Jump to content

Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Role at IMF

Strauss-Khan was very recently selected to head the IMF. ( http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-EU-IMF.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ). i would add this information to the article, but have limited knowledge. would someone else please do so? Academic decathlete 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Academic decathlete

Improper conduct allegation at International Monetary Fund

Dominique Strauss-Kahn was accused of another act of misconduct relating to his activities while IMF Managing Director, this time of a more intimate and personal nature. This abuse of authority related to his sexual relationship with a subordinate, female staff member, Piroshka Nagy, in January 2008. Both Kahn and Nagy were married at the time of their relationship.
Dean Armond (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cassandre's book

Mentioned and cited, and the European sovereign debt crisis linked. Maybe someone can think of a better section heading than "sexual interests".Red Hurley (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I figured "harrassment scandal" works a little better and doesn't sound quite so vulgar. 198.103.53.5 (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Political position

In the first few lines there is written "he belongs to the center-left wing of the PS". This seems at least very misleading : truth is he belongs to the right wing of the PS, or the center-left wing of French politics. I hope I'm making myself clear, and that someone edits this sentence (I'm French so I don't feel comfortable editing an English phrase). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.160.112.174 (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Addition in the 2. Personal life

this is added some mintues ago :
On May 14th, 2011, Strauss-Kahn was arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport, in New York City, for allegedly sodomizing a Manhattan hotel maid.

i'd say verified sources strongly needed for this. highly suspicious as sole apparent source, nypost, titles on sodomy and only speaks of oral sex in the article BituurEsztreym (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

well, it's been confirmed by nytimes and others. sorry for my ignorance oral sex *is* form of sodomy... yet the place of the unsourced sentence in the page remains suspicious BituurEsztreym (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

NY arrest

Could this "He had previously been accused of aggressively seeking sexual gratification in 2007 by a French journalist and writer, Tristane Banon", be changed to make it clearer that Tristane is the victim who made the accusation of an attempted rape? Also, is there some reason to leave out the name of his subordinate Piroska Nagy with whom he had the affair?

Is the sentence: "Whether the arrest, coupled with his past sexual improprieties, will have any impact on his legitimacy with French voters and role in the Socialist Party is not known." encyclopaedic? It strikes me as essentially meaningless.FightingMac (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not encyclopaedic. It's speculation and I have removed it. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Supported. Thanks. FightingMac (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you can include the Piroska Nagy name without any problems, I assume it's already in one of the sources. Hobartimus (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The European press is covering disruptions to his planned activities of the next days and months and can be used as sources (e.g. Le Monde) agree the pointless speculation by wiki is unnecessary. Lycurgus (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

I've removed the aleguations of a plot against DSK: actually the young guy made a mistake when he wrote the time of the arrest: he obviously didn't wrote it before it happened. It is absurd to pretend that a young guy on tweeter is a part of huge plot involving the IMF president. Puark (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The tweet the theory is referring to is the following: http://twitter.com/#!/j_pinet/status/69507272040136704 which was tweeted around 6pm NY time. Loads of time between the event (1pm) and the apprehension in the plane (4:40pm). The formal arrest might have happened at 2am on Sunday, but I don't think that's of any significance. I'm suprised something like this took so long to be "leaked".

Geemc911 (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree with taking it out for now, as it's another example of "too soon". But not because we're second-guessing the source and making our own determination of the facts. Business Insider is a reliable source suitable for citation - we don't decide if what they are reporting is true or not. The idea that this could be a political dirty trick is not something we would ignore, but we need more sourcing, and there is no rush to add the first thing we see on this. Tvoz/talk 17:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Business insider may be a reliable source usually, but in this case they refer to Le Post, which is quoted as a "tabloid website". Actually, "Le Post" is a User-generated content media, thus the content is written by anonymous nobodies under pseudonym who are not professional journalists (the referred article is written by "provence117"!). Puark (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see that and I'll be more comfortable with RS reporting based on RS too. We have to see where it goes - but we agree that we need something more. Tvoz/talk 19:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Link to article "French people"

WP:BLP applies to talkpages; borderline antisemitism inappropriate Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Article "French people" is about an ethnicity.

I cannot understand why is it stated in the article that this person is "French" (whatever that means here), instead of stating clearly that he is a "citizen of France". Moreover, I cannot understand why the claim that he is "French" leads to the article "French people", which is about an ethnicity, not citizenship.

There is a lot of info in the article that this person is Jewish and has no connection whatsoever to the French ethnicity.

When it is written in the first paragraph that he is "French" (with a link to "French people" article), it looks as if he is "French" by ethnicity (which is totally wrong).

I changed it to "France's", but that was immediately reverted by "Betathetapi545", the only mention on whose page is that he is a "Serial vandal". 95.26.176.4 (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

From French people: "French people refers to people born in France and the legal residents and citizens of France, regardless of ancestry." He can be ethnically Jewish and still a French person. There is no contradiction. Dragons flight (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The citation you provided is very questionable. The fashion of calling "French people" anyone "born in France and the legal residents and citizens of France, regardless of ancestry" is very new and highly speculative. Such questionable practice should be avoided in an encyclopedia. 95.25.90.66 (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This is standard Wikipedia practice. If you think it is 'questionable', find another online encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic immunity

Can anyone explain to me: doesn't he have diplomatic immunity? 95.26.176.4 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

He isn't a diplomat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Employees of the IMF (and similar international organizations) are granted immunity only for actions taken in an official capacity. This is in contrast with foreign diplomats representing sovereign nations which have unqualified immunity for all of their actions. Dragons flight (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
He was not in official capacity? 95.25.90.66 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It means he only has immunity for actions that are reasonably related to his job. Sexual assault (or bank robbery, or murder, etc.) would generally not qualify as related to his job. Dragons flight (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparently IMF officials do have criminal and civil immunity for work related activities, even though they are not diplomats. Some of the tv "experts" are speculating that his defense might try to say he was en-route between Washington and Europe for IMF business purposes and thereby should have immunity; they(tv pundits) also reference a sexual "groping" event at the UN awhile back where the alleged Gropers were given immunity because it happened at UN Headquarters, but the unanimous opinion so far seems to be that his activities at the hotel would not be covered by any immunity protections. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Plea for care with sources

I'm struck by how frequently sources cited don't in fact support the content. For example, at time of writing, this in the current 'Sex scandals' section

He was held at a police precinct overnight and charged with "a criminal sexual act, attempted rape, and unlawful imprisonment".

is given two sources of which the second is the New York Post item which mentioned 'sodomy' and doesn't refer to charges at all while the first quotes a police office as saying "he will be charged with ...". FightingMac (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done [1] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Similarly the sentence about Lipsky acting as First Manager Director needed a subtantial edit to reflect the source offered and avoid the impression that Strauss-Kahn had in fact been replaced. BTW does this observation belong to the section, indeed belong at all (an example of 'recentism' noted by a contributor in recent discusion)? FightingMac (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Another example in the lede today about his court appearance, which said he 'pleaded "not guilty"' when in fact the source cited (New York Times) said he didn't enter a plea (I have corrected it now). FightingMac (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Charged and refused bail

the second link (business insider)includes a link to the full criminal complaint. Looks to be quite serious . 32.60.79.217 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes I saw the link but didn't yet look but they are serious charges. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's a link to the New York Times story on this: Judge Denies Bail to I.M.F. Chief in Sexual Assault Case. Perhaps someone would be willing to update the article? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
For an edit request you need to be more specific - exactly what is it that you want adding? The bail and the charged is in the article as I can see. ??? Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Add the reference to the nytimes article, please. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thank you! - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.63.16.82, 16 May 2011

In the developing story about his arrest in NY: I find "On May 16 Straus-Kahn appeared in court"; there is a trailing "s" missing in "Strauss". A little further up, it says he was held at a police precinct overnight; that wording does not account for him being taken off plane on May 14 and being arraigned TODAY (May 16).

128.63.16.82 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

-

Bail hearing video

Where can we put this? [2] Is it ok for a link in the BLP or just as an external link? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I see it has a bloomberg article with it so I'll just put it in the body of the BLP for now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Stitched up like a kipper

Its all Im hearing. There are dozens of stories about this from all over the World so Ive added a selection. Including articles from The Telegraph which is one of the UKs leading right wing broadsheets, and the fact that a French minister from DSK rival party is openly saying it’s a stitch up. In the 60s prominent progressives like the Kennedys, King or Hammarskjöld ‎ were simply gunned down. Since then its 'death by mass media' as extensively documented in Boykoff's Beyond Bullets. We must keep it NPOV, so I've also added two of the most credible sources saying the event is in keeping within his past actions as a womanizer. (Even sources totally sympathetic to DSK admit he has been a womaniser there seems to be universal agreement on that so its not a BLP violation for us to say so.) Of course, a strong and healthy sexual nature revolts at the thought of forcing someone; mutual desire is essential to the sweetness of the act. Some of the sources do specifically say that DSK would never force someone, and also that he was concerned about enemies planning to smear him with manufactured sex attacks. I felt it might be undue weight to add that, but no objection if others want to. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought your edit a good one and adequately NPOV. I'm not so sure it belongs to the article at all but I'm happy enough to see the article provide a home for it at least temporarily. Presumably an article (I mean a new page) will eventually start on the rape allegation alone. Its obviously set to become a massive news story. FightingMac (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the "enemies planning to smear him with manufactured sex attacks", it leads on to the immortal riposte - "he would say that, wouldn't he?"Red Hurley (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks FightingMac. Defo we should have a dedicated article on this , but IMO we should wait maybe a week before starting it. If the evidence that the assault was fabricated is accepted, DSK could be exonerated on Friday, and then the article would be about a rather incompetent smear attack. (Unless of course the instigators dont care if it fails as the 2ndary damage is enough for them). Also deletionists might attack the new article with cries of “not news” if its created too soon. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if there will be a designated article on this; his main BLP might just need to be adjusted to include more about his sexual predatorial history(of that there seems to be broad agreement, whether he's categorized as The Great Seducer or by a less complimentary phrase), if that is shown by Reliable Sources to be the case; i.e. this may not be an isolated event which should be forked off, we have to wait awhile to see. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
All the most dammming previous incidents already seem to be well summarised in the Controversies section? If anyone has a reliable source for any we've missed I guess it could be added, though it will be undue weight to make the section too big. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
At this point I can see where maybe we'll end up with something like this in this BLP. Perhaps this recent incident will have enough notability to command its own article, but I am not 100% convinced that will be the case. One thing's for sure, the whole process and priority of sexual assault prosecution in some locales (like Sweden(Assange) and New York City) is completely different from how its handled in other locales. DSK is in some really deep legal/criminal shit; imo, in which case this event will, as you predict, command its own article. It all depends on the Complainant now; if she hangs tough, and can't be bought off, he's going to prison. The so-called alibi won't hold water, you can be sure of that, otherwise the case wouldn't have gotten this far. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Criminal complaint

Here is the link to the Criminal Complaint (copy of original court document in PDF format) : http://www.nypost.com/r/nypost/2011/05/16/media/ht_Strauss_Kahn%20Criminal%20Court_Complaint.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.108.223.141 (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting link. Thanks. The charge count is included in the Reuters report cited but I thought the 'DNA eligible MISD' (whatever that is) stuff interesting and also there's a mention of 'anal sexual conduct' (ditto ...). I shan't take it upon myself to include the link in the article but have no objection should someone else. FightingMac (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
A DNA-eligible MISD means it's a misdemeanor offense, where a DNA sample can be taken and saved in a DNA database. I believe that all felonies automatically have DNA from the guilty saved, but only some misdemeanors, usually sex-based and violent ones. It's probably overkill in this case, since he's being charged with 3 felonies. Almost should make this a stub article just in case. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this Orangemarlin. I was curious and an internet search wasn't helpful. FightingMac (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure he has nothing to worry about. In the end, the NYPD's sodomy probe will flesh out the whole truth. Kauffner (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
How would you conclude he has nothing to worry about from what I wrote? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sex - crime acusation - arrest

To my mind, there is a large coverage of the arrest events of the president of the IMF who was accused of sexual abuse. The information is just a few. I think we have to wait a little, in order to have a better view of the event. 688dim (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What source supports "Ethnicity: Jewish" as found in infobox?

