Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn/Archive 8

Unnamed maid and maid picketing
FightingMac, your insistence on keeping a bloated paragraph about the reasons for not naming the maid is unclear. This is nearly 90 words essentially saying what can be summed up in a few. And it has 5 citations, some in French. What is the relevance of this fact to the article, and why does it need such expanded explanation, much of it redundant?


 * I'd also like to know why we need an entire paragraph with three cites about a simple maid's picket in front of a hotel? You realize they were bussed in, don't you? Why do you feel such detail is relevant? Thank you. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The first is 2 (respond to ErrantX's request at media disclosure practices why you removed well-established content because it was "off-topic trivia") and is really Errant's query. Your original response above was that you didn't know what the issue is (and by implication didn't feel the need to find out, though I help you with a link to the section involved)  Errant's point was simply that it was established content built with some care by several editors that you removed without reaching consensus on the Talk page.


 * Regarding the maids' picket that wasn't my content. I do plan to contribute an article about their union some time. I understand from off2riorob that they were bussed in was one of the points he sought to make when he added the content. Take it up with him. I see no reason to interfere with his content.


 * Regarding 2 am to understand that your position is that it is your opinion that the paragraph is bloated, not relevant and redundant? The diff is noted. That was your opinion and, satisfied that your opinion was right, you then deleted the long-standing content without bothering to enquire or reach a consensus on the Talk page because you knew you were right?


 * @User: Bob drobbs I should like to see your comments. FightingMac (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're wrong FM. Last Wednesday I posted a detailed explanation of why a number of sections could be shortened or deleted due to chronic verbosity problems. That bloated paragraph you're making such a big deal over was included as being "irrelevant."  The discussion about the topic, which included Errant, went on for about a day. I then stated, "OK. I'll trim off some of the . . . . ", which included the paragraph. Subsequently, Errant commented about the edits and said he saw no problems with the edits made, besides that minor one about who translated the call.


 * As for any consensus about that paragraph, I'm not aware of any that dealt with that topic as you imply. When it was brought up originally, probably by me, it would have been an example of the "filler" and "trivia" that I've been trying to keep out of the article, as you well know. I've worked to keep filler out of the article, along with trivia. In any case, you have not given any reason why this helps the article in any way to warrant more than a brief statement. If Errant has any questions to ask, he will need to ask them himself. It's rude in the extreme for you to be insisting that I answer someone else's question, and then asking another editor to support you. Especially when they've been answered and edited many days ago. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikiwatcher1. Can I ask you to explain why you made this edit at Albert Einstein?


 * Your edit description was "abbreviate caption". What you did was to take an extremely famous cartoon of Einstein, which appears in numerous places on the internet, invariably with the standard caption "Cartoon of Einstein, who has shed his "Pacifism" wings, standing next to a pillar labeled "World Peace." He is rolling up his sleeves and holding a sword labeled "Preparedness" (circa 1933).", and abbreviated the caption to ""Einstein takes up the sword, "Cartoon of Einstein who has shed his "pacifism" wings (circa 1933)."


 * Why did you do that?


 * It happens that a friend of mine (at my request) reverted this recent edit of yours (18 May) a couple of days ago. Whereas normally you instantly revert, or otherwise edit back, edits of your content, on this occasion you haven't.


 * Why is that?


 * I've also commented in the past about how the standard of your copy varies. At times, and always in the Talk page here when you are defending your own edits or criticising others, the quality is literate and grammatical and the style educated, if (in my judgement) somewhat agressive. However, when you come to make your edits, as ErrantX has pointed out, there are often very basic errors of grammar and style. For myself I would characterise the copy then as often far from educated and indeed I made this remark at your recent ANI you posted about me.


 * I would like to see your remarks about both these issues before Monday evening to satisfy me. FightingMac (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * FightingMac, "to satisfy you". You've made it very clear that you don't like people _demanding_ you answer particular questions.  So, I'll ask you again to please treat other editors with the same respect which you would like to be treated. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Bob drobbs. Hi Bob. Fair response. I commented on my Talk page to the effect that I don't dispute your good faith (nor ever did). I do recognise that you do eventually move to reach and respect consensus. The issue would be that you jump in before that consensus has been reached.FightingMac (talk)


 * @Wikiwatcher1. You don't seem to care about my concerns. In the circumstances I can't continue to build this article with you. (this is not a personal attack, please don't redact a comment necessary for my argument) and I frankly have to admit,.


 * However your posts here over the last few days persuade me that you are far from stupid and far from illiterate. This is not the right forum to raise those concerns and I'll take them to another place. But I can't assume good faith when common sense instructs me not to. So I'm out of here. I'll keep an eye on the article for POV but that's as much as I expect to further contribute. FightingMac (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No hard feelings FM, but I've even created a macro PA key which is automatically initiated when I read your posts. However, I did keep this needle you wrote, which was found in the PA haystack: Off-topic of course but always a pleasure to debate with someone as informed and penetrating as yourself. I may have it bronzed - unless you tell me that you were not in a right state of mind, of course. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WW1; which part of "do not refactor other peoples comments" was not fucking understandable? Once again; if you have an issue with a comment please take it up at WP:WQA --Errant (chat!) 18:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't assume your "refactor" link was related to any edits I made. Try using words instead of links to explain things. Even FM didn't know what you were talking about. I still don't, BTW. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, OK sorry... I mean; please stop deleting parts of other peoples comments. It is explicitly against the rules. If you had read the linked page's comments on "re-factoring" that would be clear. If someone links to a policy page it is likely of import and, so, worth a read. If you have a problem with a comment take it to WP:WQA (that is a noticeboard to deal with such things) --Errant (chat!) 19:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why complain elsewhere when I've gone to the source, and even they didn't object. In fact user:Bbb23 took the matter to some admin board for advice about this and no one thought trimming PAs were a problem. The strange part is that with the multitude of PAs posted, the only objections have come from editors objecting to their deletions, including your efforts. No one else seems to mind, and even you haven't bothered to simply let the poster know about ethics and civility. You're complaining about complainers only, which to me, at least, is antilogical, antiproductive, and simply invites more of the problem. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * From WP:RPA it's very clear that there is no policy either way when it comes to the removing personal attacks. It's neither recommended nor discouraged.  The only thing that it says it to be sure that what you are removing is indeed a personal attack.
 * ErrantX, are you telling us that what Wikiwatcher deleted was not an attack against him? If so, you could have a point.  Otherwise, Wikiwatcher has a total right to replace the text with a rpa tag.
 * And, whatever FihtingMac's guru says, on wikipedia he needs to follow wikipedia's rules, and focus his comments on the content not on the contributors -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Perp walk photo
As stated earlier, an editor "begged" for and found an image of the DSK perp walk and included it as 1 of only 3 images. Is it valuable or detrimental to the article? The Media coverage section has numerous citations and quotes indicating that the "perp walk" image is contentious, as well as illegal in France. It has possibly fostered negative feelings towards the U.S. legal system by many of the French.

