Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn/Archive 6

A reminder
I think that some contributors may need reminding that this article isn't here to determine DSK's guilt or innocence - and neither is it here to comment on the credibility or otherwise of the alleged assault victim. Please stick to verifiable facts, and leave the spin to the lawyers - if for no other reason than to avoid doing them out of a job ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree FightingMac (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Andy, your comment needs some clarification. DSK was just released from arrest because of the newly disclosed lack of credibility of his accuser. This article is about facts relating to the case. The material you summarily removed did not discuss guilt or innocence, as you claim, only the credibility issue. The DA's letter is about as "verifiable" as one can get, it would seem. Nor is any spin involved in the DA's and NY Times' articles. As for being messy or needing grammatical improvements, I'm sure they could have been improved easily, if you tried or pointed them out. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that for an article about the DSK assault case, anything not directly relevant is 'spin' - including the credibility of the accuser. Yes, we need to indicate that her credibility has been questioned, but we don't need to go into detail about every last thing that might undermine it. This isn't a court of law, we don't need to rule on innocence or guilt - instead we should report the facts, as reported in reliable sources, with due regard to Wikipedia policy. I think the most sensible procedure in circumstances like these, where the situation is rapidly changing, is to avoid rushing into edits, and instead allow a little time for the situation to become clearer - this isn't a news agency. And to answer your specific comment about grammar, I'm not sure mine would necessarily be right either - I should have gone to bed hours ago - and after drinking less beer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I've looked over this --->undo and I have to say its extremely unsound. Wikiwatcher's edit may be ever so slightly ungrammatical, but that is not sufficient reason to undo it. If you think it needs grammar tweaks than make the adjustments don't undo. As for your assertion that the article isn't about determining the alleged victims guilt or innocence I agree, but where your way off is in concluding that as a result that information about the accusers credibility isn't of importance. An article about the "Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case" is supposed to tell the reader everything about the case. To do so the credibility of the accuser becomes of critical importance since this is something that the police investigators are interested in. Also, since it appears now that the investigators are beginning not to believe the accuser, the reader needs to know why that is. And clearly the news articles are showing that one of the reasons is because she has been caught in other lies. The reader therefore needs to know what those other lies are. Without that how would the reader know how the police arrived at their conclusions? Duh.Chhe (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The accuser's credibility is directly relevant, and heavily covered by RSs. It certainly should be properly covered -- we follow the RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all experienced editors routinely delete when edits are sub-standard. Of course there's no obligation to copy-edit. Secondly we mustn't give undue weight to the housekeeper's credibility. It's adequately sourced, including as primary source the Assistant DA's letter to DSK's defense. I suggest if you would like to help you could contribute by adding a balancing edit pointing the housekeeper's lawyer has said that she just because she made mistakes, that doesn't mean she wasn't raped. FightingMac (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, read
 * Collapsing Strauss-Kahn Case Adds to Doubts on Prosecutor, NYT July 2, 2011 Johannjs (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I read it and I reverted its addition to the External links section. As I said in my edit summary, it's too much about problems at the DA's office rather than about the DSK case (which is just used as the latest example). The DSK article already sufficiently covers the housekeeper credibility issues with sources without having to include this NYT piece as an external link.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Title is inappropriate
This needs to be renamed something like 'DSK alleged sexual assault case' or perhaps 'DSK bogus sexual assault case' or even 'Attempted sting of DSK'. It seems likely there was no sexual assault, after all.180.130.212.58 (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The case is not alleged, only his guilt in sexually assaulting may or may not be. Nevertheless, even if he is found innocent the case will always be known as a sexual assault case.  -- Mecanismo | Talk 12:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. See for example O. J. Simpson murder case (yes I know he did it, but he was still not guilty). Egg Centric 14:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Time to consider naming the maid?
I was one of the first people to insist on keeping the name of the maid out of this... however, now it seems like she is no victim, should we consider naming her? I appreciate that this is effectively causing us to act as a judge - but that is not necessarily criticism... it was always a judgement call anyway and there is precedent on the 'pedia, e.g. Crystal Magnum. Egg Centric 14:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd point out that the policy suggesting not naming her does not specify she has to be a victim :) so I don't see how being the victim or the aggressor changes anything. With that said at the moment I argue this is speculation based on LE comments and the case is as yet neither closed or collapsed. I do still suggest waiting until either of those two things happens before judging the matter - although if it collapses I think the pertinent issue is how soon we can merge this back into the Bio. --Errant (chat!) 14:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Her name should definitely be included irregardless of whether or not she was telling the truth or making the whole thing up. Wikipedia shouldn't censor information. Also errantx, where is wikipedia's policy against naming this person?Chhe (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This was discussed ad-infinitum. It is our standard approach for private individuals. Start with WP:BLPNAME and work out from there. --Errant (chat!) 20:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Errant. At this point, DSK is still charged with attempted rape and the housekeeper is still a possible victim. As for Chhe's comments, that has been argued endlessly before, and there's no need to resurrect that discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah I was under the impression (for some reason) that the case was as good as dismissed. The situation is somewhat more nuanced than that and so I agree we ought to wait before we do name her - but I do think that it may be worth considering at this point whether we ought to if it does collapse (and we can consider several values of "collapse" as well if need be) but what do others think? Egg Centric 16:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Errant and Bbb23 and I did revert a naming of names because that's what she's called last night. @Egg Centric: anyone who knows anything about the legal process will have understood the situation was 'nuanced' as you put it weeks ago when Shapiro, a distinguished civil rights lawyer, left the housekeeper's defense team without explanation: I certainly understood the implication then. But nuanced or no the fact is the trial looks set to go ahead. We did know that there would be mud-slinging and I have said several times in these pages that some of that slinging will take place in the article. Let's try and maintain our principles meanwhile. FightingMac (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted another editor's reinsertion of the housekeeper's name. At least he said what he was doing in the edit summary, unlike yet another editor who did it earlier without any edit summary. This all feels like deja vu and is tiresome.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is almost a joke (if it weren't so tragic) that wikipedia, which claims to be non-censored, censors itself through outdated policies about victims of crimes, particularly alleged sexual crimes, where the assailant gets no anonymisation at all. Even when everyone knows the maids name, and knows which country she came from before she applied for assylum in the US and basically her entire background (including links to drug dealers and prostitution), if you read reliable secondary sources. How on earth can you support graphic pictures to illustrate articles about taboo subjects alongside this policy. Something has to change. At least you could get the courage to delete graphic photos before caring so much about peoples names. 118.208.30.43 (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A person's privacy and an image you might find offensive are two wholly different things. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer or the New York Post. Also please remember that the accused is a public figure, whereas the maid was basically nobody (no offence intended toward her) until this happened. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 10:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Flinder's reply a good one I think. I'm not sure what IP's point is about graphic pictures. If he's talking in general then indeed that's what Wikipedia is not censored is about and it's IP's call about whether IP joins our club or not, but that's one of our rules and we member are comfortable with it. If on the other hand IP is a Frenchy, grouching about the 'perp walk' image in the article, main point there is that this is the English wikipedia (imaginez!). Adding to Flinders, one can remark that this is still a rape case and the tradition in the US (as well as the law in the UK) is to extend privacy to rape accusers, precisely because, for the IP's information, in the real world people with unblemished sexual histories just don't exist. Cast the first stone yourself IP and consider getting yourself a Wikipedia account and making a nuisance of yourself pissing inside the tent rather than cocking your leg at it outside. FightingMac (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