Resolved

Do we have a source supporting that Dominique Strauss-Kahn's ethnicity is Jewish? If not then why are we making that assertion in the Infobox? I've looked and I can't find any such source. If anyone has found a source asserting that, could they please point that source out? Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ref 7, How Jewish is Dominique Strauss-Kahn?, which is at the end of the first paragraph of the Early life section. Jim Michael (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It says nothing of the sort. Please quote the relevant wording. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, this was changed because someone complained that he cannot be "French" because he is "Jewish", and describing him as "French" would be an insult to France or some such. Until a few dyas ago it said "religion" in stead of "ethnicity". Go figure... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It's been changed back. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
From the link cited (TheJC.com) "according to our team of halachic researchers, Strauss-Kahn is half-Ashkenazi, half-Sephardi, but completely Jewish by birth". Or is the Jewish Chronicle not WP:RS? For what it is worth, I deleted the 'ethnicity' statement from the infobox, as irrelevant, but evidently others think differently.
I hope this isn't going to degenerate into a dispute about whether someone's ethnicity is only relevant if they are a 'good' example of the group (or a bad one). We need to be consistent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That's right: consistent. And it says "religion" for others as well, not ethnicity. I'm Ok with leaving it out altogether, but the earlier edit of changing "French" to "Jewish" has historic precedent (not that wikipedia existed back then...). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well we have the man himself quoted in very many RSs as recently joking (?) off the record at a Libération lunch that the three main obstacles to his presidential aspirations were "money, woman and my Jewishness". FightingMac (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

See also the 'Religion' section above. It looks like the consensus is that, as neither Strauss-Kahn's ethnicity nor his faith (if any) is relevant to his notability, they need not be noted in the infobox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. FightingMac (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sodomy

The article re the New York sexual assult used the term sodomy, and had three refs at the end from WP:RS. Yet on reading the three refs, not one of them mentioned sodomy, just sexual assult. This is too serious an accusation to place a fact tag next to until someone finds a ref, so have removed until a ref is found which supports the claim. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I too looked at the references, and at the time, at least one of the mentioned sodomy explicitly. It's still mentioned in the New York Post article here [3] (at least as of the time of this post), although I don't know about citing it with only that reference. Fox News seems to have changed the title of one of their articles from "Paul: IMF Implicated After Chief Arrested on Sodomy Charge" to "Paul: IMF Implicated After Chief Arrested on Attempted Rape Charge". You can see the article at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/15/paul-imf-implicated-chief-arrested-sodomy-charge/ (note the URL versus article name). Until some other sources stick with reporting it, it does sound a little unclear currently. -- Natalya 00:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
According to The New York Times, Strauss-Kahn tried to force the maid to perform oral sex on him. That would be a form of sodomy, legally, but it would not amount to "sodomizing" her, which usually is understood to refer specifically to anal sex. John M Baker (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Changing it away from "sodomizing" doesn't hold up - it keeps getting changed back - without discussion. Although I think that's a bit much, I'm not willing to edit war over it. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it again as a matter of WP:BLP. That policy is very clear: we may not write that he is accused of sodomy unless reliable sources say exactly that.  Sandstein  05:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The act involved is oral sex not sodomy, which is what was reported by the New York City deputy Police Commissioner, quoted in the Los Angeles Times (which I have tried to cite in the main article, but idiots keep deleting. I give up!!!): « According to a statement by Paul Browne, deputy New York City police commissioner, "A 32-year-old chambermaid at a Sofitel on 44th Street said that at about 1 p.m., she entered Mr. Strauss-Kahn's room to clean when he came out of the bathroom naked, pushed her onto the bed and assaulted her," Browne said. The maid told police that before she could escape, Strauss-Kahn forced her to perform oral sex, Browne said. » Charvex (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC) [1]
  1. ^ Baum, Geraldine (15 May 2011). "IMF's Dominique Strauss-Kahn's arraignment postponed". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 15 May 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
I just went back to that Los Angeles Times article now. I copied and pasted that quote (above, in bold letters) three hours ago into the Wikipedia article. Now, the final part of the quote about "oral sex" is gone, edited out by the newspaper itself !!! I can't believe it! Obviously, they can't even quote a police commissioner correctly, or they edited it out because it was "too lurid"! Charvex (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I see there is a revert war going on about using the word "sodomy". Well, I just went to The New York Post's front page, and "sodomy" is being used there once again, so I am putting it in again (somebody had previously vandalised the page by removing not just the word "sodomy" but the link as well) so I am putting the link in as well. Regarding "oral sex" versus "sodomy" - well, I didn't even know that it might mean anal sex (I always that was being "buggered), but the Google dictionary says it can mean both. In any event, The New York Post and other well known publications are using the word "sodomy".

By the way, here is Google's defintion of sodomy: "Sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation", and here is the link: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=definition+sodomy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=rmc&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=sodomy&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=HRPRTezSOdGLhQe0-9mDDQ&ved=0CBsQkQ4&biw=1920&bih=934&fp=ba67f0d5f6cca76c

The New York Post is not WP:RS for WP:BLP. Do not use the word vandalism; read WP:NOTVAND. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, to the google searcher above, well I was most surprised, this appears to be a very specific to the US definition of the word sodomy as it is generally accepted to correspond to anal intercourse or buggery if you prefer (not implying that ...)
Hope this clears things up. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

... and there's this

I added this about a year ago with cites from very good sources but it has been removed. Ho hum.

In May 2010 a book written by an anonymous IMF employee, "Cassandre", detailed Mr Strauss-Kahn's continuing healthy interest in attractive women.[1] The Times quoted her: "After identifying his prey, he bombards them with text messages, usually with the opening salvo 'I want you', writes Cassandre: “He is direct and makes no concessions.” While the author remains anonymous for the sake of her career, the book is published by the eminent Editions Plon, founded in 1852.Red Hurley (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
To be fair there is no doubt he does have a track record as a womanizer, this should be mentioned for NPOV, but maybe we should also include mentions of the sources who admit his track record but also add he wouldnt be the type to force anyone. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if you can find them they should be in there. So far as I know he hasn't sued Editions Plon for the 2010 book. In fact being a ladies' man is a plus in French politics; a tightrope or double-edged sword if ever there was one.Red Hurley (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, theyre saying this would be the first time a Frenchman has been brought down for a sex scandal. Starting to look likes theres a fair chance he'll be exonerated in the next few days, it might be his foes who learn the perils of the double-edged balde. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to add a few cents, but in France being a womanizer or cheating on one's partner is seen to be normal and much hypocrisy prevails, people don't divorce they just merrily sleep with other people for years, apparently such facts are common knowledge for the media/political circles. He is referred to as a quetuard in French sometimes, which would translate as a type of Priapus in our cultures:
US/UK - what they call anglo-saxon in France to lump us all together
Whereas if you regard [French Wikipedia entry] it states "drawn to the beautiful sex" (adj.) or "skirt-chaser" (noun). I have translated for you. CaptainScreebo Parley! 01:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting case

The incident already appears in the news on the front page. This is an odd situation in that the incident may result soon in an article of its own but the subject also is fully worthy of an article. At this point the fact that he's been denied bail but not that the alleged victim was an African from Guinea seems to have reached most of the global MSM, the latter fact SFAICT only in the US. Lycurgus (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought she was from Ghana. --Cornince (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, I think it's only confirmed to be an African country and that she has children there at this point. Lycurgus (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Ghana was the area of specialty of the European woman involved in the 2008 case in the IMF. Lycurgus (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV presentation of 2011 arrest

It seems to me that the article at present is heavily slanted toward the view that Strauss-Kahn's 2011 arrest is on trumped-up charges and is not particularly important. Consider the following:

  • There is no reference to the arrest in the lede, even though the arrest (and subsequent developments) will dominate public knowledge of Strauss-Kahn for the remainder of his life. One would think that such a central event in his life would deserve prominence, regardless of the outcome.
Suggest you work it out with User_talk:Tvoz, who has objected to this incident being in the lede. 67.224.51.189 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I said a few hours earlier than your comment that I thought we now needed to talk about the lede again - I agree with the subsequent addition of a short statement of fact there - always said it was a matter of when rather than if, but that it depended on how things played out. They're playing out in the direction expected. Tvoz/talk 08:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The article does not spell out exactly what Strauss-Kahn is alleged to have done. The District Attorney's press release is clear: He is alleged to have "shut the door [of] his hotel room, thereby preventing the victim, a member of the hotel’s cleaning staff, from leaving. He grabbed the victim’s chest without consent, attempted to remove her pantyhose, and forcibly grabbed the victim’s vaginal area. His penis made contact with the victim’s mouth twice through the use of force."
  • Worst of all, the article is edited to give the clear impression that Strauss-Kahn's arrest is a setup. A number of articles supposedly asserting this are linked; in actuality, most of the articles simply quote European allies of Strauss-Kahn with no knowledge of events or basis for their claims. Minor and supposedly suspicious aspects (e.g., the unsurprising fact that it was his political enemies who were quickest to trumpet the arrest) are presented with prominence. A supposed alibi gets a whole paragraph, even though it is acknowledged to be ultimately unsourced. Meanwhile, there is no reference to the in-court statement that video shows Strauss-Kahn leaving the hotel after the alleged attack, which if true would seem to undercut any possible alibi.

I know no more about the event than anyone else, but I don't like to see Wikipedia fall victim to this kind of bias. John M Baker (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's your reading of the text. The presumption of innocence is the standard and required one. The talk of a possible setup is in fact copious in the French media, but pretty much nowhere else which is what's reported here. I would suggest if there's a separate article it be DSK-Sofitel Incident and just put main article inks in the IMF article and here. Lycurgus (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
to: John Baker; Please remember this is not a newspaper so we go a bit slower ( how long has it been since the alleged event?). Just be a bit patient and join in with the editing. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I do share your concern somewhat but the fact is (in the absence of other hard news about the case?) that MSM is presently reporting the possibility of a setup. Regarding the alibi paragraph, it was originally sourced from a blog and I deleted it. Radio Monte Carlo (RMC) then led on it and Reuters picked up on it and it was resinserted citing Reuters without remarking that RMC hadn't cited any sources and I subsequently provided that but I'm uneasily aware that RMC's original source might have been Wikipedia ... nevertheless the source is now impeccable and Wikipedia policy is 'verifiability, not truth'. FightingMac (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
(added) but your point about the video showing DSK leaving the hotel after the alleged assault cogent indeed and I've included that. Thanks. FightingMac (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
FightingMac, I appreciate your efforts, and while some of my concerns remain, I do think that your work has made the article better. John M Baker (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I do too, but I toned down the setup section a bit some hours ago - I do think we need to be careful about this, and follow the sources - I am a bit concerned about undue weight being given to the setup concerns which in the US at least do not dominate the news reports at all. So I think we need to watch this, and see the quality and nature of the sources pushing this agenda, and perhaps change the amount of space we give to it - either way. Tvoz/talk 08:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
John, the article was not edited to create an impression that DSK was set up, it merely reflects the widely held concerns that this may be the case – while also reflecting reasons why others find the charge credible. The point about his political enemies being quickest to broadcast the accusation is that its something of a coincidence that a French right wing activist happened to have a friend working at the US hotel with inside information , which he claims is why he knew about the event before it was reported in the mainstream media. Note that while this aspect has been very widely commented on, our article sources it to the UKs leading right wing broadsheet , not a source likely to be biased in DSKs favour! If the prosecutions case holds up in court we can probably edit out most of the setup concerns on undue weight grounds, but for now DSK is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and as editors we should be fairly reflecting all significant views, regardless of what we personally suspect or hope to be true. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. I just want to say that at the time I am posting this comment, I find the treatment of the 2011 arrest to be very neutral, well balanced, and an excellent summary of the available reports. I wish to commend and to thank all the editors who have contributed to this, and who help to make Wikipedia such an excellent source of reliable and unbiased information.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't agree. His lawyers tell us that he wasn't even in the room at the time of the alleged assault, but if he was then the sex was consensual. He was leaving in a leisurely manner rather than fleeing, but he misplaced his cell phone and still had his hotel key card when he was arrested on the plane. The woman was a 'honey pot' seductress put up to it by his political enemies, but in a mousy not particularly attractive shy devout muslim mother way. The article doesn't reflect these glaring contradictions and thus the claims of a setup come off way more credibly than they should. --12.42.51.27 (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Very kind of you to say so Gautier. @ x.27 , if we cherry picked the right sources we could make a case for even greater contradictions in the prosecution's case, but thats not how we do things. We reflect major views according to their prominence in the sources. According to Australia's leading broadsheet concerns over a setup have flooded newspapers, radio, TV and online. If we dont fairly reflect this we're not only violating our core editing policy we risk being complicit in a smear. If DSK is found guility then of course we can scale back our coverage of the setup possibility. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
As opposed to being complicit in a smear against the woman? NPV and BLP cut both ways after all. --12.42.51.27 (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Even if it turns out to be a setup and the woman looses her anonymity in the press we ought not to name her here as she'd only be famous for one event. We do need to avoid unfairly discrediting what may be a legitimate complaint of an extremely serious offence, but again we should do this by neutrally presenting what the sources are saying, not by artificially juxtaposing them to draw attention to apparent contradictions the sources don't even mention. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
All of the lawyers claims and counter claims for the prosecution should be kept to a complete minimum - we are not here to try the case. We just report the simple incident and allow real life to sort it out and then we add the result. Please remember this is not a chat page to opine about a legal case.Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rob, we're having a policy based conversation about how we achieve NPOV on controversial subjects. Lots of newbie editors will likely be looking at this page over the next few days, some of them may stay to become regular editors, so its well worth the discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, its so easy to get off track into a opinionated discussion - just giving it a nudge to keep it on track. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That's right. I myself drift into opinion stating much too often. Its not usually constructive. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. I fully agree with the comments above by FeydHuxtable and Off2riorob, and I would invite 12.42.51.27 to create an account, just as we have done.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Current event template

I don't see as this template is relevant now or beneficial. Basically nothing is happening until three days from now and only then a minor court appearance. So - apart for general press opinions and speculations its not really requiring a current event template now. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Off2.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

DGSK

Dominique Gaston is referred to as DGSK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.88.128.138 (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

lawyer, politician, accused serial attempted rapist?

The start of the article currently reads

Dominique Gaston André Strauss-Kahn (French pronunciation: [dɔminik stʁos kan]; born 25 April 1949), often referred to in the media as DSK,[2][3] is a French economist, lawyer, politician, accused serial attempted rapist, and a member of the Socialist Party of France (PS).

This seems like vandalism to me. Can someone fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.47.71 (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)  Done. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of "Proceedings"

Section 5.2 reads "Procedings". It should be "Proceedings". Could someone please edit this?