The section, which includes the photo, has nothing positive to say about it but plenty of negative statements. The image was apparently not placed, or sourced, from a U.S. publication and was not added by a U.S. editor. In addition, the editor indicated that posting the image was for personal satisfaction, and apparently intended to insult the French. And as mentioned, the image was requested by a notice from the editor and was "begged" for. Does it belong here? If so, why? Is there consensus to remove it?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikiwatcher1, please stop being so ridiculous. The photo was sourced from Perp walk and that article is maintained by Daniel Case whom I expect you can contact about it. As far as I know he's American (though what the relevance of that might be evades me). If you had bothered to check its source in WikiCommons you would have found it was nominated for deletion here. The universal consensus was to keep. I contributed myself. No doubt you would dismiss my contribution as verbose and trivial. Notice that it was administrator  Fastily who arbitrated, the same who declined  your ANI about me  you keep referring to as some kind of major triumph for yourself.


 * Whoopee for noticing the French are not very keen on the American judicial system. Probably explains why they don't have an extradition treaty with America as I dare say you fathomed from your experience at Roman Polanski and no I've never edited that as a sock, as you came on to my Talk page the other week and demanded to know for reasons unfathomable, indeed slightly creepy, to me.


 * As you know I asked for your comments on a couple of issues and you have in fact effectively responded to both now. If you have any revisions to make, please make sure that they are recorded here before Monday evening to satisfy me.  FightingMac (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say the referred-to photo should be removed from this article. Are there any editors who have any reason why it should stay? Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Only as a visual reminder of the mediaevalism of American culture. Otherwise it should go, so long as the discussion and perp walk link remain. John lilburne (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well indeed, but that implicitly is its function as an example of the kind of image that outraged French opinion. The caption could be revised to indicate not only French opinion. Why no link to Perp walk? FightingMac (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about French opinion to the extent that it requires an image to illustrate what upsets the French. By all means put it in the perp walk article as an example. It just doesn't belong here. John lilburne (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

circumstances regarding missing cell phone
Is there any verifiable citation as to his phoning the hotel regarding the cell phone? Else the only pretext for inserting this is to imply that Strauss-Kahn is innocent, else why would he be phoning the hotel. Something relevant to be inserted here would be his exact schedule and itinerary while in New York. Something else easily verified is the Hotel Phone Records.


 * "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" ..

emacsuser (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Details are included in many of the sources given describing events before his arrest.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In the article pretty well from the beginning and never challenged and it does seem notable to me, explaining why the police found him on the plane. Detaled time-lines have been published but I don't myself feel they are relevant to the article and move towards the article trying to help the reader make up their mind, which is something it basically shouldn't be doing. I don't see any problem with citing a newspaper giving a schedule, say at the content about the cell-phone, but not in the content itself. FightingMac (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Naming the accuser?
The English Wikipedia article does not give her name. The French article does. I suspect that it is because in the US, journalist generally refrain from naming them while it is not the case in France. However, it seems that now she is going public. What to do? What's the honest, respectful, and informative way to go? I don't know. What do you think? Tony (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if you think that having the link in the discussion page is inappropriate, please remove it but summarize the content of the article here. Tony (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't rely on other sources to determine content, but to provide it, and on that basis, neither what the French-language Wikipedia, nor US media sources do is directly relevant. As you note however, the alleged victim has now chosen to go public, which may be grounds for revising the decision arrived at earlier, though given the extensive debate I think it would be unwise to revise the article without waiting for a response from a significant number of contributors. We need to bear in mind that WP:BLP policy has a presumption in favor of privacy for non-notable individuals, and states the following:


 * ''Avoid victimization


 * ''When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.