New material by 10Lskil
This newly registered editor, so far a single purpose account, has been adding lots of material to the article. I've left some of it in (not always happy about it, though), but I've also been reverting much of it as inappropriate. I could use a little help here in deciding whether this material belongs in the article. In my view, the editor is adding too much detail, often irrelevant detail, sometimes POV (albeit sourced) detail, and doing it at a rapid clip.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your recent revert.
 * Are CNN and Al Jazeera blogs acceptable sources? Per WP:BLOGS, for this article, I don't think so.
 * Regardless, the addition seems WP:UNDUE.
 * Agree. FightingMac (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've only looked at a few of the other additions. Some are OK; I'll look at more. WP:SPA's do raise an eyebrow, but we do want new editors, and I'd think new editors are drawn by big stories. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted not based on the reliable source issue. Blogs that permit just about anyone to post are clearly unreliable sources. However, blogs of legitimate third-party publications are harder to evaluate. Sometimes, they are almost like editorials from the publication rather than true blogs. I think that's the case here. Other times, they are outlets for publishing information more quickly, and it's not clear whether they receive the same fact-checking as non-blog pages from the same publication. Either way, I steer clear of the reliable source issue because I find it murky.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I look forward to discussion here with User:10Lskil. He has found some sources of materiel; I am concerned that we not add WP:UNDUE weight of some issues to the topic. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This edit his of was factually very poor 1 Tristane Banonn is not the daughter of the French vice-president 2 there isn't such a thing in the French system anyway 3 if there was he wouldn't be a socialist in the current administration 4 Tristane Banon's lawyer, David Koubbi, has said Banon will not pursue her case while the American process is underway. FightingMac (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fighting mac your first 3 points rest on a false premise, as I didn't say she was the daughter of the "French" vice president. In fact, she is the daughter of Anne Mansouret, Socialist vice-president of the general council of Eure (Upper Normandy), which is in France. And your fourth point is only a small update to the conclusion I wrote which was based on her previous media statement to Le Figaro.--10Lskil (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, 10Lskil, all I can decently say is that your memory of your own edit is challenged. This is what you wrote (my emphasis)
 * It was also reported by several media outlets that the Daughter of Socialist vice President Tristane Banon would renew her legal complaint against Strauss-Kahn for an alleged rape in 2002 ...
 * while 'the small update' you mention was the subject of discussion right across French media and over smart salon dinner tables weeks ago (as well as widely reported in anglophone media at the time).
 * It's not me who is dealing with your edits but on the basis of the above I'm not surprised they don't last long. FightingMac (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am most happy to take constructive feedback from any editor, besides those who want to "fight", mac. This is my last comment on the issue, so if you want the last word its all yours......
 * Any ambiguity my comment entailed as to the exact domain of the Socialist Vice President being from Eure, or the whole of France (which I didn't specify - only for the brevity of the artlcle), seems comparatively insignificant to the 'factually poor' judgement above: 1) she IS the daughter of a socialist vice president, 2) sexual assault is a crime in France (Law Article 222-28, 222-29) and 3) there is, and well.....I guess he is still a socialist. --10Lskil (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I will. Thanks. 1 she is not the daughter of THE socialist vice president which is what you said (though indeed it is often difficult to construe what you mean from what you say) 2 (strictly rhetorical) what does sexual assault being a crime in France has to do with the factual basis of your edit? 3 likewise no idea WTF you're on about him being a socialist past, present or future, has to do with the factual content of your edit. Hope that really is it. FightingMac (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Selective use of tabloids as RS
There are a number of tabloid references used in the article, many in French, and sometimes translated by an editor. Guess !. The use of those tabloids, like the Daily Mail, was discussed and their use was rejected numerous times by others. Are U.S. tabloids such as the New York Post equally valid as a source? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Externals in such a pre trial article related to living people WP:BLP should be as high quality as possible, avoid adding any tabloid style content at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's me ( a rare example of humour from you but you didn't use wiki - nowiki tabs so you're causing a problem with that template) you're wrong. I haven't added any tabloid citations and in  I raise reservations (at the end) about the 'Daily Mail' cite.
 * But it's comical coming from you with your Conti cite which was as senastionalist a red-top story as you can imagine repeated only by the UK Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph (the latter a quality which nevertheless has an accepted tradition of picking on sensational material concerning on-going stories it's running). Not only did you add the content but you didn;t repect the source 1 she wasn't French 2 she wasn't being interviewed in Paris 3 you omitted the interesting fact she nicknamed DSK Genghis Khan.
 * Moreover when taken to task (by Off2riorob above amongst others) at a BLP noticeboard you tried to reintroduce it later hoping no-one would noticeand that despite being given a strong warning on your talk page only a couple of weeks before about that kind of behaviour.
 * The New York Post hasn't got anything on the housekeeper The New York Times hasn't (trust me). Relax. Go for a walk on Bodega. Breathe in. Breathe out. Yup, there's a whole world out there. FightingMac (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's because of this from the UK Daily Mirror quoting The New York Post (which I don't think has gone to press yet). I'll do the the edit for you:


 * As a result of the extensive publicity the housekeeper's credibility has received in the world, including the UK, some newspaper have begun publishing stories "branding her a prostitute offering extra services to guests". Acording to the popular UK newspaper The Daily Mirror, the housekeeper "wasn't just working at the hotel - she was a working girl". One source said, "She was getting tips ... and it wasn't for fucking towels." Police said she had "serious credibility issues".


 * I'll do one for you from The New year Post when it appears. Just striving to be helpful as ever. FightingMac (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * New York Post article is here. I'll let you do the honours ;) [] Egg Centric 00:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (Although as a note of caution, it's from "sources close to the defence team") Egg Centric 00:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I think I will pass on my offer. I'm sure I woudn't be adequate to the task. Didn't see the bit about the defense team and in fact I thought all this was coming from prosecution unless this is the material the defense team have claimed they had all along. If the story is repeated in an RS, such as say, for the sake of argument, New York Times, Le Monde, The Times (I would personally not say "The Telegraph" because of its well known prurience about this sort of case), that sort of quality, then I would say include it. But right, not the New York Post, eminently readable though that may be :-)
 * Still needs a balancing edit there from someone to add content about Kenneth Thompson pointing out she might be guilty as sin of all these things (actually he just said she had made mistakes) and still have been assaulted. Why not have a go yourself, Egg Centric? Your good deed for the day, you will feel so pure and just like a lawywer in fact who has to do that sort of thing for a living. Recommended. FightingMac (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And there's certainly no reason to leave out that prison phone call, which could have been a misdialed number, another simple "mistake" we all make. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Questions of undue weight might arise. Bbb23 has already made clucking noises. I've already strenghtened the DA letter content just a few minutes ago. The phone call is not sourced from the letter. You could always do the Thompson edit I mention above if you would like to contribute. FightingMac (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You can contribute to the well sourced phone call details, and then I'll work on the Thompson quote. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh-uh. You owe me. You do Thompson and then I'll do the phone call when the source is clearer. FightingMac (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable deletions
The most recent three edits by User:FightingMac were unwarranted and should immediately be restored.

The editor is familiar with Talk pages but chose to bypass any discussion with their edits. I do not feel like edit warring so any other editors wishing to restore the material should do so. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The first edit was done without any rationale. In addition, it deleted fully relevant "impact" material and added back essentially pointless IMF election contenders;
 * The next mass deletion was done against consensus and under a ridiculous pretext of "bad grammar," which has already been shown to be false. In addition, the new subsections were removed without any attempt to justify;
 * The third deletion was again done under the infantile and desperate pretext of bad grammar.
 * Agree with Wiki here. Unwarranted.  Suggest reversion, and that Fighting turns to Talking.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My god, Eppeefleche, I do enough Talking here. Don't Encourage me!


 * Regarding Wikiwatcher1's edits their merits as copy vary very widely from literate to frankly not at all. I have no idea why that should be but I and other editors often do him the courtesy of copy-editing his material to an acceptable standard and do we not behave like dicks pointing this out. When I do it I meticulously preserve his content. I'll copy below an example of mine discussed above, where the defects went beyond just issues of copy. First Wikiwatcher1's copy:


 * However, on June 30, 2011, there were reports that the case against Strauss-Kahn was in jeopardy due to the prosecution team's having uncovered "major holes in the credibility" of his accuser. According to the New York Times, "prosecutors do not believe much of what the accuser has told them . . . [and she] has repeatedly lied about the circumstances or about herself." (a reference here) As a result, a special hearing was scheduled for July 1st, the following day, to reconsider Strauss-Kahn's bail conditions.
 * where 1 "there were reports" is weasel 2 "in jeopardy" is loaded and appears nowhere in the article (although it is in the URL title) 3 "major holes in the credibility" is sourced in the article to 'investigators' and not the prosecution team 4 "... has repeatedly lied about the circumstances or about herself" is not actually a quote from the article ...


 * and then my edit of it (in turn churned by BBb23 because it was too close a paraphrase of the sources)


 * On June 30, the New York Times reported that the case against Strauss-Kahn was on the verge of collapse as investigators had uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper. The report said that prosecutors no longer believed much of what the housekeeper had told them about the circumstances or about herself and quoted a law enforcement official as saying she had lied repeatedly.(a corrected reference here) As a result, a special hearing was scheduled for July 1st, the following day, to reconsider Strauss-Kahn's bail conditions.


 * Note that there were significant issues, as there often are with Wikiwatcher1 (he hardly ever bothers to conform to the requirements of WP:QUOTE) and that my edit meticuluosly preserved his content.


 * Regarding his efforts yesterday he was trying to restore an ancient edit of his valorising DSK's performance as IMF which had long been replaced by brief content noting the new IMF manager. The other edits were undue weight remarks about the housekeeper's credibility and reverted first by AtG and then me. Certainly the content would required copy-editing for grammar but as it happened it didn't need it as it simply was undue weight.


 * I can't speak for AtG, who indeed is often impatient with me, but you can safely assume my remarks about grammar were an irony from someone who has had to waste a great deal of time on WW1's naive advocacy of DSK.