Clidiere (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Reaction

The French are shocked that DSK was forced to suffer a barbaric perp walk. Could reaction in France and American response to that (e.g. Droit du Dirty Old Men) be properly included? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Months on, when (hopefully) this is all history, I should think a comment about the perp walk a very likely candidate for inclusion in an 'Aftermath' section, but not right now (Wikipedia is not a newsapaper and see also Recentism on the importance of balance and historical perspective). But yes, indeed, noted for the future. FightingMac (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
American legal - try years on. Recentism is a virtue of Wikipedia if vigorous editing keeps it balanced. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion II (please see live discussion above)

see #Religion above

That Dominique Strauss-Kahn is Jewish is well established in reliable third-party sources and has been included in this article for a considerable period of time. It is very standard for the infoboxes of politicans to state the individual's religion. I see no justification for the censorship of this information in this case and have reverted the attempted deletions of this information. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There is already a section on religion on this talk page, and the issue has been discussed at length. I suggest you read that first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, yes I did notice that section after posting this and have now read it, I see no clear consensus there for the censorship of long standing information but will of course continue the discussion there. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:BLPCAT is the relevant policy, his religion is not related to his notable work/life and so is not a useful piece of information to list in the infobox. This is not censorship, it is a long standing consensus that is generally upheld. --Errant (chat!) 20:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The source cited didn't state that DSK was Jewish by faith in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Ethnicity, instead of religion, might be a reasonable alternative since it's sourced.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, for the Infobox it also needs to be self-identified and I can't see that in the source either (it alludes to it, but nothing concrete) --Errant (chat!) 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
"Strauss-Kahn has been outspoken about his Jewish identity in a country where politicians typically are mum about their religion." is in fact the opening paragraph of the source in question. The whole article concerns the impact of his arrest on the French Jewish community (link here as it has been removed from the article: [4])
Just taking a quick look at the WP articles of other politicians it is clear that religion is very commonly - in fact usually - included, here are a few examples: Nicolas_Sarkozy, François Fillon, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Lionel Jospin, Édith Cresson, Pierre Bérégovoy, Édouard Balladur, Alain Juppé and Gérard Larcher.
Please can someone explain why Dominique Strauss-Kahn should be treated differently. To me this appears nothing less than censorship.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm about to have some food. Can you remove those too please. John lilburne (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Because you have BLP editors coming in here due to him being high profile and the article needing attention; please note that in the past raising other examples like you have done almost always just results in the information being removed from the infoboxes of linked articles too. In terms of the source... I was cautious of it - it alludes to self-identity, but usually we prefer something more direct, like a quotation. Nothing seems to have established how him being Jewish is of particular relevance to his career, although the article has the basis of an argument to pass BLPCAT I'd personally look for a deeper analysis (i.e. how he has used his identity, and how it is of relevance to the French political landscape). --Errant (chat!) 21:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Rangoon11, see WP:BLPCAT and Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. The source cited doesn't actually state that DSK is Jewish by religion, does it? 'identity' isn't 'religion'. To assert that DSK is Jewish by faith we need a clear statement to that effect, though since it has nothing to do with his notability, this would still not necessarily justify putting it in the infobox. And cut out the crap about censorship. If other articles aren't following policy, that is no reason to do so here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a ton of stuff that can be put in an infobox for politicians. But most of the extraneous details, especially for personal life matters, are somewhat optional. The religion labels require extra caution, since "religion" implies to many readers that the person practices his religion, while to others it implies family heritage only. "Ethnicity" is more general, but in any case the template doesn't allow for that category. But it's in the article body. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no support in reliable sources for ethnicity being Jewish for Strauss-Kahn. We addressed this at What source supports "Ethnicity: Jewish" as found in infobox? Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The sentence "Strauss-Kahn has been outspoken about his Jewish identity in a country where politicians typically are mum about their religion." is a clear statement that his religion is Jewish. No doubt many other sources could be found to support this, particularly in French, but I have to say, on this particular issue, I don't care enough to engage in what I know will be a long and painful process to get re-included information which has been in this article for a long time, and which is - rightly - in the articles of the majority of high-profile politicians. And yes, this is censorship, and it is concerning. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Bus stop, what are you doing here? Would it not be better to leave this to those that have a consistent approach to religious and ethnic tagging. John lilburne (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
John lilburne—Please: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (WP:TALK)
This is in response to your post reading: "Bus stop, what are you doing here? Would it not be better to leave this to those that have a consistent approach to religious and ethnic tagging." Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not censorship, and casting it as such is unfair. The content exists in the articles, and no one is questioning that. The problem is that it is a problem to categorize people by things which are not relevant to their career. --Errant (chat!) 22:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the bullies come out whenever Judaism is brought up and ascribed to non positive events or people. First, like others have said. This page for the longest time listed his Ethnicity as Jewish. Second, to directly answer the point that some people, most likely Jewish, keep getting fixated over is that his Jew is irrelevant to his career. This Kahn aka Cohen (in English) once stated that one of the hardest things for him getting elected is that he IS JEWISH. It therefore affects his career-SIGNIFICANTLY. Whether I agree that having an effect on his career life is THE standard, does not have to be argued since your point is CLEARLY wrong (I'll try to get the quote link; I'm at work but when I see that bullies removed his Jew from the page I had to stand up). Third, and which I'm going to fix right now if I'm allowed is that, fine you removed his ethnicity because it hurts peoples feelings (really only Jewish people) since it was in a very prominantly displayed box. But, I didn't see anyone of you anti-inclusionists include it in the Category box which is free game. This tells me that you aren't truly interested in the "truth" of the issue but, frankly, are playing politics. Wikipedia is not a place for politics.GegenIsrael (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Note as GegenIsrael makes clear on his/her userpage, he/she is an antisemite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Uh, sorry guy. Whether or not I like people has no affect on the TRUTH. I love exposing hypocrites. Second, I SPECIFICALLY state that I'm NOT antisemitic. I would like an apology. I have said or done nothing antisemitic. If not I am going to report you. Another example of BULLING and SLANDER whenever some people don't like the truth. Grow up dude. You fail; you should have stuck to the point.GegenIsrael (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
You are clearly an antisemite, and saying you aren't proves nothing. Anyone can see what your views are from your user name, your user page, and your 'contributions' - and given your statement that your "goal is the identification of Jewish threads throughout Wikipedia that have not been identified", I can assure you that you will not be welcome long. I suggest you crawl back under the rock you slithered out from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Can we comment on edits not editors - if this pans out as I suspect it will then his user page will stand for itself. --Errant (chat!) 23:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Andy, sorry but you are only digging your whole deeper. None of that makes me an antisemite. I have a thirst for Jewish knowledge and culture. Some people like cars, math, physics, homosexuality, etc. I like Jewish things. That is the STRENGTH of a Wikipedia. It combines the motivations of everyone to get to the TRUTH as objectively and efficiently as possible. On a side note, which your biased and blind hatred of me missed, I recently reported a page regarding a Jewish rabbi that was vandalized. I still haven't reported you yet. There is still time for you to apologize and end this. If I don't see an apology, when I get home tonight I will file a case against you. You really need to learn how to open your mind and see all perspectives, not just your own. If I was an antisemite, why would I be as obvious as you say. Try to think about that...think very hard. Also, I appreciate that last comment of yours Errant.GegenIsrael (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Categories are specifically not fair game. See WP:BLPCAT. I also note this is a common aim (adding the Jews category to articles) so it is important you review that policy as soon as possible. --Errant (chat!) 23:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. That supports ME not you. He has described himself as a Jew, has noted that this has affected his career, and is part of the French Jewish community. You really need to be PRECISE in what you mean. The more you guys fight over this INSIGNIFICANT issue the more it proves to me that you guys are not after the truth but "think" you are doing some type of noble service. Facts are facts and I ask you to respect it. As someone who has studied Jewish culture in depth, it is almost comical to see that this is even an issue.GegenIsrael (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
We definitely are not about the truth! We are about what is documented in reliable sources. See: WP:TRUTH. No one is doing a noble service; the point is that his Ethnicity or Religion is of little importance to his career (unless a source can be presented showing a strong significance) and so our policy says not to categorise him using those markers. This is a long standing consensus. --Errant (chat!) 23:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop posting here, the discussion is taking place above. CaptainScreebo Parley! 00:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Bail hearing today

Its being reported that the hearing has been brought forward from the 20th to tomorrow the 19th and it looks like there is going to be a new request for bail with electronic tagging and house arrest. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

DSK indicted for "forced anal sex" reported by ABC News and UPI

ABC news reports, ""He is accused of forcing the housekeeper to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex " .... 76.239.20.96 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The report is confused it says he is accused of sexual assault and and attempted rape, it was attempted rape he didn't force her to submit to, as that would be rape. John lilburne (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
No, you're confused. You seem to conflate the sex act with the criminal act. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I think Orange is correct.In New York City they appear to reserve the "rape" term for male/female genital intercourse and anal/oral sex acts get these other ambiguous terms. ABC is reporting that forced anal penetration occurred. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Forced anal sex may be the most serious alleged crime in the indictment and should not be excluded from the description of the incident. I have included it. UPI is also saying that is 1 of the alleged crimes just as ABC news has also said.
  • "The indictment accuses Strauss-Kahn of seven counts of sexual assault on the hotel maid, who testified Wednesday he allegedly forced the woman to submit to oral and anal sex and attempted to rape her."[5] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Communist?

Currently the lede includes

A former Communist,[4][not in citation given]Strauss-Kahn became the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

and indeed the citation doesn't support the 'communist' tag.

French BLP has "Il est d'abord proche du Parti communiste français (PCF), avant de s'en éloigner « en apprenant l'économie »" which I deciper as (but definitely don't take my word for it) as 'he had Communist leanings before embarking on a study of Economics'.

Apart from what I judge to be spiteful blogs, I can't find a good source for the Communist tag on the internet.

Shoudn't it be deleted? FightingMac (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No question - I don't have time to confirm this right now, but if you can't find reliable sourcing absolutely should remove it. Thanks for your hard work on this article, by the way. Tvoz/talk 17:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Right. I had a look and I do not see any english language Reliable Sources which say he was a communist. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
From Communist to head of the IMF? The only other time I have seen a change so drastic is with Benito Mussolini. (not comparing the two ofc) Seems iffy to begin with, so I doubt you'll find many in French either. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually it is fairly common. Many people go from one end of the political spectrum to the other end in the course of their life. DSK, who was indeed a member of the Communist union UEC as a student, as stated in the source, only went half that way. However I am not sure describing him as a former communist in the lede is helpful because as a professional politician he started out with the PS, so I am not resintating it. In any case the info remains in the article. Mezigue (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Court website

The charges information is primary sourced... it might just be how it is presented but it reads a little like OR? My preference would be just to cut it for the moment, but I feel it is borderline. Can it be re-written to simply be primary sourced material? --Errant (chat!) 21:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been cut and I think that's right. As far as I can see there isn't a source now detailing the charges. A contributor above provided this PDF link to the charge sheet but I'm loathe to link it myself (I suggest after '... he denied all charges') because I'm not sure what the copyright issues might be here. FightingMac (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
As well as the nypost pdf you link to, the nytimes has the charge sheet: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/16/nyregion/20110516-Strauss-Kahn-complaint.html - they link to the interactive from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/nyregion/imf-chief-is-held-without-bail.html which made it into the references briefly (see diff) before being dropped from the article. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Cheers there. Thanks for this. Really useful. I've provided a citation after '... he denied all charges' referencing the nytimes charge sheet you give. FightingMac (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Arnold's intimacy with a housekeeper has moved attention somewhat away from DSK's alleged et cetera. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

At risk of undue weight?

see #Split_:_need_an_article_about_the_trial_case above

If we total all the text devoted to both his 30-year career (in "Political career" section) with the next two sections, "Allegations of sexual misconduct" and "2011 arrest . . .", it turns out that about 40% is devoted to the sexual current event stories. Since the sex stories have clearly passed the "undue barrier," it should be moved to a separate article. The event is still current and like other celeb sex-stories, it will no doubt grow and become much larger than the bio itself. It might even spin off into best-sellers or a major motion picture! ;) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to get out of hand, we do not need simultaneous threads on the talk page running at the same time, please check to see if the issue is being discussed elsewhere before starting a new section. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Except my comment did not refer to the trial. In fact "trial" is not even mentioned in the current article yet. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Disagree, sorry but you are just splitting hairs, whatever the words used, we are referring to the current judicial process which will (maybe) lead to trial and as the article changes every two seconds trial pouf! wikimagic gone!. With respect. CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Split proposal

Main article: Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case

I think it makes more sense to split the section off into something like Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, than to keep adding and pruning. As it is now, even before he's pled his case, this single event has overwhelmed the biography. It pretty much makes a mockery of what an article, especially a bio, should not become: a newspaper. It's also far over the undue weight threshold.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Article started (linked). If OK, we can selectively move cites to that article and add a hatnote.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
At this stage it is a bad idea. I am unconvinced the event is notable enough to warrant a whole article. It is a sex allegation, that is inevitably going to be spread across the news papers, but it's not currently worth a whole new article. I think the right approach is to reduce the material properly in keeping with due weight to his biography. --Errant (chat!) 23:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
He's been arrested and charged, so it's a "case," based on allegations. As for weight, it's obviously already clinically obese with daily news fat. The original post claimed "we urgently need a split, so the content about the trial may be reported day after day, and expand freely." Is creation of an alternate news site what was being voted on? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Aren't our sources published daily ? So yes, we will daily collect relevant sources, and expand the article.... if we have space to do so (a separate article) without fighting other well intentioned users wishing pruning.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn is already too long, and need to be reduced ; we still need to input content related to the current affair, we need to expand ; so.... we need a split. Yug (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Just in from CNN breaking news email

Dominique Strauss-Kahn has told the board of the International Monetary Fund of his intention to resign as its chief. Let's find an article for this. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Use a link from cnbc.com homepage they just reported 1235am et --Cohen2011 (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Got one from the Wall Street Journal [6], though you need to get a subscription for the nitty gritty details, it does basically tell you he resigned. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Reuters has the IMF acceptance, which consists mostly of the brief full text of DSK's resignation. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Much more useful than any summary by some reporter, nice find! =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion all over the place!