 * A decision to name the alleged victim (if we decide to do so), should in particular not be taken as a green light to introduce dubiously-sourced material that may be tainted by partisan spin, as has previously been attempted by some contributors. I suggest that anyone new to this debate should first read the archived discussions, to avoid unnecessary repetition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you point to the original discussion? I couldn't find it (I am not used to this auto-archival bot). Tony (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I hesitate to see WP used as a possible PR tool. Her attorney recently granted an interview with her and a Newsweek reporter in his law office. The questions for the interview were required to be submitted by Newsweek before the interview.  It's possible that her attorney wants her name, and her story, to become public. But it would seem that someone's attorney wanting a client to become a public figure should not automatically make them a WP "notable" person, with their 15 minutes of fame, and certainly not for an encyclopedia. Caution is warranted, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Previously there was consensus not to name her so as to not invade her privacy. Fair enough. (Though I wish we'd show similar respect to the accused.) However, now that has gone public and been interviewed on ABC news we are no longer protecting her privacy. She has chosen to make her name extremely public, and so there is absolutely no need for us to hide it. At this point, it's time to simply use her name in the article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral about her name - don't care either way, and don't see it making any difference to the article. However, as an alleged crime victim only, I wonder if her, and obviously her attorney's, desires to "make her name extremely public" should dictate what is put in WP. If they likewise decide to pose her in front of the always-available media circus photographers, should WP jump on the bandwagon and upload a photo if found? This photo issue is speculative, of course, but from the Newsweek interview, which described her looks and personality in detail, it's worth considering along with the name issue. Giving publicity to her name, interviews, and potentially photos, speculatively turns her into a mini-celebrity, ready to join the talk-show circuit and tabloids. Personally, I'd vote to not include her name until it becomes notable of its own right. Just because her attorney is apparently willing, if not wanting, to make his formerly "unknown" client into a  public figure, should WP? I don't think it meets a baseline standard for notability. Unjustified publicity of any sort can undermine the neutrality of the case, much like the perp walk did, and we've already had maid's unions demonstrating in public to protect her. Maintaining the privacy of any alleged crime victim should be key, regardless of that "alleged" crime victim's desire to become a public figure.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that Nafissatou Diallo has given a interview BBC News report and Newsweek interview; suppression of her name seems pointless and just an attempt at censorship. It also smacks of differing standards for the US vs other countries. VER Tott  03:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If she has given a direct media interview and the BBC are now naming her, yes, my objection to naming her are removed. --Errant (chat!) 06:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree with ErrantX. Plainly she can be named now. FightingMac (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally (a very rare and unlikely to be repeated consensus :-)) I do rather agree with Wikiwatcher1's take on this, at any rate it's certainly a sensible position and very defensible position it seems to me. In general I don't think there are NPOV issues involved in naming her or not but I'm not sure at all the article necessarily needs to allude to her TV article. It is I believe a unique situation here and I wouldn't presume to judge the issues. I'm not planning to make any edits here myself. FightingMac (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on the including her name
I have strongly opposed inclusion of Diallo's name until consensus was reached that the benefits of using the name outweighed any privacy concerns. I feel we have now reached that point. I see evidence that the consensus view now includes using her name as appropriate. Rather than edit warring over whether to include the name or not - please discuss the issue here and see if a consensus really does exist. Ronnotel (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * include her name. 1) BLP says to hide a name if the name has not been widely disseminated.  That's clearly no longer the case here.  2) BLP says to consider hiding the name if the person isn't directly involved.  That's clearly not the case here.  We should give Ms. Diallo no special protections above and beyond BLP, we should simply follow standard wikipedia policy, and include her name since her name has been widely disseminated in press and she is centrally involved in the case.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Include her name. Per comments here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no compelling reason why her name should not be included. Adding it to this article will not violate BLP. Majoreditor (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be normal procedure to refer to her by name as at this point her relatively high-profile interviews have made her name well-known. Bus stop (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No reason to keep her name out of it anymore Add it. VER  Tott  02:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2nd paragraph of WP:BLP1E applies to her because the event is now publicly well-documented, ongoing and long-term. She is also so significant in this event instead of a random witness. I wouldn't be surprised if someone starts a separated article of her. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP1E does not apply. This is an event article and not a biographical article. patsw (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Include Once you publicly "out" yourself on national television in an interview, you are no longer under our BLPNAME policy. That only applies to unduly referring to the names of people when they are a private figure. She is willingly no longer private. Silver  seren C 06:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * comment 1) two months is not 'long-term'. 2) giving a press interview in the face of intensive media pressure does not make you a public person. John lilburne (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How long do you think is long enough? She is definitely not famous for 15 minutes. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Long-term means longer than the length of time over which the one event is ongoing. A case may drag out in the courts for several months with distinct bouts of intense media interest, so long as they are talking about the event then one simply has a stretching of time. Which could be compacted into 15 minutes. There is no indication that there will be any significant long term interest in her past the conclusion of the legal process. John lilburne (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The long term significance of this event as a Wikipedia article is locked-in at this point regardless of the eventual outcome.  I don't think the question of her motives to be identified and interviewed are relevant to the decision to name here.  The fact that she agreed to be identified and has been by secondary sources is sufficient. patsw (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't include - per comments made in the previous section. It doesn't aid encyclopaedic understanding.  Chzz  ► 19:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Include She has gone public, and the article should include a brief summary of the coverage given by the media to her interview. I'm surprised that nobody has yet added it: Wikipedia is usually updated in real time.--Gautier lebon (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Her name currently appears in the lead sentence. This section was intended to demonstrate whether there is consensus to keep it like that. Ronnotel (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As such and that there is no objection to the inclusion of the name at this time, this section should be closed as resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WP is not a courtroom
To expand on recently trimmed material, more care should be used when cherry-picking statements from news stories:

From the NY Times, 7/1/11 cite in this article, the newspaper story states:

"The housekeeper admitted to prosecutors that she had lied about what happened after the encounter on the 28th floor of the hotel, the Sofitel New York. She initially said that after she had been attacked she waited in a hallway until Mr. Strauss-Kahn left the room. She now admits that after the episode, she cleaned a nearby room, then returned to Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s suite to clean there. Only after that did she report to her supervisor that she had been attacked."

Another contradictory statement was just removed from the article: "She now claims that after the assault she only visited another room briefly to pick up some personal effects."

The case has not gone to trial where both sides can present evidence and question witnesses. Thanks to our public media, it may never get to trial due to obvious credibility issues, like the above, with three different versions of a very basic event being given so far. WP is non-profit (like the court system) and has a goal of neutrality, completely the opposite of commercial and sensation-dependent public media. I hope WP can keep its standards higher than them. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why we should include the one point but not the other point. PatGallacher (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there should be any attempt to pre-try and opine this case in the article, such speculative or interpretable opinions should be kept completely out of the article - such as, and the witness gave three different versions of the event - and comments from the opposing lawyers are totally opinionated - all of this is speculation and differing versions of the translation and reports - attempting to expand all such content is temporary and titillating and simply not encyclopedic at all. I would trim half of the current content out of the article all the bloated details and speculation, he said she said stuff does nothing but hide the real worthwhile details from the reader. - obscuring the facts with the bloat. As I read in some report - most readers never get past the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV allows for the inclusion of differing points of view, even contradictory points of view, as long as appropriate weight is given to those views prominent enough to warrant inclusion. The reader is benefited by such a presentation. Omitting this material does not benefit the reader. I don't think that would constitute "pre-trying" anyone. It is more difficult to include this material, giving proper measure to differing statements and interpretations. But I think that is proper to this article. It is an article about the legal case. Statements by lawyers from both sides, the alleged victim, and from DSK—all rightfully can be represented in such an article as this. Omitting information may be the easier way to write this article but I don't think that route fulfills the purpose of an article supposedly about a legal case in-process. Some material can and should be omitted if it is very minor. But the important points over which there is serious disagreement need not be left out. Bus stop (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * These particular statements are central to the case, and what reliable sources are saying about it. So they should be included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Bus stop's comment, " Statements by lawyers from both sides, the alleged victim, and from DSK—all rightfully can be represented in such an article as this." Agree, if we want to join the trial by media circus, and include statements that are non-neutral and biased by definition, which all of them would be.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikiwatcher1—we should be alert to the figurative use of terminology. "Trial by media" is of course not "trial" at all—except in the figurative sense of "trial". This section is titled "WP is not a courtroom". No kidding. Really? Who's that guy in the robes sitting up there, over there? Who is banging that God-forsaken gavel? It would seem to me that an article about a court case that is in progress really very much tests our skills at writing with a neutral point of view. Contradictory statements abound. Depending on who is speaking you will get radically different versions of events that would seem crucial to people's lives going forward. If this article just wants to be a background on one of many events in Dominique Strauss-Kahn's life then it should just be a part of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn article. By setting up a separate article on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case aren't we undertaking to present the issues applicable to this case? Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: Depending on who is speaking you will get radically different versions of events, is right. Especially when it comes to a criminal case and the versions are taken from statements by the accuser or the accused, or their attorneys. It's not anyone's job to pick from their statements, all of which are biased in the extreme. They are paid.