 * Indeed I don't expect to be here for much longer. I shall be curious to see how you cope with it (because of course he won't relent).


 * AS for WW1's principled asservations about edit warring, I find that droll. His talk page is a catalogue of warnings about edit-warring and he knows his fellow editors will not long tolerate repeats. FightingMac (talk)


 * I agree with Wikiwatcher as well. It is quite bizarre that both editors are undoing based on "bad grammar" when even a cursory look shows that its minimal or non-existent.Chhe (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikiwatcher1 took it to ANI here. I defended in detail. The result was declined. FightingMac (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll
The three deleted sections listed above are totally relevant to this "sexual assault case." A small consensus agreed. Now the news is making even those deleted details more "common knowledge" than news, and more details outlining the perversity of the case will keep coming out, and they will all become part of this case. An example this morning indicates the DA knew the maid was probably lying, but chose to ignore it for political reasons. And of course, the DA has already stated categorically that the woman committed federal perjury, which is a felony, and according to The Telegraph, could lead to serious actions. Add implied money laundering, tax fraud, and other things, the case will grow and should include those topics.

When the article began, there were already many off-shoot subjects being added. There were the French and American "reaction" sections; there was, until undermined, the "economic" and "political" impact; there were details, translated by FM, about French feminists and philosopher opinions; there are French "conspiracy" assertions; and we shouldn't forget FM's "begging on his knees" to find the most degrading "perp walk" photo available, or his fighting to keep a French tabloid's "tits and ass" quote by a French taxi driver!

This "case" will potentially evolve into becoming a central hub with related effects and more impacts on politics and law, all of which should at least be included in a paragraph or section, and some of which may become full separate articles. To start with getting this article back to the real world, I think the deletions listed should be restored, and if necessary, later updated, rephrased or expanded. I would also revise the pathetic nursery-school phrasing used in the lead: a letter from the district attorney's office was sent to the defense lawyers disclosing information and raising question about the housekeeper's version of events.


 * Support: --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm glad you agree with yourself. :-) I don't want to participate in a straw poll about this. However, because the article has changed since the edits you're complaining about, it would help if you would set forth (above in your little intro) exactly what you want to add to the article. Even if I were to vote, I'm not 100% sure what I'd be voting for.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I rephrased a bit to clarify that the poll is to simply restore the 3 deletions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - for the simple reason that we shouldn't be basing our judgements on what we think the case will "potentially evolve into", per WP:CRYSTALBALL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, yes restore the deletions.Chhe (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose; we are a summary source, the case may yet collapse leading to a merge of the article, detail is hard to pin down when it is largely speculative have some blooming patience. etc. Content r.e. IMF is more related to IMF article, less so here (which is about the case). Details on the housekeeper are way to in depth and tremendously sketchy, a lot is generally unrelated (i.e. assylum stuff) and potentially a BLP violation that needs extremely good sourcing (in fact; do not under any circumstances add that bit back). Content was poorly worded and badly expressed and seemed somewhat POV. --Errant (chat!) 14:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I still don't understand precisely what would happen if the "deletions" were restored (for the reasons I stated above). However, I oppose more detail about the IMF, more detail (at this point) about the housekeeper, and more inflammatory rhetoric. I also oppose the straw poll.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Interlanguage links
I'm having some problems with user Off2riorob deleting interlanguage links such as that I made to the article for Michèle Sabban.

Michèle Sabban is notable in France as an outspoken advocate of gender equality and as a close personal friend of Mr. Struss-Khan who has supported him unstintingly in his current predicament, describing the whole business as an international plot. Following his release from custody she has asked that the ongoing primary to select the Socialist candidate to contest the French presidency in 2012 be suspended, so as to give him the opportunity to participate.

From the outset of my involvement with this article I have taken pains to see to it that her opinion was represented. But she is unlikely ever to receive an English BLP, so rather than redlink her I gave an interlanguage link as per the recommendation at Help:Interlanguage_links. This and another for the French sociologist Irène Théry stood for some weeks until Off2riorob appeared on the scene and removed the links, replacing them with redlinks. He messaged me on my talk page thus:


 * Please stop doing this, external wikis are not reliable sources and should not be inline linked like that, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

but he did not respond to my request for clarification (the links were not cited as sources)


 * Don't understand this Off2riorob. Do you mean interlanguage links? I thought that was policy if there was no likelihood of an English wiki as is the case with some of the minor personailities in the SDK article. FightingMac (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I let the redlinks stand for a while and then replaced them a few days ago with interlanguage links again and they stood until this evening when he deleted again (that was the Irène Théry link, the Michèle Sabban link has earlier been interfered with by 10Lskil and was eventually lost).

I reverted, asking he take the issue to the Talk page. He restored and said he had discussed the issue at Talk:Tristane_Banon (I am a translator at Tristane Banon) as he also has on my Talk page at User_talk:FightingMac.

I gather he accepts that interlanguage links are not against Wikipedia policy and that he is no longer concerned that I am linking to an unreliable source (i.e. the French wikipedia) but that he neverthless has multiple concerns described thus at Banon


 * Please stop replacing these inline links to external wikis - french wiki or any other wiki are nothing to do with us and people do not expect to be taken to an external website that is not reliable and in another language when the click on inline links - write the article here at this wikipedia. If you want to add them - add them to the external link section and clearly explain what they are, personally I wouldn't add them at all. If I was as interested as you I would create stubs for these people in the correct location - this wiki.

I responded to the issue of expectation by restoring the Michèle Sabban interlanguage as suggested at Help:Interlanguage_links in the following format Michèle Sabban (see French Wikipedia article).

He immediately reverted and sent me a 3R warning. On my talk page I responded thus


 * Not edit warring. One restore to suggest and establish dialogue on Talk page. One fresh approach documented above to address the issue of expectation you raised and which you immediately reverted. Will you please now address 1 why you are deleting these links when you agree they are not against policy 2 when they are not being used as RS as was your original concern 3 why my fresh approach recommended by Help:Interlanguage_links was immediately reverted by you without explanantion and a 3R edit-warring warning released instead.

I shall probably elevate this if I cannot get an agreement. It seems to me that the second format I suggest should settle the issues he claims now concerns him, the RS issue obviously being not tenable.

I'm recording this here on this talk page because resolution processes require that the issue is discussed on the relevant talk page.

Input welcome. FightingMac (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * - In line linking to external foreign language wikis is undesirable - write a stub here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not write a quick English language BLP? She certainly sounds notable! Egg Centric 01:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have suggested this to the user but they seem to have a desire to add inline french interwiki links to our articles and they have edit history at the french wiki. Some of the articles they have been inline wiki linking to have been so low standard as they would have been speedy deleted here and imo some of them would also fail WP:EL. Off2riorob (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that a stub is preferable.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the point about that, Egg Centric (nice name :-)) is that quick translated BLPs aren't in fact 'quick'. I have done a few, presently Banon I'm assisting with now. They are quickly deleted if an adminstrator finds them non-notable and the catch is to show them notable you have to find English language citations. Well no doubt I could find a few obscure book and journal references to Michèle Sabban if I scoured a library all afternoon but apart from this CV at the AER there are no English sources for Sabban. She is genuinely not notable for English letters and athat's all there is to it. No point in a stub. It will never be expanded. And it *will* be deleted. As for what I could understand about off2riorob's edit above he is simply repeating his contempt for the French wiki.FightingMac (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you'd be alright using a French language source but agree that you may have trouble getting it past some of our more ardent deletionists. If you do make a stub let me know and I'll !vote keep (subject to the usual caveats :D) Egg Centric 07:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Egg Centric. I did consider doing a stub but it really would be a problem given there are no English language sources. I grant Bobrayner's point about WP:PEOPLE notability below, but the fact is all the multiple sources there are French. As it is presently the English wiki has articles for each French member of parliament, most of which are single sentence stubs. I'm not sure we should wish to treat French politicans in general with the same reverence we afford Canadian ice hockey players (no, no, I didn't say that, really, honest ...) celebrity Hollywood personalities. FightingMac (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for this opinion, Bobrayner. I'm editing further later on this evening and will run it past Off2riorob for his reaction. Your point about time and effort in writing stubs exactly mine. Appreciated. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TEB728 (talk) has very kindly provided a translation for Michèle Sabban and I'm grateful.


 * Unless I hear contest from Off2riorob I shall restore other interlanguage links of a similar nature on a good faith basis here and in Banon tomorrow evening. It would be a pleasant gesture if Off2riorob were to take on this duty himself. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Tristane Banon case
Now that Tristane Banon is pressing charges in France in relation to an earlier alleged incident to we deal with it here, or do we give it its own article, or what? PatGallacher (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Pat. Just made a remark on Banon in section above. Not quite yet I think (soon though, I don't doubt), but best done in Political my view (but don't let that personal opinion constrain you). I'm happy to defer to you if you would like to have a go (I much prefer to follow other's leads, the more the merrier I say). I did add some content at  Tristane Banon where I am assisting. Banon will be absolutely fascinating! This one will run and run.