C'mon guys, who added this MESS? Meanwhile, the maid almost immediately reported a sexual assault to her co-workers and manager.[45] (Read: NOT TO HERSELF.) ... Accordingly, the maid alleged that Strauss-Kahn came out of his bathroom naked, ran after her, forced **her** to perform oral sex and... etc. Can anyone please make this clearer and distinguish the maid from her co-workers and her manager? This section of the article is a horridly unintelligible mess!! -andy 217.50.51.197 (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Not guilty :-). I agree it does read dreadfully. Wikiwatcher1 above promises a prune. At least the bit about her being a female maid is out now. FightingMac (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I've now made a copy-edit and prune, retaining the citation for the Reuter's 'exlusive' report which was the source of all the detail about timings and (hopefully) making it clear it was the maid that was assaulted and not the manager and the maid's co-workers :-). FightingMac (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
there's a page of her name though :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.22.197 (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Maid

The name of the maid, [redacted], is all over global media reliable sources such as [7]. 68.230.131.75 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

See #Victim.27s_name above.FightingMac (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
User:68.230.131.75's has made repeated attempts to insert the maid's name against consensus. As a consequence of this end-run around consensus, I have blocked. Please make sure there is consensus on whether to identify the maid publicly before using her name, even in talk space or comments. Ronnotel (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of resignation

This article's infobox says his term as IMF boss ended on 19 May; the infobox on the French article says 18 May. 109.249.198.42 (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done fixed Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What a hawt mess

What is up with a section with no less than three subsections regarding his arrest. Look at any other celebrity who's been arrested (except for OJ, but noting such is something of a corollary to Godwin's Law); we don't go this in-depth. I'm strongly considering pruning it down to one or two paragraphs. Convince me that all of this is absolutely necessary, and that we aren't a madcap group of socialists targeting a BLP for extra-special attention to crufty detail. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a problem related to it being a current event - and not uncommon. Over time the content will be reduced to the proper summary. (I am actually writing an essay that covers the reasons and and problems associated with this: here) --Errant (chat!) 13:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
4 subsections now (someone just reinserted 'Specific charges'). ErrantX has it right I think. Presently the first sub-section needs a prune and probably 'Specific charges' will go again I expect (there is a citation already provided which links to the NYC charge sheet courtesy New York Times). 138.199.79.189 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, agree with the above, I really think that the specific charges section is too much, we are not court reporters, this is like "live" coverage of all the ins and outs of the case. As for the incident and arrest section, that's better with the pruning it has been given.
Well, Errant, I guess you're right, the dust will settle and the content will be reduced to its proper relevance in the article, with a more detailed article split from the main article if the affair develops.
Oh, and it's incredible how this draws people out of the woodwork, at least two of the most vehement "he's a Jew, so let's label him a Jew" editors have been blocked from editing in the last 24 hours. Amateur ethnic-taggers beware! CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I liked the way you characterised that. FightingMac (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

If you like writing about current events, Wikinews would love to have you!

I have taken the unusual step of posting this at the top of the talk page as a huge amount of these conversations, raging debates and so on are entirley missing the point, IMHO.

As I noted elsewhere, Wikipedia is not a breaking news website. To which someone replied:

  • "I disagree about the breaking news. If it's verified such as he resigned, then yes go ahead and source and post it. But a semi daily update of reliable sources is fine and keeping with wiki standards. "

No, it isn't, not here on Wikipedia, if you want to do semi-daily updates about this sort of thing go join Wikinews.

The policy I linked to in the title specifically states:

  • Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.
  • While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. (my emphasis)

Otherwise, before wading in please read WP:RECENTISM, WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCAT, as there are several ongoing discussions on this talk page which would not exist if some editors could take on board what the actual policies are regarding BLPs (very strict).

Including (but not exclusive to) the maid's name, her ethnicity, the allegations about DSK, the use of the word sodomy, Jewish or not Jewish and so on.

Scurrilous detail, detailed lists of unproved allegations and blow-by-blow accounting of the events do not have their place here. How come people obsess about the ethnicity of the maid or what sex acts DSK tried to force upon her, but nobody wonders what brand of mobile phone he left in his hotel room? CaptainScreebo Parley! 03:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Concise, and to the point. This is not Wikinews. Neither is it a down-market tabloid, or a forum for debates regarding what exactly 'Jewish' means. We already have policy regarding content of BLPs, and if people disagree with the policy, this isn't the place to debate it. This article has enough problems with POV-pushing and drive-by antisemitism, and that experienced contributors chose to raise issues of content where policy is already clear only makes matters worse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity, race

The inclusion of race in an alleged incident of sexual violence is relevant and standard. Please see projects on WP:Racism and WP:Feminism for further background. This is further relevant in this case, given the context of critiques of IMF neo-imperialism. The context is about the power dynamic. A police spokesman described the alleged victim as 'black,' according to an article in SMH.com.au, which quotes AFP.[8] It is one of the few facts released by the police, and should be included here. This is distinct from the inappropriate prurient comments buried above. But those inappropriate comments are not an excuse to be color blind. Why include her age ("32 year old" has been included many times), but delete her race? The ethnicity of the alleged victim is relevant. FatTrebla (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for the ethnicity of the victim...everywhere I turn...98.165.15.98 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
totally irrelavent; and your rant about neo-imperialism shows your agenda. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting here, User:Seb az86556. I believe it helps identify and flag your own agenda, which I had not guessed before. All I wrote is: "given the context of critiques of IMF neo-imperialism," and I linked to the relevant Wikipedia pages. This hardly counts as a 'rant'! Yet you failed to reply to any of my points, you warned me on my talk page about edit reverting, you deleted my reply on your own talk page, and here you accuse me of a 'rant' and 'agenda'. All this, simply because I added the word 'black' (and a police reference). I now believe you were projecting your own POV and abusing your editing privileges on Wikipedia. Perhaps it's time to step back a little and relax. FatTrebla (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal reports: "The alleged victim, a native of Guinea" [9]. Evidently the police spokesman[10] and the WSJ consider her ethnicity to be relevant. Why wouldn't a Wikipedia editor? FatTrebla (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
a) you were edit warring, thus the warning. b) a mere link to "neo-imperialism" does in no way explain your conclusion that Kahn's behavior was part of a neo-imperialist plot; you need to explain this. Until then, it is indeed irrelevant whether the alleged victim was black, white, or green. (would you state "white" if the woman had been Caucasian?) As for the Wall Street Journal, that a newspaper; this is wikipedia >> WP:NOTNEWS Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Tendentious, not worthy of a response. FatTrebla (talk)

There is no need for mutual accusations of POV-pushing, etc. We should simply follow the lead of reliable sources. As soon as major (inter)national newspapers begin to cover and discuss the ethnicity (or any other characteristic) of the alleged victim, we should as well. Until then, it is simply a random characteristic, such as her age or hair color, that does not need particular mention per WP:IINFO.  Sandstein  11:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Yes, a police spokesman cited in AFP and Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) is a reliable source, as is (I think most will agree) the Wall Street Journal. "[A] police spokesman told AFP. He described the victim as "female, black, 32 years old" (AFP/SMH). "Police said... The alleged victim, a native of Guinea and mother of two..." (WSJ). These are the sources referenced, as cited above. Do you agree? And so do you now agree we should cover the ethnicity and/or nationality of the alleged victim? Feel free to add it to the article, if so. Thanks! FatTrebla (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
We are also free not to add this to the article. As there is no evidence whatsoever that the alleged victim's ethnicity or nationality is in any way relevant, we have no reason to do so. This is not a newspaper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, unless reliable sources cover the "neo-imperialism" malarkey, then it isn't really a justification for highlighting the race of the victim. I don't think it is relevant. Monty845 17:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Odd interjection of POV by User:Monty845, opining "'neo-imperialism' malarkey". Fwiw, I don't put much stock in many such critiques, either, but they are an important part of discourse over the IMF. Furthermore, this is hardly the only reason to mention the alleged victim's race, especially since it has been reported in most majour sources. In fact, coverage of most incidents of rape include ethnicity, along with age. This is standard practice. Not to do so smacks of WP:POV at best. FatTrebla (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever that 'discourse over the IMF' is in any way relevant to the allegations. And secondly, this is not a newspaper. We have our own standards and policies regarding what we include in articles, and regardless of what the media (where?) considers standard practice, we have no reason to follow suit. Yes, Wikipedia has a POV regarding the privacy of individuals: see WP:BLPNAME etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The same way as religion is irrelevant here (and everywhere, see my other comments), ethnicity or, as you say "race" (I feel ashamed and dizy to simply use this disgusting word. There is only ONE human species, but this is another debate) is totally irrelevant here and anywhere else.
Distinctions about ethnicity or the thing you call "race" (a word that shouln't even exist for the human species) lead only to ONE thing : racism, and that leads only to hate and segregation.
Those concepts were already unacceptable centuries ago. They are still completely unacceptable now.
The alledged or real ethnic origins of the people involved in this are totally irrelevant, and not only to this article, but to everything else too.
Where does it get you to know what color a person is? Where he or she is born, what religion, sexual orientation they have, what they eat for breakfast, how they like to sit when they are taking a dump? How does that concern you? What do you care? Does it modify your judgement about them to know they are black, jewish, heterosexual, vegetarian, that they like to eat fish but only wile listening to Aretha Franklin remixed by a blind taxi driver...?
Arktor (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
How do you know that the woman's ethnic origins here are irrelevant? Do you have knowledge of this case more than the rest of us do? There is absolutely nothing racist about mentioning what "race"/"ethnic group" this woman belongs too anymore then it is sexist to mention that the victim here was a "woman". If race or religion are not relevant, then why even mention her gender? The goal of Wikipedia is to give as much info as possible (without including her name, or course). For articles about individuals on Wikipedia, things like ethnicity and religion and loads of other "irrelevant" info are given in copious quantities (check it out for yourself if you don't believe me). There is nothing bad about being comprehensive, and just because a piece of information may not seem relevant at the time, is no reason not to add it anyway.108.86.23.214 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you could actually not communicate her gender unless you called her the victim, and that's mostly only in English that we have that luxury of gender-neutral descriptors like that. How do you know they are relevant? That is speculation that they might have some relevance really. Wait for them to be absolutely relevant. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course it's speculation that such info is relevant. I personally don't think race/religion were relevant here. But that's just me. Until we know more about what actually happened, why not list as much info as possible just like actual news sources do (not the woman's name or address, or course). Why not be as complete as possible? For all we know, if DSK is guilty of doing this, maybe he chose the woman because she was black and he may have thought that, if caught, the word of a black, immigrant maid (who probably had an accent) against the head of the IMF might be less credible than the word of a white maid. It's not at all uncommon for rapists. especially those in positions of power, to choose victims that they--and, as they see it, probably society as well--would view as "lowly" and "inconsequential" rather then ones who may gain more sympathy from the societal majority. Of course, this is just speculation. But, then again, it isn't so far-fetched that this could've been a factor. If this is the case, and Wikipedia is reference tool that ppl can use to form opinions on issues, and the news sources that Wikipedia uses as references all list it, shouldn't Wikipedia list it as well? Where is the harm?108.86.23.214 (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
We don't speculate in articles as per WP:SPECULATION, and we especially don't speculate that the fellow is basically a racist as per WP:BLP as that is possible libel. So there's lots of harm I'm afraid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Even more so with the stuff you put in here. [11] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I never meant to say that we should list her ethnicity/relgion AND speculate that her ethnicity/religion were the reasons why she was attacked (and he was guilty of it). I just meant to say that, her ethnicity/relgion MAY be relevant and, until it is determined otherwise, should be listed (just as news sources, at least good ones, would list).108.86.23.214 (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS]... also: WP:NOTFORUM Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The opposite is the case, until it is determined they are in fact relevant, they really should not. It's also unlikely he knew her religion. Yeah, but Wikipedia is not a news source even if a lot of people use it like that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is an information source, isn't it? Why not list all the info that could be relevant and let the readers be the judge of what is and what isn't relevant? Like it or not, ethnicity could have been relevant here (which is why they list it in news sources). I'm not saying that Wikipedia should read like a newspaper, but shouldn't the general info (that could be relevant) about indiviiduals in question at least be listed? It's no biggie to me (and I'm not trying to be difficult here or combative), but I just think Wikipedia should try to be more thorough.108.86.23.214 (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
this has now been explained to you. Are you here to simply be a pest? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not here to be a pest. I was just having a discussion, putting across my point of view, and trying to make Wikipedia more like a real encyclopedia. I don't recall being insulting or offensive or uncivil in any way. Is there a limit to how much a person can discuss things on Wikipedia--and those who go beyond this get insulted by ppl like you who, apparently, are just lying in wait to exert your authority and insult someone? Is that how you see your job as editor? I never called anybody a "pest". Look, I was done anyway. Go find somebody else to accuse.108.86.23.214 (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw the "pest"-comment. I was suspecting sockpuppetry, but the guy just posted simultaneously with you. Hope that helps. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Please remain WP:CIVIL and do not make personal attacks, Cho. Not all information. We don't include trivial stuff for instance, which this is atm. Another thought is that her ethnicity isn't tehcnically Guinean but one of the ethnic groups of that country, and good luck finding that info. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be difficult, just trying to help out.108.86.23.214 (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Not at all, I probably should have brought up trivia much earlier, but I wasn't thinking about it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Do not lecture me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not, I'm simply reminding you to not insult other editors and behave in a friendly manner. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Somebody's being stubborn, insistent, and dragging this on for forever. I call it like it is. @anon: do you have any other issues you'd like to address? This one been explained to you ad nauseum now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ
And how exactly are you being dragged on by this? Why do you keep reading this same section if it frustrates you so much? Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to listen to me.108.86.23.214 (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
My previous comments got lost in an edit conflict that won't load, but guys. Remember that old saying about it takes two people to start an argument, let's end this convo before it gets any uglier, eh? =)
Agreed. Sometimes, though, all it takes is one person listening in on a coversation and then insulting one of the participants to start an argument--an argument that the insultee has an understandable right to defend himself over.108.86.22.29 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
@Arktor: your good intentions are much welcomed. Discussions of ethnicity often elicit passion because of the sensitivities involved that you identify. I used both terms (ethnicity, race) because some people prefer one over the other. The choice is an excellent discussion to hold elsewhere. Whatever term one uses, it is not true that ethnicity somehow 'no longer matters' -- this would deny centuries of history of the very kind of racism that (I think) you are objecting to, and the lingering effects of it. Having a goal of a society in which ethnicity is irrelevant is different than the current social reality. That's a discussion for another time/place.
Regarding including of the alleged victim's ethnicity in this article, if one looks in well-known encyclopedias on articles about rape or other violent crimes, the ethnicity of the assailant and the victim is routinely included, especially if their ethnicities are different. Encyclopedias often build on the discourse created by major newspapers and other reliable sources, because they shape the social context in which such a crime or trial is portrayed. So the widespread inclusion of the alleged victim's ethnicity in all major reliable sources is in fact relevant for including it here (even though WP is not a newspaper). Bloomberg: "The woman ... is a native of Guinea"; CNN: "attempted rape of a 32-year-old Guinean maid"; BBC: "The woman came originally from the West African state of Guinea"; the Telegraph: "The woman is a 32-year-old Guinean immigrant" (lede sentence); the New York Times: "The woman, 32, a widowed immigrant from Guinea", and in NYT columns ("The young woman escaped horrors in her native Guinea"); ABC News (in 14 different stories); Fox News--several times; the Wall Street Journal (in 15 articles); News One for Black America puts it in their headline: "African Woman Accusing IMF Head Of Rape," "The West African maid who was allegedly assaulted by Kahn..."; the Los Angeles Times: "the woman is a 32-year-old single mother from West Africa"; Reuters: "a 32-year-old widow from West Africa"; the NY police: "a police spokesman ... described the victim as 'female, black, 32 years old,' "; and thousands of other articles -- they all identify her native country or ethnicity. This is a current event, so there are no published articles about it in scholarly journals, books or other encyclopedias; reliable news sources are the only sources available. The strong opposition to including her ethnicity, including the use of ad hominem innuendos ("Are you here to simply be a pest?"), contrary to every major reliable source, makes me begin to question the objectivity of User:Seb az86556 on this issue. FatTrebla (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
"...WP is not a newspaper...". And this article isn't about the alleged victim, but about DSK. Unless reliable sources suggest that the ethnicity of the woman in question is somehow relevant, there is no particular reason why we need to include it. And given your initial posting in this section, I hardly think you are in any position to question anyone's 'objectivity'. If you think there are grounds for such complaints, you are of course free to raise them (e.g. at WP:ANI), but I'd read WP:BOOMERANG first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