 * Note also that DSK's attorney told him not to talk about the case just hours after he was arrested. That's routine in U.S. cases when attorneys are retained. Therefore there are no statements to the media by DSK who prefers to play by the rules and avoid prejudicing the case.  You won't hear DSK or his attorneys go on TV (in the U.S.) and call his accuser a liar, even if repeating the DA's comments, or say what the court system should do, etc. I keep repeating "U.S." because I'm aware that anyone from anywhere will have a different POV about legal procedures and WP is open to anyone that speaks English. In many countries in Europe, there might have been a gag order in place and violating it would have been a crime. In the U.K. the court might have fined the media for breaching its "Contempt of Court Act" for jeopardizing the case, i.e. "Media face prosecution for contempt" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strauss-Kahn's attorneys have made statements to the media -- most significantly that they intended to offer a consent defense (which fortunately survives in the article despite several attempts to delete it).
 * There are no "rules" that restrict the accuser or the accused from making any statements to anyone anywhere. Even if there were, what role would Wikipedia editors in New York have in enforcing those "rules".  patsw (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are rules which could effect such statements. That's possibly why the Guardian article (footnote #1) included a comment by some U.S. defense attorney, who called "Diallo's decision to go public 'outrageous' and said it could damage the case. 'She is violating all the rules.'" Note that in the U.S. there is a Criminal Justice Code of Ethics which all criminal attorneys are bound by, with countless violation cases recorded. One side of a case conducting a "media campaign" before a trial in order to sway public opinion might be an example.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your concern for possible ethical violations by criminal attorneys is noted. If one of them edits here, it would be considered a conflict of interest. patsw (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Statements made by the prosecution, defense, and the alleged victim are what they are. They are not speculation about or opinion about since the persons making the statements are themselves participants. When they get reported in reliable secondary sources, they potentially can be summarized in this article. It's been widely reported that her accounts have contradictions. That can be summarized without presenting a complete version of each contradiction. My preference would be to hold off on making major cuts to the article. There is no deadline.  Also, if the reporting on sources in the DA's office is correct, the charges will be dropped and the article will require radical revision at that point anyway. patsw (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikiwatcher1—But if a highly reliable secondary source has already told us about positions taken by disputants wouldn't we be justified in providing statements and attributing them thoroughly? For instance don't we know, because reliable sources of the highest quality inform us that the accused man concedes that a sex act did take place but that it was consensual? Clearly this is disputed by the accuser in a virtually contradictory way. But that argument, presented by the accuser, is also conveyed to the public by high quality sources. I don't see how we would be prejudicing the case to be compiling those various well-sourced statements in one article. The accused man has been more consistent in the way he characterizes what transpired than does his accuser. His accuser, according to reliable sources, seems to have not been 100% consistent in detailing the sequence of events that transpired right after the supposed sexual encounter. Are we justified in presenting variations in explanations on the part of the accuser of the sequence of events after the supposed nonconsensual sexual encounter? I think we are. The reason is the obvious one—that some high quality reliable sources make a point of noting inconsistencies. Are those supposed inconsistencies explained by the accuser as well as her attorney? Yes, they are. Therefore we would be obligated to also present the explanations for what might appear to some to be inconsistencies. I think that is the purpose of this article—to present a full picture of applicable arguments. Is this article's existence for any more important purpose? Please tell me how this article can justify its existence without recourse to addressing arguments that may have significant bearing on the lives of the disputants going forward. Bus stop (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Re your comment, I think that it is the purpose of this article—to present a full picture of applicable arguments, is questionable. The article as it is has essentially nothing about their "arguments:" We have a statement by DSK's attorney that ". . . it will be clear that there was no element of forcible compulsion in this case whatsoever." And her attorney said "She is going to come into this courthouse, get on that witness stand and tell the world what Dominique Strauss-Kahn did to her." The rest of the article seems fine as to the significance of the allegations and why it's notable. So I don't think WP editors should be "arguing" or repeating "arguments;" that's done in court. Although her attorney's desire to tell the world what Dominique Strauss-Kahn did to her, as we now see from the news blitz, may make a fair trial much harder, if not impossible, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure your arguments are supported by policy. Policy says we should avoid creating gossip loops -- this we have avoided by relying on verifiable sources. If you think Wikipedia should censor content in order to avoid contributing to the media circus, you can raise an appropriate proposal at Village pump. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 04:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a few sentences that do not belong in the article: One a purely rhetorical, non-informational, and publicity-seeking comment by the accuser's attorney, with 3 cites: "Kenneth Thompson, for the housekeeper, said: "She is going to come into this courthouse, get on that witness stand and tell the world what Dominique Strauss-Kahn did to her."[30][31][32]`"
 * Tabloid fodder

And another which is evidence-related, presents an accuser attorney's opinion without support, as if it were fact. It belongs in a courtroom only where opposing sides can respond and demand proof from neutral witnesses. Our media has no such requirements and neutrality is rarely their concern. "Diallo's lawyer as indicating that "Diallo's first conversation with the jailed man did not mention Strauss-Kahn's wealth at all".[38]" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think the edit dispute here is hot, try the French Wikipedia page
I think maybe both wikis would benefit from some cross-collaboration at this moment, because the perspectives of editors brought up may be valuable to either wiki. We don't want the English Wikipedia to be merely "an American view of the incident". elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 22:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This won't just be "an American view" if I'm around (posting from the sunny suburbs of London - except that its 1.37 am). I'd offer to help, but my French is abysmal. :( AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm similarly English. Thanks for some perspective, Pluie. 7daysahead (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't there a summary of the alleged victim's public statements
I'm surprise that there isn't at least a short paragraph summarizing the public statements by the alleged victim, and the various comments regarding those public statements. Surely this should be included in the article?--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Tristane Banon