 * Wikiwatcher1 will fork it in due course I expect ... bring it on WW1 :-} FightingMac (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has 58 active watchers. I hope I'm not the only one you think has common sense. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to be bold and create the article now. This would mean moving this article to something like DSK New York sexual assault case, to distinguish the 2 cases. PatGallacher (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite clear consensus against here and without even opening a discussion on the Banon Talk page I see you have forked. And you a veteran! FightingMac (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to reconsider. Her allegations have already received RS statements finding them to be questionable. The only 3rd person evidence came from her mother, who came to pick her up and found her sitting in her car looking very upset. Adding another article about a suit against a rich DSK, at this particular time, will only serve to make another attorney wealthy and the media circus suspicious at the timing. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No Pat, really. No more forks, But do add some content if you can see a place for it. Probably not yet. @Wikiwatcher1. You're remarkably well informed it would seem. A big difference here, a very big difference, is that the investigating magistrate will have to investigate DSK's background and whereas no woman of any spirit was ever going to come forward to testify against DSK in America, France in the current circumstances is a very different matter altogether. The only real issue presently is whether Banon's allegations are strong enough for a 'attempted rape' charge, rather than just 'sexual assault' charges which can't be pressed this long after the events. My guess is that the magistrate won't be too keen on being overly punctiluous on that matter, not in the present climate. Off-topic of course but always a pleasure to debate with someone as informed and penetrating as yourself. FightingMac (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * True, France has different attitudes about sexual relations and how others might define "spirited women." Before the U.S, had a formal constitution and before our independence, Napoleon was still 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, to help keep sex workers off the street.


 * And the judges will have no problem finding character witnesses:
 * Italian actress Michelle Conti, who already spoke out to The Telegraph in his defense because he was being treated "worse than an assassin" over the allegations. She said he "attracted me because he behaved like a gentleman in spite of being turned down [by others]... He was very kind and polite, not like a slobbering dog as often happens. He treated us kindly, gave me cuddles ... Dominique doesn't need to rape a woman because if he wants it, he can afford an escort or, as he did in Paris, go to a private club for a little fun. He's just a libertine."
 * 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." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikiwatcher1: thanks for being candid about your pro-DSK predilections, that's a valuable precedent for others to follow (rather than feigning neutrality). We all seek objectivity, and yet we are all human and have preconceptions, values, etc. My own lean the other way: the preponderance of evidence to me suggests that DSK is a man with a problem controlling, containing and channeling his sexual drives (per Piroska Nagy, etc.). Some IMF and Mexican officials will speak off-the-record about Domnique Strauss-Kahn's alleged rape of a Mexican hotel maid. There was mention of it in the anonymously-written DSK book (by 'Cassandre'), repeated in a El Universal article. That's not enough to clear the RS standard for BLP. But my guess is that lawyers can find credible character witnesses who will testify against DSK (and in support of TB). Trestres (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Trestres, thanks for recently becoming a WP editor. You might want to review some guidelines about assuming good faith and to avoid implying non-neutrality, (ie. "feigning neutrality") to help you along the way.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Banon thing is unrelated to this case (apart from the fact of dragging it up again) so please deal with it in the main bio. I do not think a fork would be appropriate at this time. --Errant (chat!) 09:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @ErrantX: I've already commented on several occasions she's not relevant and I have scrupulously kept her name out of the article (but she's mentioned in the French article). As I commented above she might yet become relevant if it is widely reported that her complaint has scuppered any immediate chance of DSK returning to politics.


 * @Wikiwatcher1 that's the third time (1 2) you have introduced Conti after a BLPN consensus was reached that you shouldn't and the second time you have libelled Tristane Banon (she contests Taubmann's version and has filed a complaint of rape against Strauss-Kahn). The diff is noted. FightingMac (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * _If_ the Banon case merits it's own article, then I think a "See Also" would be appropriate in both articles. But other than that it doesn't have any place in this article.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm deleting the 'See also' section. Originally it was directed to Pat Gallacher's fork and I redirected back to Tristane Banon. But is shoudn't be here at all (I was momentarily confused thinking I was on the DSK main page). FightingMac (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article include the name of the accuser?
The article does not include the name of the accuser. This was probably done in order to comply with the American practice of not naming the accuser in a rape. This worries me because wikipedia is supposed to be an international effort and should not subordinate itself to the cultural or judicial ideosynchracies of the Americans or of any particular nation. I think that in the name of thoroughness, the article should be edited in order to clearly include and link the name of the accuser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summarex (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the related sections currently on this talk page and in the archives. This is not about "American practice" but an established policy favouring the privacy of private individuals. --Errant (chat!)15:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Having a name of some hotel cleaner doesn't add anything to the article. John lilburne (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The accuser is no longer a private individual and the policy of not mentioning the name of private individuals does not apply here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summarex (talk • contribs) 16:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The alleged victim is a private individual (actually, so is DSK - nobody is publicly-owned), and Wikipedia policy regarding privacy is more concerned with notability, and with respect for the rights of alleged victims in sexual assault cases. This has been discussed many times, and we are unlikely to change this unless given better reasons than a misunderstanding of policy. This is not a newspaper, the article is about DSK, and we are concerned with the long-term encyclopaedic viewpoint, not short-term news, and still less speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The accuser has no public life or profile. --Errant (chat!) 20:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Some arguments here for Summarex. I mean I think Wikipedia policy is clear but if but if wants some meta-arguments to attack the policy there are some good ones here. FightingMac (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

erroneous text

 * On June 30, a special hearing was called at which prosecutors told the judge that the credibility of Strauss-Kahn's accuser was in serious question. As a result, he was released from house arrest, and it was reported that the case against him was near collapse.[3] The district attorney's office said it would complete its investigation.

This seems to imply that a special hearing was convened to determine the credibility of the case. From reading the referenced NYT article it says, the hearings sole purpose being Strauss-Kahns house arrest and bail conditions being rescinded at such hearing the defense choose to raise credibility issues. emacsuser (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Section for 'housekeeper credibility'?
I created a new section for the housekeeper's credibility using existing information on the page. ErrantX reverted my change, asking why the section was created. I restored my change.