Details about the case

This is getting bloated - I don't personally support the over reporting of he said she said and so on. If the section gets any larger it will be better to get it out of his BLP and create a separate article for the case. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should just cut down on the bloat at this point in time. This event is starting to look more like part of a pattern and it may end up being just a data point in something like this. Once/if it gets to trial then I'd say fork it off. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to trim it back but there is a lot of traffic and as you know from Assange its almost impossible to keep it to the noteworthy details. - we really have to stop people attempting to try the case in the article. An example of the bloat is the paragraph that simply boils down to - Strauss-Kahn does not have diplomatic immunity. - that is worthless detail - if he had diplomatic immunity he wouldn't be in jail - he didn't request diplomatic immunity . - what else doesn't he have. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree theres no need to mention diplomatic immunity. Tend to agree wth Rob a dedicated article may soon be in order. There's now such abundant coverage on how this will affect global economic policy in all sorts of ways that probably even deletionists wont mind. Loads of stuff about the impact on the IMFs plans for Europe even in top sources like the FT, and WSJ have even suggested it could be a pivotal moment that causes the unravelling of the post WWII global architecture! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
As for diplomatic immunity, I think a brief mention is necessary. When I first heard the story on Sunday, my first thought was "don't IMF officials have diplomatic immunity?" I found the explanation in the first news reports, but I think one or two sentences are necessary, just to explain the type of immunity organizations like the IMF have.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I did a pretty aggressive trim(got logged out though so edit shows as Anon); not sure if it is suitable or not, but it reads better to me,now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, its much better now, focused.Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to an aggressive trim, agree with Rob about the bloat. But we'd need also to take away the Controversary section else there would be a heavy slant towards him being guilty. Its not just media speculation about the setup, at least 8 political heavyweights have suggested it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
User:FeydHuxtable has stuffed it all back in again. We need to consider a separate article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Id personally prefer a minor trim and a new article but am relaxed about whatever you decide. My only strong concern is NPOV - if we take away the suggestion of a possible setup we also need to remove the controversy section and everything except a very brief mention of the charge and arrest. Otherwise our article will suggest it’s a credible charge in a way that doenst reflect the balance of the sources.
One could list the prominent people that have suggested a set up along with literally hundreds of sources, but its much more concise just to refer to a reliable source that summarises the coverage for us - Australia's leading broadsheet saying concerns over a setup have "flooded newspapers, radio, TV and online." FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
If by 'this' you mean the section '2011 arrest and sexual assault charges' I would agree and my own position would be that much of it is 'recentism'. I'd be happy to see it trimmed. FightingMac (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I found a source that discusses cultural differences and implications: CNN Wire Staff. "French reaction to IMF chief's arrest ranges from shock to sympathy." CNN. May 17, 2011. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WhisperToMe: I think the cultural information is exceptionally notable to the event, but not to his BLP. If and when the event becomes an article, I definitely think you should add some of that content which provides some much needed educational depth to the story. Its a pleasant surprise to me that CNN staff wrote such an informative article. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding Trimming, here is what I came up with before, could we maybe start with this and ionly add what is really necessary?

On May 14, 2011, a 32-year-old female hotel maid at the Sofitel New York Hotel alleged that Strauss-Kahn came out of his bathroom naked, ran after her, attempted to forcibly have sex with her, and forced her to perform oral sex on him.[40][41][42] At 4:40 that afternoon, police officers removed Strauss-Kahn from Air France Flight 23 at New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport, moments before takeoff for Paris.[43] They arrested him for allegedly sexually assaulting the maid.[44][45]

On May 16 Strauss-Kahn appeared in New York City Criminal Court and was charged with two counts of a criminal sexual act in the first degree, first-degree attempted rape, first-degree sexual abuse, second-degree unlawful imprisonment, forcible touching, and third-degree sexual abuse.[46][41][47] A prosecutor stated that the alleged victim has provided a detailed account of the alleged assault that was corroborated by a sexual-assault examination, that the alleged victim picked Strauss-Kahn out of a lineup, and that DNA evidence recovered at the site was being tested. [48] Strauss-Kahn did not enter a plea but his lawyer has said he denies all charges.[6] A defense request for $1 million bail was rejected by the judge due to concerns of his being a flight risk. Strauss-Kahn was remanded to jail until his next court appearance on May 20.[47][6] He is currently being held at Rikers Island.[49]

In the first days after the arrest there was media speculation, especially in France, that Strauss-Kahn might be the victim of a setup.[50][51][52][53][54][55] Other commentators suggested the alleged assault may be in keeping with Strauss-Kahn's past behavior.[56][53]

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine with me but do we really need all of [50] through [55]? Main thing I do absolutely agree we don't want this article to degenerate into he said she said of which it does begin to look increasingly likely there is to be plenty to come. FightingMac (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the high level of detailed coverage, and since we follow the RSs, detailed coverage in wp is appropriate. However, to the general point, a summary section on the events can be what we use here, as we (per the below suggestion by another editor) move what we already have, replete with details, to an independent article on this matter.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. Just wrong. We do not 'follow' RS's, we extract relevent information from them. According to policy, and with due regard to the fact that this is an online encycloaedia, not a newspaper. We have no need for another article, if we report only what policy requires. This article is a mess because some contributors seem to think it is a down-market tabloid. There are other, more appropriate, places for such activity (notably WikiNews, though they have standards of their own), and if people wish to give detailed coverage of the minutiae of ongoing events, they should do it there, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

$ 3000 a night suite

I find this detail irrelevant, weasel-like and downright misleading because according to some reports DSK paid considerably less: currentnews quote: Stories from the French media have hooked the fare of the lavishness suite where Kahn was staying at $3,000 per night, even as some US statements put the fare at only $525 per night. Sofitel's website brings up its numerous room fares within US$251 to395 per night. I would welcome some more input on this detail from other editors. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC) -

Mr. K is ignoring the fact that the RSs find it notable. We follow the RSs -- not K's subjective personal POV. This is fact is widely covered in thousands of RS articles, as was already pointed out to K.(see also here) It was even highlighted in RS headlines, such as The Guardian's "Dominique Strauss-Kahn: from $3,000-a-night suite to police cell". Despite this explanation, K has edit-warred deletion of the widely RS-covered fact, based only on his subjective personal-point-of-view "finding" of its relevancy. Rather than objectively assessing relevancy based on RS coverage. It should be restored immediately. K is of course free to, and encouraged to, add further facts regarding it if they are notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
First of all please have the decency to copy my short nickname correctly. It is not Mr. K. nor K. Second according to reliable sources Kahn did not pay 3000 dollars a night but only $525 Described by police as "female, black, 32 years old," the maid says she entered Strauss-Kahn's 525-dollar-a-night suite around midday Saturday, thinking it was empty, before enduring a horrific sexual assault. from ABC/CBS news. So I repeat this irrelevant detail you are adding is also wrong. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly notable for the reasons stated above. You've provided nothing other than your subjective personal POV -- which, weighed against the thousands of RS references that find it notable, including this one now from CNN ("The environs are a sharp contrast to the $3,000-a-night Sofitel luxury suite that Strauss-Kahn, who has a reputation for enjoying a lavish lifestyle, was in Saturday.") Your subjective suggestion that it is not notable is not supported by the RSs. And your personal POV -- even if you choose to refer to yourself as a "Dr." -- does not trump the RSs. WP focuses on verifiability. If you have relevant RS coverage to add to this reference, you are both free and encouraged to do so. But it is not appropriate for "Dr." to delete this, based only on his subjective personal POV, in the face of widespread RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
You obviously have a problem with my screen name. I find this uncivil. I will not reply to your ridiculous use of scare quotes and your unjustified attacks on my choice of using Dr. as part of my screen name, other than to tell you that I consider this a personal attack and to remind you of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. For the last time I will also repeat my argument which you keep ignoring: Even if the fact you wish to add were notable, the value of the suite is not 3000 dollars a night, it was only 525 dollars. So you want to add something that is wrong. 3000 is not equal to 525. Simple math. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't care particularly either way on this but I would make a point about notability. The price of the room may well be notable and adds "spice" to a newspaper story. That doesn't make it notable for an encyclopedia article. That's the problem with the whole section. Recentism makes it difficult to separateout what's encyclopedic and what's journalistically interesting when the media is currently the only source. BLP applies so it should err on the side of caution. PS the 2 of you should cut it out - your spat has got nothing to do with the article.DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't take kindly to your demand to cut it out when I defend myself from the unjustified personal attacks of another person. I came here to improve the article but when someone attacks me I have the right to respond. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Take it to your respective talk pages. No one else is interested. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
@DeCausa--First, I agree with your good suggestion that the focus here should be on the article. Second, we measure WP notability by RS coverage; that's embedded quite firmly in the wp definition of what is notable for wp purposes. We don't allow editors to censor articles on the basis of a personal POV view along the lines of: "well, it is widely covered in RSs, in thousands of articles, but that's because 'x'." In addition, I don't see any BLP issue here at all. And "recentism" is no more an issue than it is as to any other fact covered in this article, that has thousands of RS articles reporting it.
@Doctor K: Feel free to add to the widely RS-reported fact that the room is a $3,000 room any verifiable notable fact as to the price of the room, as I've encouraged you above. Your assertion that the widely RS-reported price of the room is "wrong" is addressed in wp's "verifiability" policy. See the first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @DeCausa You don't seem to be getting the point. If in the middle of a discussion about subject X someone starts disassembling your nickname you cannot go to your talkpage and deal with the personal attack, then come back to resume the discussion on subject X. Reality and continuity of a discusion don't work like that. Plus save your warnings for the person who initiated these incivilities. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider this $3000/525 detail trivial, weasel-like and unencyclopaedic. But I will withdraw from this debate for now because I have covered my points and I want to see input from other interested editors before (if) I comment again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. From what I heard on CNN this morning, the suite is normally priced at $3000 per day, but DSK only paid $525 per night, presumably because he was a regular customer. He paid the amount out of his own pocket, that is, the IMF did not pay. He was apparently on a private trip, probably to visit his daughter. However, I agree that all of this is trivial (that is, not encyclopedic) and therefore need not be included.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source on that:[12] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that it is fine to mention something that captures that (and Mr. G's article focuses on the issue -- again reflecting its notability). Something like "$3,000-per-night suite for which he paid $525". We now have thousands of articles discussing this, which is what makes it notable -- along with the fact that as in the article Mr. G points us to, even entire articles focus on it. Objectively (as measured by RS coverage), it is notable, though to some of us it may appear subjectively not to be notable. But at wp, we are bound to follow the objective RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no objective reason to add this piece of trivia to the article. What would be the purpose? He stayed in a hotel and he paid money for it. Really? How surprising. Why would anyone want to add this piece of info into the article other than to infer that he lived in luxury and now he got caught etc. etc. This is trivial tabloid editorialising and weaseling ideas into the mind of the reader. Uniquely unfit to be in an encyclopedia. In addition Wikipedia is not Expedia.com. We are here to build an encyclopedia not engage in comparative hotel room pricing. Finally, in Wikipedia there is such thing as consensus. So far from those who commented in this section noone agrees that this fact is encyclopedic and should be included, except one. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 12:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It strikes me, also, as pure trivia and of minimal interest. He paid for a room & got a cheap rate. *shrug* doesn't seem relevant to the bio, and I don't see any sources identifying any relevance to the story (other than it happened). --Errant (chat!) 12:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I concurr. This is trivial and should not be included.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Split : need an article about the trial case