 * - Banon whitewash

I find it utterly incredible that the name Banon does not appear in this article. It seems perfectly clear that Tristane Banon decided to bring her case in France as a direct result of the rape accusations levelled against Strauss-Kahn in New York - indeed, that is a common justification for naming the accused in rape trials, to give potential other victims an opportunity to come forward. This is a criminal case brought against a public figure as a result of the topic of this article, and should certainly be re-included, however briefly. 7daysahead (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't write things on the talkpage that are attacking living people. WP:BLP applies on talkpage just as much as in articles. Banon avoided the issues you are accusing her of - There is no connection between Banon and this legal case so not there is not going to be any supposition added here about her alleged motives and timing. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I utterly fail to see anywhere in my comment where I have attacked anyone. I have made a sensible suggestion that one of the ramifications of this case be noted - not explored, not dissected, noted, however briefly in the article, and you have responded with vitriol and an attempt to shut down the discussion.  I quote the Telegraph:  "[Banon] said that she changed her mind after Mr Strauss-Kahn was arrested in New York on May 14. " (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8647884/Mother-of-Tristan-Banon-admits-she-had-sex-with-Dominique-Strauss-Khan.html), and I would appreciate an apology, or at least a civil discussion.  7daysahead (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, while I may agree with you that I think Tristan Banon does not belong in this article, I think you stepped way over the line in think you had a right to close this discussion as if you were, yet again, the unilateral voice of what gets to be in wikipedia articles. 7days should have his say, and others should be able to participate in the discussion.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with 7daysahead, her charge deserves another section in this article (we may also need to change the title from singular "case" to plural "cases".) We don't need to correlate both charges which is potentially original reseatch, just treat them as separate cases, the truth is they're both accussing Kahn for sexual assult. Since Banon's case already gained sufficient publicity, there's no reason not to include this one. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Proposal. For the time being, add the link to Tristan Banon as a See also, annotated as "French journalist who has made an accusation of attempted rape against Strauss-Kahn". patsw (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Do I have to explain how many ways that violates WP:BLP policy? And please note that there is no 'case' and no 'charges' relating to Banon as yet - allegations of sexual offences (even if well-founded - we should make no assertions one way or another) should not be included in BLP's until, at a minimum, legal proceedings have begun. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please explain what in BLP excludes in an article a summary of a public accusation of a crime which has been widely reported in reliable sources. patsw (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your 'summary' violates WP:NPOV: it makes no mention of the fact that DSK has denied the version of events given by Banon, or that (as the linked article notes) that a counter-complaint of slander has been raised. It is also fails to explain why this is of any relevance to the New York events, given that Banon has stated to the contrary - it is synthesis. This article isn't about determining whether DSK is a rapist, or indeed about anything other than the facts, as reported in reliable sources: 'facts' being matters relevant to the article topic, which isn't DSK's sexual morals, but a particular set of events surrounding an alleged sexual encounter in New York. This article was forked from the main bio on DSK because of the (perceived) need to cover the topic in further detail - to use it as a compendium of allegations would constitute a content fork. If and when the Banon 'case' becomes an issue of legal proceedings, it can be discussed in the main DSK article, or in a new one if necessary - in this article, it is off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @ patsw, 7daysahead, Sameboat and Bob drobbs: see the section above and comment there if you like, regarding the editing behavior of Off2riorob, AndyTheGrump, ErrantX, CaptainScreebo and Wikiwatcher1 on this article. Benefac (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above is not a personal attack; it is a criticism of your (plural) editing of this article. Ou tis (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for popping out of the woodwork to add to this scintillating debate, apparently you've been around on WP for a while, have you ever read WP:TAGTEAM and what it implies? In case you haven't:


 * "Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team."
 * "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil."
 * Have you looked at the article history? Myself, Andy and Errant have edited the article once each in the last 100 edits. Rob is often around on the BLPN and keeps an eye, Wikiwatcher has always been around and, although there is often disagreement, consensus amongst editors (not just those mentioned above) has been reached many times before. As this last editor points out above,, there are other editors who have been frequent or habitual contributors to this article who are not named, how come? And, yes, I do find unsubstantiated accusations of tag-teaming rude and quite outrageous really.  Captain Screebo Parley! 14:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Proposal. (modified) For the time being, add the link to Tristan Banon as a See also, annotated as "French journalist who has made an accusation of attempted rape against Strauss-Kahn, and whom Strauss-Kahn is thence counter-suing for slander.". That takes care of ATG's first two points. Relevance:  Same charge levelled against the same person.  Banon has stated to the contrary:  False (contradicted by my Telegraph link above).  Unless I see any good justifications as to why this sourced, neutral, relevant link should be added, I'll add it to the article on Monday. 7daysahead (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about the events in New York, as the title makes clear. DSK has not been 'charged' with anything as yet regarding Banon. I will remove the link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A "See also" link leads to related articles. If you wish, you may read my previous post with "Same charge" replaced by "Same accusation".  You appear to be being deliberately obtuse; I repeat my intention to edit this article on Monday.  If you revert it without good reason, I shall request the adjuducation of an administrator.  7daysahead (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Administrators don't 'adjudicate' content disputes. I suggest you wait for input for others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If we start citing anyone who has had sexual relations with DSK, whether alleged or actual, attempted or consensual, we would need to remain neutral. That would include other RSs, such as "Dominique Strauss-Kahn not 'a drooling dog', claims porn star", for example. And more recently: "Anne Mansouret, mother of French journalist Tristane Banon, . . . admits that she too had sex with him." I agree with AndyTheGrump that it's better to stay focused to the article topic.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then move this article to the more accurate title and change this a disambiguation index, it is now ambiguous. French official is investigating Banon's possible slander, thus constitute the "case" about sexual assault. I honestly don't see the reason that Banon's case (either allegation or counter-complained) doesn't belong here if the title does not specify which case exactly it is. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If and when there are charges we should definitely do that, right now there is only one case, this one and its got nothing to do with Banon (the daughter not the mother)Off2riorob (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nafissatou Diallo has disclosed her identity
For the record, the accuser went public with her name and it has been reported throughout American media on July 24, 2011:
 * patsw (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * patsw (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * patsw (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * patsw (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This kind of PR blitz by a crime accuser, and bypassing the legal system, can do nothing but harm the neutrality of the case preemptively. Typically, trial by media is instigated by the media, who's only goal is selling ads and generating revenue. When an alleged crime victim goes public with her story pending trial, the case is damaged. I'd be surprised if presenting statement evidence to the media by one party to a crime, before a trial, is not a crime in itself.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Except the accusers name was already all over the media prior to that. Makes you wonder who originally leaked it in the first place and what their motivation was.

emacsuser (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Did some quick research and found out that I was both right and wrong. It is a crime, but not in the U.S. One example is that British judges under a 1981 Contempt of Court Act, can issue gag orders to the media along with postponing cases. Violations are "media contempt" and a serious offense - in the U.K.


 * In the U.S., however, even when media publicity has generated a risk of prejudice against or for any party to a criminal case, the judge has to modify the jury selection process and make sure jurors disregard anything they may have read or seen on TV. Good luck! They often have to move the case to other states at great cost to witnesses and tax-paid public prosecutors, except of course privately paid attorneys add it to the tab. In extreme situations, the judge will delay the trial indefinitely until publicity has died down. In effect, all those interview links above have already undermined the neutrality of the case and bypassed the legal system. Not good. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @WW: Thanks for sharing your point of view, regarding plaintiffs speaking to the media. However, Wikipedia prefers an objective approach to editing. Benefac (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability

 * The word notability is Wikipedia's term of art to describe if a topic should have its own stand-alone article. It's an article-level guideline.  No one has suggested that Nafissatou Diallo merits a stand-alone article.  As I write this, it's a blue link since there already is an article for a similarly named individual.