It's my opinion that the housekeeper's credibility is definitely notable enough to merit it's own section. Beyond that, it's only tangentially related to Kahn's "arrest and indictment", so it doesn't really belong as a major piece of that section. The section is necessary.-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't need a separate section, at this time. John lilburne (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, as John says, this is unnecessary. The article is about DSK, and not the housekeeper, so anything "tangential" shouldn't be included. If the case collapses due to questions of her credibility before coming to trial, it is quite likely that this article will be deleted, and the main DSK article section on the case reduced to the bare facts - which may need to say little. We need to bear in mind that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and we don't need to include everything the newspapers do - and still less should we be editorialising on the credibility of involved persons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have mixed views on this issue. The inherent problem with the Arrest and indictment section and the entire article is the Arrest and indictment section, strictly speaking, is really the only section about the case. The rest of the article is about reaction to the case. I agree with Bob that the housekeeper's credibility is not part of DSK's arrest or indictment. Perhaps we ought to rename the section and even consider subsectioning it after renaming it, although subsectioning can be dicey and distracting, particularly if there are too many subsections. For example, an overall heading could be something innocuous like "Legal proceedings". As I recall, it used to say "Pretrial proceedings" or something like that, but I'm not keen on that because it implies there will be a trial and because an arrest is not really a pretrial proceeding (of course, an arrest is not really a "proceeding" either but I can live with that as it is a legal action). Even if we renamed the section, though, and even if we subsectioned it, I would be against having a separate section or subsection for the housekeeper's credibility as being unwarranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a legal contest. No one forced the housekeeper to press legal charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. And having brought legal charges against DSK, no one forced her to veer from the truth in her account of what transpired. That her credibility is now undermined is crucial to the topic of the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A court should decide that hearing the evidence and giving due weight to the testimony, not newspapers, not public opinion, not TV pundits, and not wikipedia. John lilburne (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, Wikiwatcher1 and I have argued these common sense points to no avail so far. You might want to read Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case and Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case to understand the arguments we have presented. The more I read through their responses and shuffling through their history pages I'm beginning to believe that this irrational decision is somehow politically or racially motivated.Chhe (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The U.S. DA's letter has made it totally clear that essentially all of the woman's story was "false," "fabricated," and lies. They only thing they implied was probably correct was her name. The DA's original charges, after DSK's arrest, were the primary source for this article, and subsequent news stories. I don't find it that amusing that none of the above experienced editors saw any problems with the addition of an inflammatory, libelous and insulting comment by a French cab driver quoted in a French tabloid which was added to this article. Nor did any of them mind seeing the equally insulting and illegal (in France) "perp walk" photo, gratuitously added, and which is still posted. In fact, the key sentence of the last paragraph of the lead is ridiculous on it's face, since no one claims that the DA's letter has raised any "questions." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh you go on and on like this Wikiwatcher1, enough already. Your obstinate 'not seeing the point' is just tiresome and ridiculous and your constant resort to provocative vocabulary ultimately worse than the eforts of FASCIST screamers. Give it a rest. Take a walk on Bodega. Breathe in, on the ingoing breath meditate on the impermanence of all things expressed as form, breathe out, on the outgoing breath meditate on the impermanence of all things expressed as void. GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SOHA . Consider doing a retreat (pleeease, on bended knees pretty, pretty, pleease) and don't you go redacting  any dharma teachingsd here (I pay my guru serious money for teachings the way I like them).  FightingMac (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a fine idea, especially on a major U.S. holiday, one I'm beginning to value more every day. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * However, I'd suggest passing your philosophy buck elsewhere: Dharma requires that one tries to create a world of "justice, social harmony and human happiness." Your contributions represent anything but those, sorry to observe. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Religious buck though of course I'm a distinguished metaphysician (I've been single-handedly contemplating the undifferentiated void all my life: no firm conclusions yet but I do have a stong grip to show for it all, in the right hand anyway). It's you who quote the 14th Dalai Lama on your talk page. I thought it might create some sympathetic bonding. You're talking Hindu caste-based ideas of dharma there BTW and the emphasis is very far from creating it but rather to understand it is the natural order of things and your duty to live by it, whether Brahmin or Dalit. The Buddhist dharma I expect you subscribe to is a much more liberating sort thing of course. If championing human rights is to champion the creation of "justice, social harmony and human happiness" then I've done my bit I should like to think. Your fishing my edit history you indulged recently my Talk page not so welcome in that respect. Might get me lowered slowly into a blazing blast furnace or something awful like that. Perhaps that's that what you want anyway. FightingMac (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Respect all views expressed here but tend mostly to those of John and Andy. I see the housekeeper's credibility relevant only insofar it changed the ongoing process. Focussing beyond that would be undue in an ongoing article I think. When it's all over bar the injection (whatever), then we indeed can start to get down to the evidential details Bob would quite rightly like to see in an encyclopaedic article.


 * Regarding Bbb23's point, I repeat that the article is about the 'case', thought of generically as 'affair', and not just about the trial (look at O. J. Simpson murder case for example, at sections  Media coverage onwards). Thus in the case of Tristane Banon's announcement that she plans now to file against DSK (and his lawyers' response that they will countersue) one can say that so long as she is not named as a subject of interest by either party, then she's not relevant to the legal process. But the moment political commentators and others signal, as the DT's Henry Samuel already has (although he's wrong to ascribe, today at any rate, as he does, the same view to the French Socialist party spokesperson's Benoît Hamon), that this second file of a rape complaint puts paid to any chance of an imminent political comeback by DSK, which would seem to be plausibe, then it does become relevant in  Political.


 * Incidentally I'm now happily released from some conflict of interests concerns I mentioned had lately developed for me and can now return to joyously unrestrained editing of this article, to which I've become frankly addicted... so sorry :-{.


 * I just want to clarify my view. I'd be fine with the section being renamed. But, the difficulties that have arisen regarding the prosecution of the case are of immense significance. Whether it's called "housekeeper credibility" or something else, it merits it's own section.


 * And to John's reasons for reverting. This isn't simply "newsy"; It is already an "issue". The problems with her credibility are the reason that Kahn has gone from millions in bail and a 24 hour armed guard watching him, to him being free to travel the country. This is critical to this case. And again, it merits it's own section. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In an historical article certainly. But this an ongoing process and  Wikipdia simply isn't a newspaper. John's revert was good in my view for that reason alone. You have to understand, Bob, that an ongoing article changes everything. FightingMac (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The section heading deleted was "Falsified testimony by accuser," which is more accurate than "Housekeeper credibility," of which there is little left. What is relevant is which of the many falsifications (the DA letter states she "lied" BTW), have undermined the original allegations. This is still an ongoing case and new facts have been uncovered. They are not speculations or "news" items. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did strengthen the DA letter content yesterday 1 to reflect accurately what was actually said but also 2 to include a reference to the last paragraph which referred to untruthful accounts of a number of additional topics. I thought the latter was important to summarize the content of the letter adequately. But I see that bit hs been removed. I'll investigate and probably restore unless the editor was compelling in his explanation for deleting. Of course you won't see the point about 'ongoing' and 'newsiness' so I shan't waste time repeating wearily. As for 'new facts' I suppose you refer to stories about drugs, prostitution, etc. but we don't have RS for that. End of discussion. Even if we did we there might still be issues about including. FightingMac (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * One "new fact" still removed from this article may become the most important of all, her phone call the day after the accusations:
 * When the conversation was translated — a job completed only this Wednesday — investigators were alarmed: “She says words to the effect of, ‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing,’ ” the official said. Source: New York Times, 7/1/11, footnote #32. You cherry-picked a quote by the accuser's attorney, the most biased source imaginable, and ignored the rest of this story. And no one else noticed? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས Wikiwatcher1 {*folds palms of hands together on chest, sticks tongue out*}. Busy, busy, busy and turning, brother. I did tidy up, accuratize and, as it happens, slightly strengthen the DA letter a bit by referring to its final paragraph mentioning additional issues. That last got deleted and in the end I didn't search through the edit history to find the reason for that because we're not talking Bodega beach getting blown away by a hurricane here (looks a really sad and lonely place Bodega BTW, the sort of place one stands and stares at the subtle strip separating sea from air, form and emptiness, and ponder 'why am I here?' as if the world cared, been there and turned back it sucks) and AGF. All I can say is an editor stepped in with a nicer regard for the subtle art of paragraphing English letters than is normally to be found here and for that much thanks and very many sins of omission forgiven. Your remark about the housekeeper's attorney quite incomprehensible and I see you declare an interest in legal matters on your user page. As for THE phone call, it's at least cited and there isn't a source for it yet. Just a story in the NYP not naming its source and other sources naming NYP not naming it source. ErrantX is quite right below, the housekeepers credibility only an issue in the context of the arrest and indictment. When (if) we proceed to trial then of course it can get greater weight (I say that without pre-judging how the article will handle reporting the trial - not in detail I trust, that should wait for the historical article). Finally that wasn't me cherry picking but acting not completely  like totally a complete dick and fuckhead, recommended {*kneels down on bended knees in supplicative posture*) FightingMac (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nature should never be a "sad and lonely place." I'm sorry it is for you. Maybe something less lonely and more social suits your taste. Don't forget to inhale. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ;-) your candid photos I assume. So this is the attraction your long walks on Bodega. Way past both I'm afraid me. Nature, I mean the natural state of things, "is" a sad and lonely place WW1. That is our dilemma and our starting point in seeking liberation. To go on denying it is, in Buddha dharma, to live in a state of dis-ease. Whatever ... you go your way and I shall mine. I do hope you at least tried inhaling. FightingMac (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The content was cut out of chronology, expanded and given a top-level highly non-neutral heading, hmmmm. The woman's credibility is significant only in the context of DSK's arrest and indictment - without that event it is of zero significance or notablilty. A full section for it does not seem worthwhile or a logical way to organise the article. Just to note I did not revert the addition, zero content was deleted - I simply moved the expanded material into the correct part of the chronology and got ride of the heading --Errant (chat!) 09:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ErrantX, ummm.... the woman's credibility is of IMMENSE relevance, importance, and notability in regards to this sexual assault case, which _is_ the topic of this article. This is one of the absolutely most important and most notable aspect of the case.  Does anyone disagree with that?
 * Why is it that people are so opposed to giving one of the absolutely most important and most notable aspect of this case it's own section? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all it's really unfortunate the title of this article refers to 'sexual assault', the first of its POV violations. The most serious charge is 'attempted rape'. I absolutely do disagree that the housekeepr's credibility is the most important and most notable aspect of the case for the reasons set out above. I don't see people 'opposed', just disagreeing. Why so confrontational? FightingMac (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FightingMac, but do you disagree that it is one of the most important and notable aspects of the case? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment it is largely speculative and "leaked" - so while it might be of intense media interest, for the moment it is minimally significant. At any trial, perhaps, it may become of deeper significance but, no, largely it is not worth a whole sub-section of its own. Without the accusation/trial and without DSK's status her credibility would not be of any interest. --Errant (chat!) 20:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As for some of it being leaked, what does that matter so long as it's covered by RS? And it's already of deep significance.  Before the problems with her credibility arose, Kahn's bail was $millions, he had to wear a GPS ankle monitor, and have a 24-hour armed guard watching him.  After the problems with her credibility, he was let go with no bail.  That's a HUGE, isn't it?
 * And you're right, without this case her credibility wouldn't be an important issue. But this article is about that case.  And her credibility has become an extremely important part of this case.  So, I don't understand your point at all.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Her credibility' is only currently an issue on the basis of rumours and statements by anonymous sources, recycled by a tabloid rag. As an editor put it in an edit summary for the main DSK article "BLP - Accusations and slanders do not belong on a biography" - the editor was of course Bob drobbs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Naturally, you're right on target, Bob drobbs. Your conclusions are a no-brainer and totally logical. What is totally illogical, by contrast, is for any editor to claim that a published police head's letter, cited verbatim in one of the world's most respected newspapers, is a "leak." The prosecuting attorneys have stated the accuser "fabricated," "falsified," and "lied" about most of her accusations and about her life, and that was why they released DSK the next morning. And an editor calls the DA's statements "speculations," with the approval of the others. Many of the editors had no problem allowing a French tabloid's quote by a French taxi driver giving his personal opinion about the maid's "tits and ass." To imply that bias is involved with some of the comments would be the understatement of the century.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump. I'm sorry, but you seem to be terribly misinformed.  The problems about her credibility were not raised by some "anyonmous" source in some tabloid, but instead by the prosecutors of the case as reported in the NY Times -- How much more RS can we get than this:
 * "Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former head of the International Monetary Fund, who is accused of sexually assaulting a hotel housekeeper, was released from house arrest on Friday as the case against him moved closer to dismissal after prosecutors told a Manhattan judge that the credibility of his accuser was in serious question. Prosecutors acknowledged that there were troubling revelations and glaring inconsistencies in various accounts given by the housekeeper, who accused Mr. Strauss-Kahn of trying to rape her in May. In a brief hearing at State Supreme Court in Manhattan, prosecutors did not oppose his release; the judge then freed Mr. Strauss-Kahn on his own recognizance." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/nyregion/new-yorkers-and-french-await-latest-dominique-strauss-kahn-legal-turn.html/?_r=1)
 * So, do you have any other objections to this critical part of the story being elevated to it's own section, rather than being mislabeled and buried under "Arrest and indictment"? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. There is no reason to see this as 'critical' - we do not base articles on what editors think may happen in the future. And if you cannot see the difference between reporting that there have been questions raised about the alleged victim's credibility, and creating an entire section to report all the speculation and rumour, I think you may need to step back a bit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing - I simply do not see it as such a critical issue to place a top level header and attempt to dissect her character and weakness on admissions by the prosecution (note a lot of the stronger/specific content is coming from an anon source). Her credibility is in question, he was released from bail conditions. I see no reason that cannot be placed neatly in the normal chronology with due weight (unless you are arguing it has more prominence than the original arrest/incident which has a paragraph :)) --Errant (chat!) 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We are justified in including reliably sourced material and attributing it to its source. That way the reader can place as much or as little credence in it as they feel is warranted. This is a reliable source. The New York Times reports that "prosecutors told a Manhattan judge" that "…the credibility of his accuser was in serious question".