Main article: Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case

All in the title. We urgently need a split, so the content about the trial case may be reported more seriously, and expand freely. Yug (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Wait and see. While it is likely that a split will be necessary if things move to the trial stage, I don't think a split is warranted yet. Any trial is likely a year or more away, lets see how things develop for a few more days or weeks before moving to split. Monty845 06:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Given the level of coverage already, I agree w/nom that a split is now appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
In this article, how about consolidation like this:
Allegations of sexual misconduct
  • diffuse - the rep
  • 2002 - Tristane Banon
  • 2008 - Piroska Nagy
  • 2011 - Sofitel Housekeeper
If more specific incidents emerge, add; for the really messy (like Sofitel) subarticles? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support split to trial, oppose allegations of sexual misconduct article - the latter is potentially ludicrously prejudical. The former very wise. Egg Centric 12:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Personally, I think the suggestion that we need a split now so "content about the trial may be reported day after day, and expand freely" is somewhat premature. There may not even be a trial, and should the need for a split arise, it can be dealt with at the time. As of now, if one excludes the speculation and trivia, there is insufficient real sourced content to justify a new article, and splitting will only make maintaining proper standards regarding content which has already attracted a significant amount of vandalism etc much more difficult. Also, this is not a newspaper, and we have no requirement to include every event that the media deems 'news' - they have deadlines, and slots to fill, we don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • A split at this stage is usually a bad idea. This is a current event and things can change quickly. For the time being - keep the content cut to a minimum. And then write it up in a few months when the matter is historical. If you have an interest in writing up-to-the-minute information Wikinews is the place ot be :) --Errant (chat!) 12:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree (split). Do agree with ErrantX's views above. Also the section reads rather well at present I think. Nothing to fix here. FightingMac (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree with split at present - per Andy (who is not so grumpy)'s argument. There is no trial yet, and we try to keep the minute-by-minute reportage to a minimum anyway. Let's see how this develops - the speculation and theories also should be kept to a bare minimum if at all. Tvoz/talk 18:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The trial? What trial? We don't create articles about something nonexistent.TMCk (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree as per WP:NOTNEWS and I actually think the whole "2011 arrest and charges" goes into far more detail than necessary for something that is breaking news and of which the facts have not been established, like detailing the maid's accusations and so on. Wouldn't it be sufficient to say "was arrested for an alleged sexual assault on a 32-year old hotel maid" in that part, for example? Oh and the maid entered his room at about 12 p.m. as DSK checked out between 12.28 and 12.38 so in their/our rush for seedy details people are getting it wrong!CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree After some time to think about it, I've concluded that unless everything I think about the power and methodology of the New world order (politics) is false, this will never get to a trial; and he won't be in jail much longer either. DSK can't be thrown under the bus...he's one of the bus drivers. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed French WP has split immediately precipitating a discussion as to whether it should be deleted. FightingMac (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
A battle of splits - they want to AfD that one in favor of this one. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support There are concerns on the DSK article that it is already too long, which thus need to be pruned. There are still facts and analysis coming out about this cases, which thus need expansion. A separate article is need. Yug (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Pruning suggestions

The subsection, "Incident and arrest" contains a load of minutia, most of it with exact times of day, which should be removed. They read like a police report, not an encyclopedia. Any objections? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not all. It's quite inappropiate. Go ahead. FightingMac (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a BLP. WP is not a police blotter, last I checked. Only substantial material belongs here, not minute-by-minute JackWebbification of events. Collect (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I've made a copy-edit because it had become a tad illiterate and I've pruned as well but retaining as citation the Reuters 'exclusive' which was the source for all the detail about timing. I hope this is all right. I really couldn't stand to see it in that condition any longer :-) FightingMac (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
(Pruning)
Disagree. Let's the section expand freely, then split, and rewrite a short section. But please don't delete relevant informations. These minutia and other information you deleted are important, for the accusation, and especially for the defense. Accordingly, I'm willing to restore this section to its more detailed version. For now, let's collect informations. Anyway, a split will soon come, and a shorter and more comprehensive section will emerge. Yug (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The pruning also restored early sources (2011/05/14) which contain substantial errors according to more recent knowledge of the events. A work was done on this section to get update its sources, and delete misleading ones. Yug (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Yug. Highly relevant material has been deleted, without consensus. Suggest it be restored. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that the 860,000 people who came to this page in the past five days didn't do so just to find out that he was arrested. They knew that. They deserve an article that doesn't have censored out of it information such as the fact that he called the hotel from the airport to tell hotel security where he could be found, so they could give him his cell phone. Deleting information like that and similar facts, widely covered by RSs, is a reflection of a lone editor or two thinking that they -- and not RS coverage -- determines what facts are notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Good gosh

Once the scandal hit, people are updating his page more about it rather than his achievements, especially in the IMF.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The French have split the case from the biography, and a split here just got started: Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case. Maybe it will get some attention, and the main page In The News item can be directed to the sub-article. Maybe not. It depends on what people feel like doing. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The article should not be split for this reason, but rather when it is necessary to keep the main text from growing too much past 40K. (It's 23K now.). Otherwise, it's creating an extra click for no good reason. Kauffner (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Ending the split through a merge is argued at Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems like every user inthe past week cares more about updating the nitty gritty about the case--when the trial hasn't even started--rather that DSK's political history.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of "anal sex" in the description

Both ABC[13] and UPI[14] + several others now report that the indictment includes a charge that DSK "is accused of forcing the housekeeper to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex " "The indictment accuses Strauss-Kahn of seven counts of sexual assault on the hotel maid, who testified Wednesday he allegedly forced the woman to submit to oral and anal sex and attempted to rape her." I think this charge of forced anal sex is likely the most serious and certainly should be included in any description of the charges, but twice it has been removed from the BLP. What do others think? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the key word is 'force'. Sexual assault (if that is what occurred) Is an act of violence, and needs to be understood as such. Attempting to 'rank' individual actions according to some abstract scale is at best irrelevant, and at worst, repugnant. Please don't attempt to do this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
All I am saying is that we have included the term "oral sex" in the description; so to not include "anal sex" seems misleading by omission (misleading as to the details of the indictment). Hard to know how to respond to your other comment; I'll assume you are serious. All criminal charges are ranked according to abstract scales; that's why they have the "class A,B,C" felonies etc. If you feel that ranking the seriousness of crimes is irrelevant or repugnant, please realize that is just your opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The current wording is stupid and self conflicting; just think about it. "attempted to forcibly have sex with her, and forced her to perform oral sex on him." "attempted to" and "forced to" (have sex) are mutually exclusive unless we are subscribing to Bill Clinton's notion that oral sex is not sex. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but what language do you speak? In general, in the English language, between a man and a woman, to have sex implies vaginal penetration. Oral sex is a sex act but it is not "to have sex" as far as I'm aware, although it can be part of "having sex".
Did you actually bother to read the first post on this page? It is specifically about not obsessing about trivia, breaking news, in-depth allegations and so on. This is a biography about a living person, too much weight is already being given to this section. Go edit Wikinews if this is the type of information you wish to include. CaptainScreebo Parley! 04:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest we follow the RSs. If they report "x", we reflect "x". We don't have to decide what the key charge is, or the key word, or how to characterize it -- we simply reflect what the RSs do. That helps limit personal POVs and censorship from impacting the article, which can otherwise pull it in conflicting directions given that people have conflicting personal viewpoints.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
"But he said it first" ought to remain in the playground. One needs to have a modicum of responsibility here. John lilburne (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry guys, but I am confused about what the consensus is on 2 aspects of what to include about the indictment. The reason its important is for the encyclopedia to have a sentence which makes sense and reflects what Reliable Sources say about the charges. So, regarding consensus;
  • Is the consensus to maintain in the article :"attempted to forcibly have sex with her, and forced her to perform oral sex on him" ? Bill Clinton's explanation (that when he said "I did not have sex with that woman" was truthful because he was referring to oral sex) was a scorned and ridiculed reasoning, at least in North America. Is the consensus here to go with that reasoning as Captain Screebo suggests?
  • Is it the consensus to omit the ABC and UPI reference to "forced the woman to submit to anal sex" yet retain the wording "forced her to perform oral sex" ? If so, why do we include oral and not anal? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletions of notable material

I noticed that some notable material has been deleted. What jumped out at me most was the deletion of the RS coverage of his having called the hotel from the airport, and given the hotel security staff his location at JFK airport (so they could bring him a phone). Widely covered by RSs, and clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed it because it was part of other evidentiary minutia that was listed in factoidal manner, and not with any context of what it meant. Like all the new evidence that will be given, only some will be notable in themselves, and the rest will support or contradict allegations. For a fact like this one, some phrasing might imply that he was in a hurry to leave. Someone else might claim by their OR phrasing that by taking a 2-hour lunch after, and later calling the hotel, he was not trying to run or hide. Either way, I think we should stick to relevant summary formats, especially as a single bio event for this article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Epeefleche Please read the post at the top of the talkpage and stop badgering on about the same old subjects. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, we don't do breaking news, blow-by-blow accounts or trivial aspects of an event. Why don't we include the make and model of the phone that he left at the hotel? What he supposedly had for lunch and where he dined in NY with his daughter? That officers Mahoney and Maloney arrested him? That he was wearing black underwear?
As for you agreeing with Yug above, a lot of content was moved to the (non-consensus) split article and promptly got pruned to death so all that remains is a stub. Please stop obsessing about minor details and let time take its course. CaptainScreebo Parley! 06:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
@Wiki: I think that fact (among others that were erased from the article) is highly notable. I would think that would be obvious. But if not obvious, the robust coverage shows it to be so. One editor calling it "minutia" is outweighed by robust RS coverage. That's how we determine notability. Otherwise, editor personal POV overtakes the process. The phrasing was completely neutral, as it should be. That was a good thing, not a bad thing. As to your suggesting that you would delete facts like that because this is in a bio, that is a good reason to put it into an article of its own, as we did with the Bin Laden killing. Not a reason to erase it. 860,000 people clicked on this article in the past five days. I don't think they did so to find out if he was arrested. They did so, I would think, to find the details that are robustly covered in the RSs. Such as this one, and a number of others that were just deleted. To delete them does the readers a distinct disservice, and IMHO makes wp look quite weak in the performance of its function.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
We don't do the readers a "disservice." On the contrary: by avoiding timelines without context, and providing readers a clear summary of events, with context, we enhance WP's encyclopedic goals and gain readers' respect. That's why people, especially students, read encyclopedias in the first place, as opposed to selecting certain books which all have a POV. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I will say this one more time, we are not Wikinews and just because 500 news sources (RS) report that DSK had a shrimp cocktail for lunch before boarding his flight neither makes it notable or relevant to his biography. And WP is about consensus and, for the moment, it is against you, so please refrain from your POV editing and read what people write on the talk page. Thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 06:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
@Screebo: Since you are comparing the fact: a) that he called the hotel and told hotel security that he was located at the JFK Airport; with b) the color of his underwear, it would seem I may have difficult explaining the difference to you. And it might be a waste of space to reiterate the importance of looking to RS coverage to determine what is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously you have a hard time understanding what irony means, I am comparing the trivial nature of the information and, as mentioned above, it is disputed if he was fleeing or not. CaptainScreebo Parley! 06:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This information is clearly covered robustly in RSs. Trivial information is not. That is how we know what is trivial -- not based on any one editor's personal subjective view. Yours or mine. As far as your last point, I don't understand what you mean. This is a fact -- not a discussion as to whether he was fleeing.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It was clearly trivia for a bio - moreso for a bio section. It's no more valuable than the other fine details that will become part of the history of the case. Actually, it does serious harm to the section, since it buries and integrates meaningful summary details with minutia. We can't expect a casual reader to be able to pick out what's relevant, and the complexity of the material will turn people off, if not make them dizzy. WP could get sued for causing headaches and dizziness. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah finally, see John's comment below, and Wikiwatcher's above. So I am all alone in trying to push for a responsible, non-trivial section about this affair, am I? Hmmm. CaptainScreebo Parley! 07:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Captain Screebo, please read Wikipedia:Civility. This is about the BLP, not about the Editors, its not a popularity contest nor a survival contest of alliances. You comments to Epeefleche above are not appropriate or constructive. Talk about the content, not the Editors. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche; two points. Notability is not what we use to judge article content - instead we produce a summary of the significant aspects of an event with due weight given to the material. You mention coverage in RS's - but most are simply repeating the same content, because it is this weeks top news story, this fails the idea of breadth of coverage. If this drags out consistently for longer than a few weeks, sure, we can consider wider scope of material. But until that point it is a relatively significant point in his life, and nothing more. I second the advice being given that you take this content to Wikinews as a more appropriate venue. We are here to record a summary biography for historical posterity, not to write a news article. --Errant (chat!) 08:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Errant. Regarding the edit of the first section, that was done in the first place because the editor who provided all the details about timings etc. had left the section in a comically illiterate conditon (as noted at 'What a hawt mess' above). Despite this being pointed out on the talk page the contributor neglected to do anything about it (I suspect more confidence than competence in a second language). His edit survived untouched for a good 12 hours, which I suggest is plenty courteous enough of the community. When it was finally edited, the editor trimmed it as well in line with the consensus here that content should be actively edited. The really important contribution of the original editor, the Reuters 'exclusive' report on the timings of the case, is retained as a prominent citation directly after the contentious issue involved ('midday' - the time the maid entered the room) in line with Wikipedia recommendations. FightingMac (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Concern about consistent reverting