 * There are content policies and guidelines, but none of them would exclude adding Diallo's name to the article. patsw (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lawyers Decry Public Comments From DSK's Accuser was carried by over a thousand news outlets. The Associated Press is no longer hiding her name. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no benefit to the understanding of this article in giving the name. The person is a non-public figure that should not be named on the article, per presumption in favour of privacy - WP:BLPNAME / WP:NPF.  Chzz  ► 10:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no presumption of privacy when she is named in every media outlet in the United States. She is by any definition now a public figure patsw (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not really a presumption of privacy, more that she is still basically a private person/alleged victim - we are not a media outlet we are an encyclopedia - adding her name gives the reader nothing additional in the way of encyclopedic value about the alleged crime/trial. We can and do regularly err on the side of caution in regard to living one event alleged victims of crimes. If as you say her name is one thousand newspapers that is fine and all readers will know her name anyway - that doesn't mean we have to add it here - where it will sit for all of eternity. (or at least a very long time) - The only situation imo where we would want to add her was if criminal charges are lodged against her. It seems she feels she has been forced to give an interview to present her side of the story as she feels allegations in the press misrepresented/defame or libel her in some ways - all of which we have already kept out of the article for BLP concerns, so it would not seem to make sense to want to name her because she has felt the need to give an interview to defend herself against allegations that we have kept out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ^That's pretty much what I think, too. We're not actively suppressing it; it's just that it doesn't help make the article better, 'coz she is not notable.  Chzz  ► 13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In a case such as this, WP policy is to grant a presumption of privacy to the accuser and avoid use of her name. However, her recent actions, any such presumption is now moot and the balance of identifying her is determined by whether it will improve the article. I would argue that she has become part of the story and it would absolutely benefit the article to identify her by name and discuss the issues of her credibility and the impact it has had on the prosecution of the rape charge. I was initially against any mention of her name at all, but have changed my view as the circumstances have evolved. Ronnotel (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Chzz, we have been a _actively_ suppressing her name. It wasn't by chance that we wrote "housekeeper".  And it wasn't by chance that previous additions of her name were reverted.  We can no longer justify that.  Here's what WP:BLP actually says:


 * "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it"


 * Her name has now been widely disseminated. So that restriction doesn't apply.


 * " … Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value."


 * As for arguing that adding her name doesn't "add value" BLP policy says that we should consider not adding a name if it doesn't add significant value and if the individual is "not directly involved".  She's clearly directly involved, so that restriction doesn't apply either.


 * There remains no valid argument based on any wikipedia policy to continue suppressing her name.  We need to add it.  And, it's always better to speak in specifics rather than generalities.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm with Bob drobbs on this. Up til now, I think the approach taken on this article (not giving her name) has been right. But now she has voluntarily disclosed her identity and been interviewed by the press, and that her name has been widely disseminated, I don't think BLP policy should stop us adding it to the article. The only reason not to would be 'it's not relevant' - but it does add some content, however little, to the article. By way of comparison, we do name the accusers in the articles Duke lacrosse case and Tawana Brawley rape allegations (not that this event is necessarily similar to those, but they are articles concerning allegations of rape). Robofish (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with Bob. There is no valid policy reason to not list her name. Majoreditor (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no policy reason to include her name. - clearly as a one event alleged victim of crime there are more reasons to not add her name to the the article than there are benefits to the reader through adding it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Are people reading what they write before they post it ? How can Nafissatou Diallo have any expectation of privacy when she is the one that has gone out and given the interview and decided to have her name published? The claim that she still is a "non-public figure" also fails to stand up, the fact that an interview she gave for Newsweek in the US was reported by the BBC in England is testament to that. The claim that "no benefit to the understanding of this article in giving the name" also fails as how can it be beneficial to withhold the name of one side of this case but openly discuss the other, it leads to an unbalanced article. There no longer seams to be any valid reason not to included it now she has herself gone public. To me this appears to be double standards, if this had been in any other conthry Wikiepedia would be leading the charge against suppressing her name under similar circumstances. VER Tott  00:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * note - this is a cut and copy post that has been replied to on the BLP noticeboard thread here - Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(Again) Notability
WP:BLP1E states "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article."

No one has yet created a biographical article on Diallo, so BLP1E is not applicable. BLP1E has nothing to say about the inclusion or exclusion of a name from the text of a relevant article. patsw (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly; she's not notable - in the Wikipedia sense - because she's only known for one event. I'm not arguing to keep it out to protect her privacy; I'm just saying, there's no point bothering to name her; I don't see how it helps to understand the article; it'll make just as much sense saying "a housekeeper" as it will to put her name there.
 * So this is not a complicated BLP concern; it's a basic, article-content discussion. "Do we think adding her name makes the article better?" - I don't. If more do than don't, I bow to consensus, and I really don't care if it gets added. It's not (any more) a big deal.  Chzz  ► 07:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedias are an aid to learning more, and should often serve as a place to start further research. In general, the inclusion of basic facts, e.g. names, places, etc. help those doing further research to find additional related material.  In that sense, including names will nearly always make an article more useful.  We generally weight that against the potential harm of drawing undue attention to non-public figures (a harm that can be amplified in cases when public attention is drawn to negative events).  While she chose to remain private it made sense to respect that, but now that she has chosen to appear prominently in front of the public, I don't see any reason not to include her name.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The bother of providing her identification is that it is simply a fundamental fact. It's relevant, verifiable, and widely available in reliable sources.
 * Diallo, by granting national media interviews, is a public figure by any definition.
 * But for the sake of understanding your point: (1) Could you relate "potential harm of drawing undue attention to non-public figures" to a policy or guideline? (2) What "potential harm" to Diallo are you alluding to?  (3) What is meant by "drawing undue attention" -- who is drawing whose attention, and why would that attention be "undue" if it is relevant and already reliably reported? patsw (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By "bother", what I meant was... for example, it might be a V RS fact that Mr. Kahn has a pet dog called spot, but we wouldn't (presumably) think that that detail was pertinent to this article about the case. I know that is a somewhat extreme example, as there is no doubt that a housekeeper was intricately involved in the case. Just, I don't see why the name helps understand the subject.  Chzz  ► 19:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Using Chzz's reasoning in this case, I don't see how the name of Strauss-Kahn is pertinent to this article about the case. Shouldn't he be identified as "a hotel guest"?  If Diallo's name doesn't help understand the subject, how could Straus-Kahn's name help understand the subject? patsw (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly 'a hotel guest' would be woefully incompletely. We will have to say, as we do now, he was the head of the IMF and a leading candidate to be the next president of France, which means hiding the name is silly. Of course, since he was clearly notable before the event, the comparison falls down completely, whether or not excluding the name of the maid is justified.. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(Again) Notability
This is the third time stating this, I am reluctant to do so but the error is being repeated. The Wikipedia uses WP:Notability to refer to whether a a subject gets a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. A discussion of the notability of Diallo in the Wikipedia sense is moot if and until, a stand-alone article is created for her. BLP1E refers to the creation and titles of articles, not to the inclusion of a name in the text of an article. patsw (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that the nonexistent page is quite popular. Kope (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Support & Opposition" Section
Has anyone else noticed that the "Support and Opposition" section is almost exclusively opposition (to the allegations)? The only support (for the allegations) comes from LePen who is a much hated figure who was once tried in France for Holocaust Denial. All the opposition also seems to be people claiming that it is out of character for DSK to do this. Note that there are plenty of people who have openly stated that this was not the case. Take David Koubbi, a lawyer representing French writer Tristane Bannon. There is a whole article on Slate arguing the accusations are credible. The MSNBC anchor who interviewed the alleged victim also described her story as "credible". How are these any less notable than DSK's family and friends defending him? Furthermore, this section is very poorly named. "Support & Opposition" is very confusing. Perhaps "Reactions" is more appropriate? Poyani (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You might want to re-post this above, in Section 1: "Is this article being maintained by Strauss-Kahn's PR agents?" Read and comment there, for further arguments supporting your point. Tks! Benefac (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