 * The above is in the first paragraph of a New York Times article. The accuser's credibility problems are one of the most important aspects of this case. This case is not about DSK's "womanizing". The darker side to this is that the head of the IMF and the possible future president of France has been brought down by an accuser whose story has unraveled. That is important. We should be according it the importance that reliable sources are according it. Obviously that aspect of this story is deserving of its own section heading. Bus stop (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making your bias absolutely clear, Bus stop. Now how about adding the word 'allegedly' in there? And no, the most 'glaring' aspect of this case seems to me (not that my opinion is of any more relevance than yours) is that "the head of the IMF and [a] possible future president of France" had been charged with serious sexual offences. ''It isn't our job to prejudge the case, and nor is it our job to determine what the issues will be, if this ever comes to court. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump, I'm basing nothing on what may happen in the future -- Due to problems in her credibility, Kahn _has been_ released on his own recognizance when previously he had a $6 million bail and an ankle GPS monitor.
 * Errant, fair point. I'm willing to compromise here.  I don't think that it needs to be it's own top-level header.   A sub-section is fine.  But we shouldn't be trying to hide something so critical to this case without giving it a header at all.  Also, it absolutely does _not_ belong under the "Arrest and indictment", so either "Housekeeper credibility" needs to be moved, or that main section needs to be renamed in a way which covers everything in it.
 * I edited the page. But is there anything better than "Chronology" which covers everything? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—please tell me where you feel I have omitted the word "allegedly". Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Before 'unraveled' - I've seen no evidence that the allegations of assault themselves have been disproven. You are making assertions that we have no business making. Incidentally, do you not think that sexual assault and attempted rape would also be a 'dark side' were this be shown to have occurred? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—we go by what reliable sources say, and we attribute any assertions to such sources. (I did not suggest veering away from what reliable sources say, to use my own language in the article, such as to say that the case has "unraveled".) I gave an example of how that method of relaying important information to the reader might be used in our very own article. This is my quote from my post above:


 * The New York Times reports that "prosecutors told a Manhattan judge" that "…the credibility of his accuser was in serious question".


 * You say that "sexual assault and attempted rape would also be a 'dark side' were this be shown to have occurred". That is correct. You are alluding to the contrast between the earlier state of affairs in this case and the state of affairs as of June 1. That shows the great importance attached to the indications of the recent weakening in the credibility of Dominique Strauss-Kahn's accuser, the housekeeper at the Sofitel Hotel in New York. That is why this should be brought to the forefront in our article. Instead of being under house arrest, DSK has been released on his own recognizance. According to the same New York Times article, "prosecutors did not oppose his release". That is not an insignificant point and it is reliably sourced. I think that point might be worthy of inclusion in our article at this time. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. You are prejudging the outcome. If you can't tell the difference between a "serious question" and assuming you know the answer, I suggest you stay away from controversial articles. and no, I wasn't 'alluding' to anything other than the fact that sexual assault and attempted rape (should they have occurred) are already 'dark side' enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump—how am I "prejudging the outcome"? Can you please just explain that, because I fail to see that. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "...the head of the IMF and the possible future president of France has been brought down by an accuser whose story has unraveled". The accusations haven't 'unraveled'. DSK is still facing charges, and should he be found guilty, he will presumably have 'brought himself down' - not that his behaviour, even if he is entirely innocent, exactly leaves him smelling of roses if the claims of his defence lawyers are to believed. (And incidentally, though rather off-topic, "possible future president of France" seems to be prejudging things somewhat too). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also please try to tone it down. This type of edit summary is not necessary. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are saying I am "prejudging the outcome" by what I say on this Talk page? Is that the point you are making? Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what I said in the first place. And in case you haven't noticed, WP:BLP applies to talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There's an added dimension to all this. It's the fact that it was the prosecution team that discovered new evidence, first disclosed it, and described it in a nationally published letter. They immediately agreed to hold a special hearing for the following morning. This is the reverse of normal case histories, where the defense team uncovers evidence that protects their clients. Note how the New York Times describes it:
 * Prosecutors from the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., who initially were emphatic about the strength of the case and the account of the victim, plan to tell the judge on Friday that they "have problems with the case" based on what their investigators have discovered, and will disclose more of their findings to the defense.
 * It's an example of how American justice sometimes works. It's notable, and in this major international case, probably historical. And to save others time, I'm aware this just an opinion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's merely a routine example of how American justice works. As one supposedly interested in legal matters you would know it's just a totally ordinary application of the discovery process in the adverserial system, without which it would be as chaotic as a Wikipedia Talk page.FightingMac (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The general idea expressed by Wikiwatcher1 would seem to be correct, that it is the prosecutors bringing forward such information: "In a letter sent to Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers and filed with Justice Michael J. Obus on Friday, prosecutors outlined some of what they had discovered about Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s accuser, poking holes in her account and in her background." Bus stop (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

'Chronology' section
Bob drobbs's chronology section goes far beyond anything discussed and agreed in the 'Housekeeper credibility' section.

I accept it's WP:BOLD and I'm reverting to start WP:BRD. Please don't restore withoute achieving consensus here.