CaptainScreebo has, I've noticed, been quite actively reverting a number of other editors' entries to this article (not just my own). He does so generally because in his personal view he believes that the editors -- nearly all of whom have made more edits than he has -- have misjudged what is notable or relevant for a wikipedia article. Rather than going through each one, I would urge him to consider that perhaps their views have merit, and that perhaps given the number of editors of long-standing with whom he is finding himself in disagreement he might slow down his reverts and use the talk page more where there is the possibility that their views might be meritorious.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Take it to wikinews. Here is an example of the crap editors add to articles from earlier in the year, the newspapers that published it are currently being sued for libel. Compare it against the current version two of the newspapers are being charged with contempt of court over their reporting too. John lilburne (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Listen, I am trying to maintain the article in a NPOV state, as per consensus that there is far too much trivia, salacious detail and undue weight being given to this section. I do not care if you've been editing for 5 minutes or 5 years, that argument has no weight if you can't apply WP policies and guidelines correctly, and also comes across as supremely self-important.
I have made numerous posts to this talk page and, indeed, went as far as posting WP:NOTNEWS at the top so that people could read the guideline and stop adding trivia back into a BLP.
Yes, I have reverted a few edits, one editor obsessing about "forcing anal sex" upon the maid, another adding in a whole new section about the consequences for his career (in poorly written English) and now yourself.
Great so now you've decided that I am a big, bad wolf and coolcaesar's trivia about his bail conditions is a valuable and notable addition to this biography. Oh and coming to my talk page and talking about edit warring is not on, I have spent hours replying to comments here and discussing issues, so putting please discuss on the talk page in your revert summary is garbage. CaptainScreebo Parley! 07:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I do tend to agree with John's sentiment that some of the particulars should be taken to wikinews. Just because a detail appears in reliable sources doesn't mean we have to include it - see WP:NOTNEWS and such, not all details that are mentioned in reliable sources are worthy of inclusion. I also don't see the relevance of mentioning editcount here. The views of users with a lot of edits are not inherently more worthy than the views of users with fewer edits. It's true that he should probably be engaging in discussion here, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you may have more edits than he does - in any instance where there are a number of users holding one view and a number holding another view it's appropriate to discuss. Looking at this page, it does look like he's been engaging in discussion here. (Coincidentally, I got an EC with screeb's comment when posting this.) Kevin (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, Wikiwatcher1, John and Kevin, I have posted a fairly sizeable entry at the top of the page entitled WP:NOTNEWS to try and encourage people to read it, restate that Wikipedia is not a breaking news website and so on and Epeefleche has decided to go to war and accuse me of trying to push my POV and so on. Laughable if it were not so sad. CaptainScreebo Parley! 07:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Captain Screebo, please read Wikipedia:Civility. This is about the BLP, not about the Editors, its not a popularity contest nor a survival game of alliances. Your comments to Epeefleche above are not appropriate or constructive. Please stick to talking about the content, not the Editors. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Screebo, I understand your concern, but you are too bold when deleting full sections. Deleting the section "consequences" (or call it "Analysis") of DSK fall: FMI crisis, French politic change ; US-French opinion's gap, each well sourced ; while keeping the section "Set up theories" it quite inexplicable to me. Yug (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Screebo, WP:NOTNEWS is about the enduring notability of reports; this story will certainly "endure" whether he wins or loses.86.42.214.68 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Balance is really required on this page

One report of supposed rape and so many of you start filling in the details of it on his page , as if this is a tabloid. I say again, balance the page out with his political achievements, failures etc epseically during his time at the IMF. See [15].Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"...attempted to forcibly have sex with her, and forced her to perform oral sex on him."

That is one stupid reading self-conflicting sentence. Oral sex is a form of having sex in the minds of most people in 2011. I'm going to keep trying to fix it unless there is a consensus here that oral sex does not qualify as having sex. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't think there needs to be any specificity about the charges but do agree the sentence is inelegant. I think 'forcibly to have sex with her' delicately alludes to the 'anal sexual conduct' of the charge sheet. It would be good to boldly delete that split infinitive though. FightingMac (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
ok I added the UPI and ABC News sources as well to get some clarity in the section about exactly what Reliable Sources say he is accused of. Maybe someone else can do a better job. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I hope the anal sex bit wasn't on my green light! :-) FightingMac (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sprung

Former IMF chief released from jail. The guard detail is costing DSK 200,000 dollars a month. It is unbelievable that he's paying them to shoot him if he tries to take off - but wait, there's more... - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sex-crime arrest in the lede?

I don't think it should be in the lede as yet. It's Recentism, a "he said/she said" and these charges of something "attempted" could be dropped. Lets stay off the front of(by putting it in the Lede) that bandwagon at least until/unless it goes to court. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the "current" template doesn't make much sense. I suppose another article could be created about the media circus, but instead of that I hope a brief mention is put back in the lede. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
In a rare moment of agreement, I think Mr G has it (almost) right - this should not go into the lede yet, until it is seen if the story sticks and what happens. Not sure I'd wait until trial, but it is too soon for the lede. As for the template - easy enough to fix, as I will momentarily, moving it to the affected section. Tvoz/talk 17:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It's too late for "it is too soon." It currently leads In The News on the Main_Page. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and it is covered in the article as it should be. Being on the Main Page doesn't mean it should be in the lede of this article at this point. See WP:MOSBIO for what is supposed to be covered in the lead section - this event, at the present time, is not why he is significant. And we need to be mindful of WP:BLP concerns.Tvoz/talk 18:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
But I moved the tag back up to the top, as a nod to the Main Page article. Tvoz/talk 18:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reconsidering. I was surprised that the article isn't semi-protected. If it were, folks like 196.44.240.61 couldn't alter the lede without discussion. OBTW, DSK may be in Harlem at the moment. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree too. It's curious how one gets carried away by these things. I made a factual edit of the allegation when it was in the lede but nevertheless didn't consider whether it should be there at all whereas on reflection I'm sure it shouldn't be until such time (or so I suggest) as it's clear it represents a defining moment in his life. FightingMac (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "if it sticks" is a valid standard. Certainly the arrest is the most important thing going on in his life right now. Most English speaking readers will likely only heard of him due to the arrest. Regardless of whether the charges prove substantiated or not it will significantly damage, if not derail, his political career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.17.96 (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you may not like that standard, but it is what we try to follow here - this is a biography of the man's whole life and career. Although your opinion is that this will change his life - and I might agree with you - it is too soon for this article to make that judgment, based on just an arrest. We're not a newspaper - we do not have to report everything as it happens, and in fact are discouraged from doing so. This case will sort itself out, and there will be reliable sources analyzing it and reporting on its salient points. Until that happens, we should mention this with sourcing in the body of the article, but not overly highlight it out of proportion. For all we know tomorrow the case will be dropped for lack of evidence. Or a hidden camera will be uncovered providing compelling evidence. Or anything. We can't see into the future and say what impact this will have on his life - not yet. Tvoz/talk 06:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, disagree, as obviously others did too. The arrest is certainly the most important thing going on in his life right now and presumably why most people would be looking him up. Whether he's acquitted or convicted this is certainly going to be one of the most significant events in his life. Since this IS a survey of his entire career it makes sense to mention it. Indeed, omitting it would seem to serve no purpose other than to try and sanitize DSK's wikipedia profile of the damaging news. The whole "debate" about inclusions strikes me as more about sexual politics than about editorial policy.

I think it is too early to talk about charges. As far as i understand from the media reports this incident is still at questioning and interrogations stage and at this stage these are not official charges but suspicions. there still hasn't been an arraignment. Adom2000 (talk)

No, it has gone well beyond questioning - he is in court today being arraigned and apparently the judge has denied bail, which could mean he is held in jail until formal indictment by a grand jury. An indictment on charges of sexual assault is no longer a "sex scandal" - that would be accurate for his affair with Nagy, and possibly for other accusations, but a criminal indictment is not a scandal, it is much more serious. That is what I meant above about whether this "sticks" - criminal charges, facing trial, possibly even remandment to jail before trial - we shall see - are much more significant to his life than the accusation and even arrest. We need to wait until qwe have reliable sourcing for any of this, but I do think we need to rethink the section header and talk about the intro section some more. Tvoz/talk 16:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree a small comment in the lede is not undue. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The actual full criminal complaint(thanks Rob) is out via ABCnews etc. and it graphically describes the charges as being extremely serious, I think. I think we may now even consider putting a link to the complaint in the Lede? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did he even do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.5.22 (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

we don't know that he did do it; "innocent til proven guilty" is the law in the USA; but, the US justice system is adversarial in design (thus different from, for example, the French); thus the handcuffs,"perp walk" and all the info coming out right now from the prosecution side (police,DA) is presented as if he absolutely did do it. When the Defence gets its side of the story out, it will be showing their position that he did not do it. So, the "why" in this case is not a relevant question right now and might never be. If you're asking the question in a general sense "why do some men sometimes sexually attack women", Sexual addiction Sexual assault may help in a general sense but I see by googling that there are many reasons given as to "why" some people do this sometimes. We might find the same variation in "why does someone kill someone else" or "why" does someone steal or lie. Main thing is to try to figure out why you do whatever it is you think you should not be doing(if there is anything like that), and then stop it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Race of the woman please

BLACK from Africa. HIV positive. 32 yo female with 14 you kid. 50.9.109.170 (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is not appropriate for an article talk page. Monty845
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Does anybody know if the woman that Strauss-Kahn is accused of sodomizing is black or hispanic? That is usually who the hotel maids are in New York City —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.8.48 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Teach me please how to "sodomize" a woman!!! Do you know what does "sodomize" mean? 95.26.176.4 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
See Sodomy. Our article explains how the term is used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I found the explanation of the accusations in this DSK article. However, I don't see the explanation for the use of "sodomizing" term. It says in Sodomy: "depending on jurisdiction can consist of oral sex, anal sex, or any non-genital to genital congress". Was he accused in any of these? Not in traditional sex? 95.25.90.66 (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
See below - "sodomy" is presently out of our article apparently because of lack of reliable sourcing, so this is moot. If reliable sources are found, we'll see what they say and go by that. Tvoz/talk 00:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is only for discussing improvements to the article, not for random questions about the facts surrounding an incident described in it. Go to a newspaper website and ask your question there - this is not the place. And I'm not even going to speculate about what possible reason you might have in asking about the ethnicity of the complainant, as I suspect I wouldn't like it. Tvoz/talk 22:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Maybe user 109.154.8.48 has asked his question not in the best appropriate way for this discussion page, but his question is very relevant here, because it promotes installing crucial information into the article. 95.25.90.66 (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
That is not the way it works. If you have a question about something notable regarding the subject - and by the way, I'm not at all convinced that the complainant's race is the least bit notable - go out and look for reliable sources that answer the question, then either post it here on Talk if you're not sure how to incorporate it into the article, or take a shot at adding it yourself. If you have reliable sourcing for a data point that you're not sure is notable or appropriate for inclusion, post that here with a question. But we don't post questions here and expect others to do the research. Tvoz/talk 00:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The ethnicity of the alleged victim is in no way 'crucial information'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Tvoz/talk 00:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is relevant given the context of critiques of IMF neo-imperialism. The context is about ethnicity, racism, and the power dynamic. The alleged victim is "black," according to an article in SMH.com.au, which quotes AFP and a police spokesman.[16] FatTrebla (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Victim's name