televised bail hearing
The article mentions the arraignment and the television coverage of the preliminary bail hearing, but does not explain why the bail hearing was televised. So far all the sources I've found say bail is usually set at the arraignment, i.e. it's the same hearing, and arraignments are not usually televised if a party objects. (Alleged "perp walks" outside of court are sometimes televised, but in-court arraignment hearings usually are not.)  The article should explain why DSK's bail hearing was televised, but so far I can't find any WP:RS to explain it; does anyone know of anything?TVC 15 (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been rephrased as per your correct impressions and sources. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Prosecution recommending dropping of all charges

 * - http://www.thespec.com/news/world/article/582721--prosecutors-recommend-dropping-strauss-kahn-charges


 * - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/dominique-strauss-kahn-case-recommend-dismissal_n_933389.html

Reporting that the Prosecution is recommending dropping of all charges - looks like a rewrite will be required - if the case doesn't go ahead. Off2riorob (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If indeed all charges are dropped, then I think that this article should be deleted: a short one-paragraph summary in the main article on DSK should suffice.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The charges have been dropped. I oppose deletion of this article. patsw (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article will need a recent rewrite to remove all recentism from it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested move
Instead of the current conjectural title, this article should be named People v. Strauss-Kahn, in accordance to thousands of other legal case articles on Wikipedia. Any objection? --bender235 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * None here - Such a title would only me a problem if there were multiple cases.Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Status of case is in limbo and could change soon. Maybe waiting a few days wouldn't hurt. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think WikiWatcher is probably right - if the prosecution us dropped, we'll probably have to rethink the article. If the case goes ahead, I'd agree with the move: it seems to be the norm for articles of this type. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would alter the title correction, it would still be People v. Strauss-Kahn wouldn't it? only the people decided not to progress? ... anyway, it looks like I won't be having to eat my hat, which is good. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the appropriate format would actually be New York v. Strauss-Kahn, rather than "People". Also, I'm not sure about the naming convention.  There are a number of article titles that don't follow it, such as Kobe Bryant sexual assault case (which would seem fairly similar, especially if the criminal charges are ultimately dropped as they were for Kobe).  A title like "People v. ..." can also be self-limiting.  For example, the main article on the Casey Anthony trial is actually Death of Caylee Anthony, but that covers far more material than just the single trial.  Personally, I think it is best to let things shake out for a little while before deciding what to do here.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yws, that seems like a reasonable position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why (dismissed charges)? Is it the convention of Wikipedia to add the disposition of the case to each article title? As in "New Jersey v. Doe (guilty)' or "Connecticut v. Roe (not guilty)"? patsw (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dismissed charges are not, guilty or, not guilty verdicts - they are - no case to answer, as such - there is no case, no trial, no assertion of anything apart from no action in relation ot the rejected allegations, and as I see it that is worthy of inclusion in the title - I have asked my legal amigo to comment - I am open to discussion coming up with a better title but considering the dropping of the case I do think the title needs to reflect that - Off2riorob (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary for the title. The lede should clear state within the first few lines that the case was dismissed or even in the first line, but having it in the title is a bit much and surely against case naming convention. Silver  seren C 03:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "surely" ? Off2riorob (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely, as in i've seen a significant number of articles on court cases and i've never seen a title used as it is here. However, I am not saying that such a title doesn't exist, I just find it highly unlikely. Shouldn't we move this discussion over to somewhere like Wikiproject Law to get their view on it? Silver  seren C 03:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea, if you could post a comment asking them to comment here that would be beneficial indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Asked. Silver  seren C 03:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Parentheses are for title disambiguation only. Hence the new title is wrong on its face, since there are no other "New York v. Strauss-Kahn" articles. If people really wanted to add "dismissed charges" to the title it would need to be "New York v. Strauss-Kahn dismissed charges", i.e. without parentheses, which would seem to violate the style guides that titles should be as simple as possible. Also, I'm not so hot on the move, since it seems to preemptively exclude discussion of the Diallo v. Strauss-Kahn civil suit, which otherwise would seem a natural section here. Perhaps, it makes more sense to follow the Kobe Bryant example noted above and simply keep it at Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case (or something similar) that discusses both the outcome of the criminal and civil proceedings. Dragons flight (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm - the civil case will likely steamroll in the same direction as the criminal case. Diallo v. Strauss-Kahn civil suit -is an available title... I don't want to see the article under the sex title - considering the lack of a trial and the dismissing of the charges - rejection of the allegations - it now appears undue to label the subject under any kind of  titillating title. Also  -moving to New York v. Strauss-Kahn won't allow any addition of content about a civil claim from the woman as such would have nothing to do with the dismissed criminal allegations. Off2riorob (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Strauss-Kahn sexual assault allegations"? Which could cover the criminal and civil case, and perhaps also the Tristane Banon allegations.  The various cases and allegations are certainly verifiable and make a lot of noise in the news, but personally I'd prefer to avoid expanding this into multiple pages for each allegation and case.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a title with Basnons claims - without conviction and this dismissed allegation with its related civil claim would imo all put together be totally undue and a likely policy violation. Banons claims already sit happily in her bio and the civil issue is not even notworthy yet and may never be and the charges on this are dismissed - Off2riorob (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If we look at an extreme case article, O.J. Simpson, there is only an article about his trial, not the civil suit. Nor is there an article about his later criminal case for multiple serious felonies, like kidnapping, which he's serving time for. Why not just remove the parenethical phrase? The civil suit is already noted. Simpson's civil case was for multiple wrongful deaths, and was able to use the criminal case as evidence. Yet there is no article for it. Without any criminal case for DSK, the civil suit may not amount to much more than minor news clips. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is an article for OJ's second criminal trial: O. J. Simpson robbery case.  Also, O. J. Simpson murder case has a section on the corresponding civil trial.  Dragons flight (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @Off2riorob. Respectfully, I disagree. The widely reported allegations don't vanish simply because the courts reject them (unfortunately).  We can and should tell people prominently that criminal charges were withdrawn in New York.  Eventually, we may also tell people that the civil case was dropped (or settled or failed or whatever) and that Banon's criminal complaint in France was resolved.  Nonetheless the allegations (and the various cases) are a sad but memorable part of DSK's history that still warrant a place in Wikipedia and I don't think there is anything undue about dedicating space to them (nor using the titles mentioned above).  A substantial part of that space should be explaining why New York found Diallo's allegations not credible, but that is nonetheless a discussion of the allegations.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Currently Banon's claims are noteworthy only in her life story. The dismissed criminal allegations have their own article, so there isn't an issue, is there? Please note, I didn't compare with OJ. We have spent the last month or two keeping at the tangential content out of this article and I still object to suggestions to centralize a bunch of unproven and rejected criminal and civil issues in a single location titled under such as ''sexual allegations against ..... Off2riorob (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unnamed Section