My 2 cents are 1 undue weight housekeeper credibility 2 dumbing down the article - past 6th grade you are supposed to understand how paragraphs work. FightingMac (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You reverted back quite a long way :S --Errant (chat!) 13:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but if you've got editors sleeping on the job what can you expect? If there's stuff I reverted beyond section title then restore by all means (I don't think there is - I did check). All that I meant to revert are the subsection headers and the title 'Chronology'. I think they're quite unnecessary and a major layout change that was never discussed, let alone consensus reached.
 * I also absolutely disagree that we need a section header for 'Housekeeper credibility'. Originally it was 'Housekeeper's credibility and Kahn's release' which adds insult to injury by making the POV bias blantantly clear as well (while "Khan" is tellingly indicative of the general grade 6 mentality of the subsectioning here). There was no consensus reached on starting a section on 'Housekeeper credibility' Far from it. FightingMac (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since here, Errant, I saw you musing in the edit history about the wisdom of including a primary source (DA disclosure letter). I cited that along with one of a million secondary I could have selected from. Objection to primary is OR no? Didn't seem to apply here. I can add that even after citing it, none of the editors adding content about it appear to have bothered to read it to see what it actually said, I had to subsequently significantly accuratize the content which was like really boring deja vuly. FightingMac (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean this edit; well seeing as the content was "The New York Times reported that..." but then didn't link the article where they said it :) I added the article. But in the process realised there was no need for "NYT said". Anyway; in this case primary sourcing the content is not a good idea (I realise there is a later secondary source) because it was interpretive (per WP:PRIMARY). BTW that was just content I rewrote last night that got reverted too (I added it back because I feel it is better worded, but happy to be included in the RV if need be). Concur with you over headings. --Errant (chat!) 14:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, accepted,and I see BLP Misuse of primary sources is even more explicit. I'll delete the cite. I'm sure I put in the NYT source or similar. Must have got mangled in a churn. FightingMac (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I assumed that was what happened :) --Errant (chat!) 15:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Three points here. And FightingMac, since you reverted not only my change but other's changes too, I'll ask you to please address them individually:
 * 1) The housekeeper's credibility is, at best, tangentially related to Strauss-Kahn's "arrest and indictment". Thus it is currently in a section where it does not belong.  That needs to be fixed.  I'm on the verge of changing the section title to "miscellaneous stuff", because that's what it is.
 * 2) You call the sub-section on the housekeeper's credibility undue. And Errant successfully convinced me that it didn't deserve a top-level section.  But, as it was when you reverted it, it was only 1 of 5 sub-section headers in that section.  You think that 20% of one section is undue weight to this critical piece of the story?   What would you consider fair weight?  1% of one section for her credbility? 3%?  5%?  10%?
 * 3) And what you call "dumbing down", I call making the site useful. There is nothing dumb about putting in sub-section headers.  Wikipedia is not a collection of essays.  It's an encyclopedia.  By breaking this, and other articles, into logical pieces it makes it easier for readers to find what they're looking for.  And our goal here should be to help readers get access to the information that they're looking for.  Do you disagree with that?   Is it your intent to actually force readers to read through more of a page? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Bob. Happy to be fisked on just this one occasion but for future reference please understand that people like me do expect the courtesy of being allowed to judge for themselves what they wish to respond to in dialogue.
 * 1 Where's the consensus Bob? This the result of the debate in Section for housekeeper credibility.


 * Bob Drobbs	For	1
 * John lilburne	Against	0
 * AndyTheGrump	Against	0
 * Bbb23	       Mixed   0.5
 * Bus stop	       For	1
 * Wikiwatcher1	For	1
 * Errant	       Against	0


 * It's a score-draw. No consensus was reached. So go easy on whatever you're on the verge of doing. Think where you are on that.


 * 2 Straw man fallacy with a soupçon of   petitio princippii  thrown in.  Neither you nor Errant ever debated subsections. The word 'subsection' appears only in Bbb23's comments and he explicitly says there he's against any section or subsection titled "Housekeeper credibility". His views in general are mixed but on that issue he is against, which brings consensus on a section for housekeeper credibility 4-3 against you. Again think where you are on that and why not study the logical fallacies I wikilinked for you as well?


 * 3 I grant on '2' that you might be challenged by continuous prose and in need of 'logical pieces' to help you out. But on my Talk page you said you were 'guessing there' and so you are. Come back (but not too soon) when you're informed. Meanwhile I'm fine with continuous prose and with the way the 'Arrest and indictment' section is now with one 'Subsequent release' subsection, as i assume others are because I don't see dissent here other than from you. Incidentally (this would be '2' again) the debate wasn't about sectioning but a section for 'housekeeper credibility'. And you lost it.


 * Hope this helps. Forget about fisking me again because that's a diss in my circles. I assume (hope) you're young. I'm not and on that score alone you should show more respect young Bob FightingMac (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fucking hell, I completely forgot me! Can you bleeding believe it!? Against. So that would be 5-3 against now. Just thought I'd mention. FightingMac (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not radically opposed to the new sub-section, but I still don't think it is needed. If more content relating to release emerges in the next day or so, maybe. But I do want us to try and stick to factual reporting (not directing this at anyone, just examples): Partly as a result of this new "revelation in a continuing series" of fabrications made by the accuser, Strauss-Kahn was released from house arrest without bail on July 1st, and required to remain in the U.S. is extremely poor and POV content. This casts the events in the light of the new revelations without actually imparting much factual detail. It's an example of subtle and careful (and probably unconcious) POV leaking into the material. Stick to relating factual occurences and follow them with interpretation or commentary if it is definitely broadly held and notable. Savvy? :) --Errant (chat!) 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

[Outdent to @ErrantX last] Not guilty. Did notice it and, right, wasn't happy the least bit with it. All your edits this afternoon fine and appreciated by me. With the possible exception of whatever happened to my lawsuit which I shall be looking into bye and bye. FightingMac (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added that back in as it was, umm, cut in the anti-censorship edit someone else made earlier. I won't go on about the irony :) --Errant (chat!) 20:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FightingMac,
 * First of all, my age it totally irrelevant. You should absolutely not be guessing at my age, and trying to disparage me based on that.   No matter what your age, that behavior is totally inappropriate.
 * As for the topic of consensus of a top-level section for the "housekeeper's credibility" that's irrelevant as that change wasn't made and no one seems to be proposing it now. However, what I asked you about was if  "housekeeper's credibility" logically made sense in a section titled "arrest and indictment".  I didn't hear anyone make that claim, including you.   So, I again put this question forward to you and everyone else -- does information about problems with the "housekeeper's credibility" logically belong in a section titled "arrest and indictment"? If not, then it does need to be moved elsewhere _or_ the section needs to be retitled.
 * Then, this question is primarily directed toward you, since one of your two reasons for reverting my change was that it gave undue weight to questions about the housekeeper's credibility. If you think that 1 sub-section of 5 (20%) is too much weight to this one topic.  How much weight do _you_ think is appropriate?  10% of one section?  5% of one section?  2% of one section?
 * Please give me an answer to help me and everyone else understand what you think the due weight is for that topic - from there maybe we can reach consensus. It's damn tough to reach consensus when you're reverting changes based on claims that you think things are given too much weight, but then won't explain how much weight you think they're due.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Bob. Thank you your remarks. First of all you've been around long enough to know Wikipedia is about consensus and you just don't have it. That should be the end of the story here. That was my 2 cents about weight. I don't need to defend it given you don't have consensus. I remarked on my talk page in the nicest possible way (I was being kind to you, remember, about your ridiculous section title churn naming Mr. Strauss-Kahn as "Kahn"; at least you had the grace to apologise) that wading in, as you've been doing, without seeking any real consensus is a pretty dickish thing to do. You were at it again this morning with your POV on "Released on own recognizance", yet another of your section title churns, which is just plain wrong (it's RoR regardedless whether a bond is set or not, evryone knows that). Do you generally edit Wikipedia like this? All I have time for here, Bob. I hope you will grant that I (we) have been attentive to your concerns. FightingMac (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Chronic verbosity problems
I can't assume that verbosity can be used intentionally to bury or hide the essence of facts, but verbosity has been on ongoing and serious problem with this article. Some previous examples of what was referred to as "filler" can be reviewed here. I also referred to this problem as a flood of minutia in other sections. And the problem continues to be added and kept throughout the article. Here are some examples of text and how most can be striked out as unnecessary:


 * On June 30, 2011, the district attorney sent a letter of disclosure to Strauss-Kahn's defence team detail[ed] ing problems [falsifications] about housekeeper's version of events and her past [which would] It was reported that prosecutors were concerned that the revelations could affect her credibility in front of a jury. [3][28] According to [a] letter from the DA, the housekeeper admitted she had lied lying to a grand jury [about] regarding her actions after the alleged assault, [including] Contrary to her testimony, [having] she had cleaned [two rooms] a nearby room following her encounter with Strauss-Kahn and had then returned to Strauss-Kahn's room and cleaned that as well before reporting the incident.[29] She also admitted fabricating a statement in support of her asylum application.


