've just violated it again. The diff is noted. I see you're in the thread where I give you notice I'm not prepared to tolerate your BLP violations any more. Also you quote Shakespeare but link Faulkner which is just so wierd and creepy. FightingMac (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reaction
I wonder if we can work to re-focus the reactions section. By this I mean - some stuff is pan-US-French reaction, other parts are country specific. I think it is constraining to split it by country now. Instead I think the primary split should be direct responses/reactions to the event & court proceedings, and then meta/wider impact stuff. For example the feminist reaction deserves a careful summary, and the Kantar analysis would fit in this section. My initial thinking is Reaction (responses r.e. the case) and Wider response (not sure about that one) Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 12:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Early on when the Buddha had just created the 'French section' and was chilling out on it or whatever it is that does his grammar in so, I queried why there wasn't an International section and was told there would be when there actually *was* International reaction. Well we all know how hard it was to get an American section going. I don't think I would like to see a country split (there's about 150 of them and they'll all want a look in). The main players here are France and America and it does seem logical to stick with them with a certain leeway allowed (for example the Putin conspiracy theory remark that WWI put in French reaction because it's his spit he's spitting there or possibly simply because he doesn't know Putin's not French but Chinese or something). The Mladic article went for a country split at first and it became absurd with flags and everything (Italy: Magnifici! England: Jolly good show! ...). FightingMac (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * oh I see, I misunderstood you. No, that might well work especially if every attempt at adding American content is going to be jumped on because it's got words in it. Go ahead. I'm not here. What does Buddha think? FightingMac (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reworked some of the content, see what you think. --Errant (chat!) 21:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd give some more thought to the two new sections, "Reaction" and "Wider response." They're not intuitive phrases, and I doubt if I could explain the difference in what they each would cover. They're also both overly general, and will allow for almost any subsequent opinions about almost anything tangentially related to the case. That's already been a problem, with pundits and rights groups using it as a symbol to support their more general opinions. Note that we keep trimming feminism opinions, and opinions about other opinions, for instance. Because they're both overlapping general phrases, I think some sub-sectioning might help readers. Overall, a lot of the rearranging and cleanup was pretty well done.