 * Edit this article indeed, the accuser becomes the accused and the accused gets to play some kind of victim when he clearly has a history of this kind of behaviour. Prosecution also did not serve their client with any good faith, in fact going out of their way to undermine their case (with Cyrus Vance Jr. in charge, it is hard to believe that was not political, and US sources openly speculate on that).
 * An 'evidence' section (semen, bruising, other evidence of sexual assault) might help if wikipedia is really a project to make an encyclopedia, all of those points have been stated in the press. The perpetrator is certainly no less a dubious character than the woman he attacked.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Our personal views on the case are irrelevant. We include only what is notable and is what is stated in verifiable, reputable sources. I would, however, argue that this case is notable, even if it is dismissed, given its impact on a very notable figure and in ripples outwards. Whether it needs its own article, however, is probably a greyer area. 204.65.34.167 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and Strauss-Kahn's special project team assembled after the charge was filed (private investigators, dodgy lawyers, former disinformationists at security agencies: also on reliable sources) doesn't have any input to Wikipedia? Really, truly?Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Borg: Please refrain from ad-hominem attacks on the editors who, as far as I can tell, have worked very hard to produce a balanced and well-referenced article. 204: My view is that the event is indeed notable and must be mentioned in the main article on DSK. But there is no need for the detailed sub-article, because, at the end of the day, the story can be told in one paragraph: there were allegations, the alleged victim was found not to be sufficiently credible to go to trial, so the case was dismissed.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note, I have reported Borgmcklorg's violation of WP:BLP policy in his/her first comment above at AN/I: see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit this article?
The article has been generally kept lean throughout it existence. The editing that is required is remove some speculation and anticipation of the outcome of the criminal case. This has been done to a large extent already. Some things are moot in light of the dismissal. patsw (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example from the introduction which I would remove because its significance has been mooted by the dismissal.

On July 1, prosecutors told the judge that they had reassessed the strength of their case in the light of housekeeper's diminished credibility, and the case against him was near collapse.

I put this on the talk page, rather than deleting it immediately, just to get a sense if other editors share a common understanding of what I mean by moot information. patsw (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The time period from when the case was first considered "near collapse," until finally dismissed, nearly two months later, is relevant. It's been implied in the cites that had he not been able to post the extreme $5 million bail, he might have been kept at Riker's Island jail during that two-month period, instead of just being subjected to the perp walk in front of American papparazzi, and having to live under house arrest in the center ring of our media circus.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first sentence you wrote. That being conceded, does it belong in the introduction?
 * Regarding the implication (what I would call speculation) in your second sentence, if the "near collapse" public disclosure had occurred while he was still on Riker's, a successful motion for release pending trial would have been inevitable. patsw (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the dated events, a sentence each, give a fuller chronology of the three key turning points in the case. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete this article?
We have two proposals for deletion of this article, see Talk:New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn and one proposal to rewrite it. Can we have further comments please?--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It could probably do wih a significant rewrite in the light of recent events, although not a drastic one, but no way should it be deleted. This has been a very high-profile case. PatGallacher (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The massive press coverage surrounding this case cannot be undone, and besides it has created a separate issue involving European perceptions of the American judicial process, so I think deleting the article would probably be a mistake. Certain aspects of the case seemed inconsistent with the presumption of innocence; in particular, the first judge's unusual decision to deny bail at the arraignment and instead schedule a televised bail hearing (at which the defendant appeared unshaven after days in jail) should be explained, but so far I can only find blogs. By the time of the dismissal, there was a different judge. Alas most of the daily/weekly WP:RS presented the case as a sequel in their perennially salable continuing narratives, e.g. 'battle of the sexes' or 'banker vs maid', with much opinion and speculation but little reporting. Hopefully now that the deadline-driven rush for scoops has ended, we might see some WP:RS putting the case in context.TVC 15 (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This claim "it has created a separate issue involving European perceptions of the American judicial process," - isn't relevent to keeping this article. You can create European perceptions of the American judicial process if you think its a notable topic and include some detail about this case. I agree that the article is a clear keeper and that if the newsy tittilating content is removed/rewritten it will be much improved/more encyclopedic-ally valuable. Off2riorob (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Common?
A Newsweek/Daily Beast poll found it was common for married men to cheat on their wives on business trips, with 3% of poll respondents claiming to have "made a pass at a hotel worker."

I believe this sentence needs to be rethought, as quoting a figure of 3% doesn't do justice to the assertion that the practice is "common." 69.174.87.20 (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To call this poll relevant to New York v. Strauss-Kahn requires the bias of the editors of Newsweek/Daily Beast which I do not share. It makes assumptions about "married men", "cheating", and "hotel workers" that are not established as facts in the Wikipedia article.  This is the sort of superficial speculation that appears in blogs. patsw (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the sentence in question. Unless the union refers to the poll, we shouldn't - and it should be sourced directly from NewsWeek, not from the Daily Beast's spin on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)