 * On May 17, Paris Match published the name of the housekeeper.[75] Other French newspapers quickly followed suit in naming her, eventually adding photos and details of her private life.[76][77] On June 14, The New York Times followed the lead begun by other anglophone media in running an "unusually extensive" story on the housekeeper's background, while continuing to withhold her name.[78] In the United States, the media does not normally identify by name persons making an accusation of rape, although nothing legally prohibits them from doing so.[79] (mostly irrelevant)


 * On May 14, 2011, Strauss-Kahn was arrested and charged with the sexual assault and attempted rape of a housekeeper at the Sofitel New York Hotel in Manhattan earlier that day. After calling the hotel and asking them to bring his missing cell phone to the airport, he was met by police and taken from his Paris-bound flight at New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport minutes before takeoff and was later charged on several counts of sexual assault plus unlawful imprisonment. Strauss-Kahn was accused of four felony charges - two of criminal sexual acts (forcing the housekeeper to perform oral sex on him), one of attempted rape and one of sexual abuse - plus three misdemeanour offences, including unlawful imprisonment.[5][6] The U.S. State Department determined that Strauss-Kahn does not have diplomatic immunity.[7] Strauss-Kahn appeared in court on May 16. During the proceedings the prosecution stated that the housekeeper, who is an immigrant from the West African state of Guinea,[8] had provided a detailed account of the alleged assault, had picked Strauss-Kahn out of a lineup, and that DNA evidence recovered at the site was being tested.[9]

On this last bulleted section, note also that while the details of the maid's accusations are described in minute detail, a number of editors have made numerous attempts to exclude statements by RSs and the DA of facts which have undermined the accuser's credibility. In it's place (until fixed) a carefully selected quote by the accuser's attorney was inserted offering his personal opinion, without being struck as a conflict of interest statement and naturally biased by definition as her paid attorney. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On June 30, 2011, the district attorney detailed falsifications about housekeeper's version of events and her past which would affect her credibility; so this is an example of what you propose. I disagree that is better, informative or indeed accurate. The art of writing with clarity is not simply in using few words. --Errant (chat!) 20:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Try using a simple rephrasing: the district attorney detailed falsifications made by the housekeeper about her version of events . . . The art of writing with clarity, as you say, is not that hard, but only when the effort is made. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Detailed where? how? to whom? Your proposed phrasing imparts no knowledge :) The basic ground rule of writing "knowledge content" for others is to recall that the reader does not have even a tenth of the context you are likely to have. -Errant (chat!) 21:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also; your proposed text changes have a tendency to switch tense (actually, the current content is in past tense, you are replacing it with present - e.g. she had lied lying). --Errant (chat!) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * She admitted lying per the text. BTW, is this pointless series of petty complaints, all of which are minor edit issues if actually added, some sort of sport? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the phrasing is wrong. "Lying" is the present participle of "to lie" - it's one of the painful ones consistently gotten wrong in English :) If she was currently continuing to lie to a jury then it can be used. But the lie being described is in the past. Hence "She has lied" rather than "She was lying". I don't see these as nitpicks either; many of the proposed phrase shortenings are due to you replaced past with present tense. On top of that I think we should aim for high quality writing! Now, I agree that some of the content (for example "a nearby room following her encounter with Strauss-Kahn and had then returned to Strauss-Kahn's room and cleaned that as well") could be better phrased to be clearer and shorter. But your mostly just removing material to no value leaving a lot of vagueness and some innacuracy. I'm trying to provide constructive feedback; I don't claim to be good at many things, but I am a good writer. --Errant (chat!) 22:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! "She admitted she lied." Satisfied? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * True. Until they read the next sentence, that is: According to a letter from the DA, the housekeeper admitted lying to a grand jury about her actions after the alleged assault . . . --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Except we are still missing who it was sent to, and why. And it also makes a fairly strong statement about the housekeepers credibility which I think we need to be attributing. I simply do not see how it is an improvement or adds more to the current option. There are lots of other style issues too which make the content seem "crammed" rather than clearer or terse. Just my view of course :) --Errant (chat!) 22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course! But your grammar class is relating to a talk page set of examples only meant to show how simple strike-outs reduce verbosity and shift the fine minutia to the citations. The very minor points you keep bringing up, all easily fixed, are a digression from the topic of "verbosity,"  and if anything are more examples of verbosity. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, ok I understand where you are coming from. But I strongly disagree that removing detail is a good thing. (indeed is that not the point you were making earlier when you restored the content?). --Errant (chat!) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So now we've come full circle. In the earlier massive debate, "Section for 'housekeeper credibility'?" there was, and still is probably, an effort to eliminate details about what facts undermined the accuser's credibility. Now you complain, after my comments about verbosity, that you want more details about the "where," "how" and "to whom" questions. And you just stated that "we are still missing who it was sent to, and why. And it also makes a fairly strong statement about the housekeepers credibility which I think we need to be attributing." Hence, the exact opposite complaint. Which is it? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've lost you sorry; my only point is that your proposal removes content. I suggest retaining it. I'm not sure where you get the impression I was eliminating details about the accuser (except the libellous trash someone was trying to sneak in) but I don't recall having done so. --Errant (chat!) 08:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll trim off some of the added and clearly unnecessary fat, some mentioned above. Some was added which dilutes the key facts; other factoids were inserted out of context. Comment to explain any problems with trying to simplify. The point is that readers can find minute details in the sources given and the summation of the important issues shouldn't become buried. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done for a while. I hope it's more readable.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the sources with care when rewriting material; the official made no claim to have translated the call himself. I'm not a fan of "pointing out" either, or the use of the quote from the NYT but all in all no real issues here --Errant (chat!) 19:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to do minor edits - the putdowns are implied. All of the trivia and minutia has again been trimmed as explained above. Flooding basic facts with trivial details does indeed injure the article, as stated above, as it dilutes the key facts with a flood of petty facts. P.S. Thanks for the barnstar, but this article still requires constant management. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To anyone, on a related issue, I actually see no reason to include all the details about the "translation" of the letter. It's essentially a minor and hardly noteworthy issue. Unless it's established in the body that the fact that it had to be translated effected something significant, why bother covering it? Just because a reporter mentions that it was translated, printed on 24# cotton laid paper with a watermark, with a cream tint, inserted in a #10 windowless envelope and stamped, doesn't mean we need to bury the key fact by stating all this. The same goes with the maid's phone call 28 hours after she made the accusations. This was expanded to a perfect example of verbosity in the extreme, and was again fixed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean r.e. translating the letter - that seems to be written in English :S. However you fabricated information in relation to the phone call - the official did not translate the call and the NYT is not ambiguous on this point. You restored it, though, after I pointed it out already - please do take care reading sources. I do think the fact the call is translated is important information because it makes the paraphrasing by the official more understandable. --Errant (chat!) 00:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fabricated? When an editor takes a totally minor detail and casts a long shadow on it, it's a sure sign the sun is setting on this article's neutrality. You're barnstar was obviously posted in jest, thanks anyway. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional trimming of serious POV violations
One editor continues to insert newsy quotes by the accuser's well-paid attorney in defense of his client. This is irrelevant for this section and a violation of adding conflict of interest non-neutral statements which add nothing to a general article about the case. It also turns an article into a courtroom. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that editors here are being paid by the prosecution? I think you're confusing POV with COI. And incidentally, comments about how well-paid an attorney is are hardly neutral. Can I suggest you stick to giving diffs and reasoning directly relevant to the article - this is less adversarial too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. An attorney's statement about how they intend to protect their client, is COI on his part but simply POV material here. In case you're interested, one editor deleted an entire paragraph quotation from DSK's published biography because they claimed the author was paid! The same editor fought to delete a complimentary quote about DSK because the person's opinion was not worthy, in their opinion, and fought equally hard to keep a quote by a French taxi driver because they thought it was valuable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And instead you've replaced it with a lazy and cruddy summary from the NYT, which at worst is an attempt to sneak the "gang rape" think into the article (despite it being resisted multiple times). --Errant (chat!) 00:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain why the NY Times and DA letter should be censored, in your opinion? Everything in that letter and the news facts warrants recognition, at least in a summary detail, as the news quote does well.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Example of sentence that seemed verbose, IMO, to a shortened phrasing with key facts, and the details in the cite:
 * According to a law enforcement official quoted by The New York Times, a translation of a phone call, made by the housekeeper twenty-eight hours after the alleged assault to her boyfriend in an immigration detention center, was completed the day before the letter was sent.
 * Excess detail trimmed:
 * The New York Times subsequently reported a phone call the housekeeper made the day following the alleged incident.
 * This is obviously one editor's suggestion and example, so any comments about the concept of avoiding verbosity and this single example would be welcome, if anyone has any.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)