 * Another issue is keeping the article in balance so it doesn't become weighted with the myriad "reactions" and "responses," for which there can be no clear limit. I think that if we need to add more such topics, they are abbreviated to the key point and we let the citation carry the load. The Newsweek material, which I'm not stuck on using, was at least one of the few articles that seemed to actually deal with an American reaction and/or responses to the case in a clear way. If it was too lengthy, it could have been abbreviated, or at least discussed. It's probably relevant. I'm not sure that removal with the rationale of  lets deal in relevant fact please not the two-bit speculative crap of every hack sets a good editing example. What would you think of an attorney who stood up in court and said that to the judge or a witness? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reactions is fairly clear, perhaps "Views on Strauss-Kahn" (though some of the other sections don't make sense then). The point is - they are reactions to the arrest. "Wider Issues" definitely needs changing, but it is the best I had for the moment. The idea there is to deal with stuff not so directly related to the proceedings/allegations - i.e. the wider issues raised.
 * I agree we should keep it tight. That Newsweek article was a good find BTW; I wasn't sure that the content you took from it was overly relevant though, more along the lines of "advice for travellers", what do you think to what I mashed it up to?
 * I think a good next step would be to tighten the Reactions section as we find more analysis/overview sources. And start to find better section titles. Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 22:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the text is pretty tight, with single sentence summaries and a source. It all seems to be readable without digressions. For any sub-sections, the American and France topics were OK, IMO, at least with the text included so far.  Reading the "Reaction" section, which could imply reactions by the hospitality industry, legal issues, civil rights, and media,  the section now includes only personal reactions, so maybe a sub-section called "Personal reactions" would help clarify the text. The "Media coverage" section is mostly about French reactions, so calling that section again "French reaction" would help readers. The phrase "media coverage" is assumed, so doesn't really appear to help define what will be included that's not included in other parts of the article. I'm not sure we need "American reactions," however, since happening in America that's also assumed. Those are some quick thoughts. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's really good ErrantX. I'll look at in detail later tonight but that does take care of some some issues, the president of China sounding off on conspiracy theories in the French section etc., which did look absurd to people like myself who actually know a bit about politics. FightingMac (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Wikiwatcher1. I await breathlessly the promised section here ('remove irrelevant photo per talk suggestion') explaining why you removed the Geldof photo I put in and which was on topic because SDK was widely perceived by the anarcho brigade as not a completely total devil anyway plus of course it was an iconic photo of two contemporary saints together. Why did you remove first then discuss (not) whereas most courteously discuss first? Why is everything anyone else does you don't agree with always 'trivial' or 'irrelevant' in your lights? What is your problem? And while I'm not here, I would be curious to know what goes in that generous soul of your not really there either that you can unblushingly add an edit stressing SDK's defense without providing a corresponding balancing one for the complainant? I have rectified. Will you please also edit your Banon remarks for neutrality? I'm not going to edit your content directly any more because I'm sick through wiping the toilet seat after you. DSK's biographer plainly has a conflict of opinion here and his remarks shouldn't be given the weight you give them. Up to you but I suggest it is in your interest to do so. FightingMac (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Per user comment earlier, "Why is there a 2009 picture of him with Bob Geldof in the 'Economic' section? It's entirely irrelevant, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.158.227.198 (talk) 2:03 pm, Today (UTC−7)" I agreed, so removed it. If you feel it's relevant, you can discuss it with others.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: "Will you please also edit your Banon remarks for neutrality?" That's exactly what I did, since your edit to a simple statement became a multi-directional digression. 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. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * @ErrantX. Yes that's absolutely fine with me (I made two small edits). You are really good at this. Appreciated FightingMac (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 Saw your edits atarting 'His attorney stated ...' and that's fine. The copy a little clumsy perhaps? Why aren't using American legal 'pled'? I should have expected it.
 * @Wikiwatcher1 re Banon. Fine, the diff is noted. Curious to know what gremlin in there first made you think adding stuff about Sarkozy etc. was necessarily a good idea. FightingMac (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The added context gave the topic a broader perspective that many Americans are unaware of. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right ... but it would have been a bit BLPish nest pas? Re St. Bob. That's comment tucked away in pre-history from an IP there. It's you should have raised it in a thread if you wanted to delete it. It is relevant for reasons offered above. Plus it's a very nice photo of DSK with a modern cultural icon obviously very comfy about giving DSK a cuddle and DSK need all the support he can get. FightingMac (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] Yes, that really is an excellent job you've done there ErrantX. It's very thoughtful and considered. I do know how long it takes to provide copy this quality. Thank you. Appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh I'm just moving around what was there, mostly :) But thanks. I reshuffled it again per the concerns raised over headings above. "Support and opposition" is now very specific. "Reactions" now covers wider reaction (including the feminist/UNITE response and the media coverage argument) - that might be a generic header so any suggestions for a more specific one? --Errant (chat!) 08:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Soapbox alert
The following should obviously be trimmed down from the article to remove the soapbox material. "" Kenneth Thompson, for the housekeeper, said:"The victim wants you to know that all of Dominique Strauss-Kahn's power, money and influence throughout the world do not keep the truth about what he did to her in that hotel room from coming out. And that despite the smear campaign that is being committed against her, she is standing up for her dignity as a woman. She's standing up for her self-respect as a woman. And she is standing up for all women and children around the world who have been sexually assaulted or sexually abused and are too afraid to say something."[22][6]" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Brafman's statement has been sitting here in the article unchallenged since the first bail appearance.


 * Thanks for removing Francesco Sisci from the lead. You're welcome to substitute but I only ask that it's from someone genuinely notable. How about Christine Lagarde with her moment before DSK and the moment after remark, which is essentially of the same ilk. FightingMac (talk)


 * I'm only suggesting that the long quote should be trimmed, not removed. It would give a balance to attorney statements. The lead doesn't seem to need any more quotes at this point. You're right that it did look silly. My original addition simply referred to him as a "political analyst," but you wanted his full name and mini-bio.


 * BTW, there was no soapboxing by the replacement of multiple old speculation cites with a current actual quote. Before the addition, it stated in part, "legal analysts believe the defense will argue the sex was consensual.[15][16][17]." I think adding a similar quote from the other attorney (not the "maid's voice,") is logical, although the " standing up for all women and children around the world" extension is likewise silly, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I would frankly agree quite a bit OTT but not exactly silly. Got no problems here. It's fine. Thank you (but I'm surprised one so devoted to Shakespeare as yourself can't sense the resonance of what Thompson said. It was very fine, I thought).FightingMac (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I cut the latter part of that quote; it was a bit long and getting into dubious territory ;) But the former part seems fine given the brafman quote. --Errant (chat!) 08:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd go for it all the same. What happened to my dubious image? I laboured all night finding out how to do that. FightingMac (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But I think I'll put back the original 'testify against' passage if we're not allowed the full monty. Sorry to be tiresome FightingMac (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Much prefer the new quote, looks good. The image looks to have been deleted under the NFCC (CSD) because it was not the subject of critical commentary in the article. --Errant (chat!) 11:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I thought I covered that in the fair use rationale. Any chance of getting that whole 3rd paragraph in the lede deleted now? It strikes me as well past its sell by date but I shan't do anything unilaterally. I don't think I have anything more I want to contribute to the article. I'll look in from time to time to check neutrality. You did a good job on it there EX. It was getting bogged down and needed to break free. FightingMac (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)