The name of Strauss-Kahn's alleged victim is public information. It's on every French news source, and in the headline of the front page of Slate.fr. We should include it in the article at this point.—Chowbok ☠ 02:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No we shouldn't, see WP:BLP1E. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, and the article is about Strauss-Kahn, not the alleged victim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E is irrelevant to this, nobody's talking about giving her an article. Maybe you meant WP:BLPNAME, which I have to admit makes including her name problematic. But even under those terms, we still should mention her religion, ethnicity, etc.—Chowbok ☠ 02:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you are correct, I meant WP:BLPNAME. But why is her "religion, ethnicity, etc" the slightest bit relevant? Again, this is not a newspaper, and the article isn't about her. As a general principle, victims (and alleged victims) of crimes are private persons, not seeking publicity, and that the press shows little concern for such matters is no justification for us to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Strongly agree with AndyTheGrump all issues here. FightingMac (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
While we are limited to what has been reported in reliable sources, we are not bound to include every detail they do. Unless the identity of the victim becomes very important to the story, there is no reason she needs to be named in the article. Monty845 03:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It is noteworthy that the French version of this page does not name the victim.
This is because of french laws that protect identities of people involved in a criminal investigation. Arktor (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
That is incorrect - French newspapers, for example, have been printing her full name since they found it out. I saw it specifically in both Le Nouvel Observateur and Le Monde. Justintbassett (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It also doesn't include the excessive and biased presentation about this being a likely setup. This article should be trimmed down to the bare facts rather than including various unsubstantiated claims and speculation. The fact that these claims have been reported in the media does not change that they are unfounded, and the exclusion of equally reported counter information (e.g. forensic findings and testimonials supporting the victim's story, the defense lawyers switching to a claim of consensual sex, et cetera) makes this page a badly biased BLP violation. --68.196.4.94 (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the name and will happily get into a revert war with anyone who puts it back. There is simply no justifaction for it being there at the present time. Perhaps when more facts come out there will be... at present basic decency says we don't need it on a high traffic website. Egg Centric 12:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the identity of the alleged victim must be protected. However, I think there are some well-reported aspects of her background that may be germane. In particular, that she is a devout Muslim and mother makes less likely any claim that the encounter may have been "consensual". Also, her humble circumstances also amplify the sense of powerlessness she must have felt in that situation. Ronnotel (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
As of now, the allegations are unproven, so speculation about 'powerlessness' is even more inappropriate than it might otherwise be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I also strongly agree with AndyTheGrump on all issues regarding Victim's background etc; and I have changed my mind completely on this issue over time. As with Assange's Accusers, I think we should withhold virtually all personal information including her name. There is a lot of personal stuff about the Accuser/victim coming in already and none of this stuff should be included in the BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Complete rubbish. [redacted] name has been reported on thousands of reliable sources on every continent but Antarctica. Wikipedia reports alleged sex victims names if they are reliable sourced, even child victims like Shawn Hornbeck, Elizabeth Smart, Gavin Arvizo, Jordan Chandler, etc. 68.230.131.75 (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
We should follow, not lead, the mainstream press. In cases such as this, Wikipedia should only report the alleged victim's name after it is "out there" in the other mainstream media, and I do not include reports in the French press as satisfying that for the English Wikipedia. On the other hand, if the time comes that the victim is appearing, identified, on TV and is giving interviews, etc, we should certainly include the name. An adult rape victim's name is usually reported by the time of the trial. Her religion, age, and national origin are already widely reported in mainstream US media. Wikipedia cannot "unring the bell" by withholding that information, and it is indeed relevant to the charges, so I have no objection to including it at this time. Edison (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
How is any of it relevant to the charges? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
"I do not include reports in the French press as satisfying that for the English Wikipedia" How are the language, or the country, of a newspaper or a WIkipedia version, relevant as to sourcing? Apokrif (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Mainstream English language media have said that the French media have gone overboard defending the accused and attacking the accuser. That is why at the present time I do not give much credence to the deplorable actions of the French press in naming the alleged victim. They seem to have an axe to grind, and are not representative of mainstream news sources in general. Their objectivity is in question in this case. Edison (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
"In particular, that she is a devout Muslim and mother makes less likely any claim that the encounter may have been "consensual"." This argument looks like original research. Apokrif (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Huh? That the maid has been described in reliable sources as a "devout Muslim" is hardly a matter of contention, e.g. see this. All I'm saying is that the maid's background and character is extremely relevant to her credibility. She is described by people who know her as devoutly religious. To the contrary, if she happened to work part-time at an escort agency, you can bet that sort of detail would somehow make it into the article. Ronnotel (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
My point is not about her religion, but about the link between this religion and her credibility or her sexual behaviour. Apokrif (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
if she happened to work part-time at an escort agency, Not with the people watching this article here. All such personal details do not belong here, particularly not at this precise moment. John lilburne (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, your "precise moment " has now passed. Can we now follow the mainstream media? Edison (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this is absolutely outrageous, information is information and facts are facts. The woman's identity is part of the story, as is her background and any other information published by respectable media sources.Napoleonic (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
French Wikipedia already has a page dedicated to the victim herself, I think that's enough reason to include the name, consesus or not.Napoleonic (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm iffy on the idea of putting her name in. Should we maybe ask over at WP:ANI as this is a very high-profile article? Also, re: "consensus or not". Could you please look at WP:CONSENSUS, specifically "this page in a nutshell"?Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand, but I think that in matters of fact, the concept of consensus should be narrowly construed-otherwise we could have a situation where for example people are deleting DARWINISM from wikipedia because some group somewhere says it's not science... and wouldn't that be a shame? Napoleonic (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
That is an unlikely scenario. Besides, there are cases where consensus does not apply. This is not one of them. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
That is a scenario based on the logic you are proposing. If consensus is necessary to include her name, then consensus is also necessary to report Facts of other controversial issues. Precedent: The article on Kobe Bryant's case includes the name of the ALLEGED victim/accuser.Napoleonic (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Not really sure how that conforms to my logic in the slightest... A rejection of Darwin's ideas would be something most likely by Creationists, who the vast majority of people know are crackpots anyway, and so there would never be a consensus in their favour. Evolution is also well-established by the RSs as being almost a law really. You also can't compare that to something involving a person's identity. This is a matter of trying to preserve someone's privacy. Just because they did it for Kobe's case doesn't mean we need to do it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Crackpots in your and my opinion, but certainly not in their own, right? Once certain information is released by reliable sources, we should not be selective about it, or use selectively according to our own private beliefs. I think if the case is going to be mentioned on wikipedia, all aspects of the case should be mentioned. After all we don't know who's telling the truth.Napoleonic (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is governed by policy, not by precedent. The relevant policy is WP:BLP. The alleged victim's name is irrelevant to an article about DSK, and the fact that newspapers have no regard for her privacy is no reason for us to act likewise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Which part of the policy are you referring to specifically? Throwing it out in a generalized way doesn't mean your argument is right.Napoleonic (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Surely you read this whole topic before commenting, no? As the OP Chowbok said in the third post, WP:BLPNAME is relevant to this issue, but you really should read the entire thing as it is vital to properly maintaining and improving this article, which is a biography of a living person after all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I have indeed read the entire section, and find that the arguments used are baseless. There is NO PART of WP:BLPNAME that defends the exclusion of the accuser's name. That policy if properly read 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."

The clarificcation to make is that it's been posted in a huge number of serious publications all over the world. From Le Figaro to 20Minutos in Spain. The policy goes on to say: "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP -MAY- be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." Napoleonic (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, then just making sure as the previous post kind of suggested otherwise imho. Notice the last very important bit on editorial discretion. How is it relevant to the reader's complete understanding of the subject? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe all facts are relevant as long as they are verifiable. The person in question is an African immigrant, asylum seeker, possibly muslim although I haven't found 100% verification for that. If the allegations are true, all that information weighs against him. If they are not true, his name has been unfairly used in the media in connection with the scandal. I think there should be a fair playing field.Napoleonic (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Well his name can be used of course (as he is a public figure who has a Wikipedia article already), and it is crucial to the understanding of the case and who is the defendant. They don't need to know the name of the maid, just that what he did etc. and her name doesn't weigh against the case in anyway. There's no need for us to unnecessarily publish private info like that.
Also all facts are not relevant as per WP:Trivia. Just responding to that statement with a general rule. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Long established tradition is not to include victim's names. This is a de-facto consensus upheld on just about every example that this comes up nowadays. If the case goes to trial and he is found guilty, maybe. --Errant (chat!) 18:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Long established tradition? Who? Where? When?Napoleonic (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Amongst BLP/Current events editors. Whenever this comes up, consensus always supports leaving them out. --Errant (chat!) 21:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not only in the Kobe Bryant case where the alleged victim is mentioned, Gavin Arviso from the Michael Jackson case is mentioned, and so is the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case-so i don't see the basis for this supposed "long established tradition".Napoleonic (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Well you're ignorant then. Trust those of us who know what we're talking about. Egg Centric 21:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal life

Why have the previous marriages and who each daughter is by been removed? They are without doubt relevant to his life and therefore to his biography. When the info is reliably sourced, we don't leave out relevant info and merely put 'on third marriage, 4 daughters'. Marlon Brando, Dennis Hopper, Martin Scorsese, among others, state which children are by which woman. Where does it state that only the current / most recent spouse should be mentioned? Why should this article be an exception to what is normally done on Wikipedia bios for people with children by more than one person? Jim Michael (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

From WP:BLPNAME: "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject".
I'm not convinced that the names of his ex-wives and daughters are "relevant to a reader's complete understanding" of DSK, and the section I deleted went into a great deal of detail beyond names. There is a difference between being relevant to him, and being relevant to our article, which is (or should be) about the things he is notable for. It is true that Wikipedia biographies usually include a certain amount of background, but this needs to be balanced against not including too much information on non-notable individuals. This is clearly of greater significance when the article concerns an individual being seen in a negative light, and arguably more so still when the individual concerned has not yet faced trial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If something is of major relevance to his life, then it is relevant to his biography. A biography is an account of a person's life, not merely an account of what makes him notable. It it were the latter, the article's title would be Career of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Tony Curtis isn't notable for his brother being killed when a truck hit him. However, it is in his bio because it was relevant to his life. Info about close family is usually included because it is of major relevance to a person's life. It is relevant to DSK when he was married to each wife. Who the mothers of his daughters are is of course relevant to his life. The personal life section makes the reader think 'why is only the most recent wife mentioned, not the previous two, and why doesn't it say who each daughter is by?'. I don't see any guideline saying not to include such info if the subject is under investigation for a crime. Jim Michael (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Jim Michael's points are well taken and convince me that the marriages etc. should be reincluded. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
A common 'reason' given for removing relevant biographical info from bios is 'not relevant to his notability'. However, biographies are not limited to info about the subject's notability. James Dean is not notable for being nine when his mother died of ovarian cancer, but it is included in any bio of him because it was a major event in his life, and a bio is an account of his life. Marriages and children are of significant relevance to the life of anyone who has married and had children, so they should be included. I'm not suggesting stating the daughters' dates of birth or addresses. I've never seen a reasonable argument that spouses' names should be excluded. If it is the names of the daughters that is the issue, then why not say how many daughters are by each ex-wife without stating the daughters' names? Basic family info is necessary to give the reader an outline of DSK's life. Jim Michael (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
That we mention his three daughters, but not who their mothers were, seems both misleading and peculiar. A bio is the aspects of a person's life that are likely to be of interest to others. It is standard practice to report marriages and children. His marriages have been widely reported, so certainly the RS thinks they are of interest. Even Mitterrand is said to have commented.[17] So a list of the women he married would be only a first step toward proper coverage. Kauffner (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I had put this information in a factual way with sources (in particular an article from TIME). The information has been quickly removed. The list of daughters in particular is relevant since after the event of last week end and before going to the airport, he had lunch with one of his daughters. Hektor (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
One daughter (which one?) was (initally) used as an alibi, hence making her even more relevant to his life. His ex-wives and daughters are very relevant to his life story, the info was reliably sourced and neutrally written. It has been reinstated by different editors, yet always quickly removed; this kind of info is not normally removed from other Wikipedia bios. Jim Michael (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It should be done just as with Nicolas Sarkozy. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it should. Sarkozy's family situation is similar to that of DSK: each has children by two non-notable ex-wives and has a notable current wife. No-one tries to remove Sarkozy's ex-wives because they are not notable; everyone understands that they have been a major part of Sarkozy's life. Why should DSK's bio be different? Jim Michael (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Saturday prune, identity of maid, 'any sexual encounter'

I support the spirit of today's prune but have two concerns 1 the maid is identified without consensus 2 the statement that Strauss-Kahn has indicated through his lawyers that any sexual encounter was consensual, which is unsourced and speculative (it's also written in poor English). FightingMac (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I snipped her name, but I think we really need to reach a consensus on this. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
My prophecy is that the struggle slowly moves to the split. I don't know what happens to the "chauds lapins" sexshun in the bio here, but it probably gets shrunk some more. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the maid's name should stay out per the talk section above "victim's name". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

UK language

In the sex scandals section there is this sentance "In 2008, an independent investigator was appointed following allegations that Strauss-Kahn had had an affair with a subordinate, whom he later made redundant and assisted in getting a new job." 'Made redundant' is a UK expression for firing someone. Since it doesn't appear to be a direct quote, can we use a more generic term like "fired" instead?--v/r - TP 12:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree. It's an odd read. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
In the UK, being made redundant is different to being fired. A person is made redundant when the position they are in is no longer required. In most cases, this happens when a company, shop, branch, factory etc. is being closed down or downsized and fewer or no staff are required. Being fired (often referred to as 'being sacked' or 'getting the sack') means that an employee is no longer allowed to continue his job due to his wrongdoing or poor performance / attendance. For example, contrast "The factory closed down, so all the workers were made redundant" with "Our boss caught him stealing goods from the store room, so he was sacked". I don't know what the situation is in this case, but I am clarifying the situation so that there isn't misinterpretation due to mistranslation. 109.249.200.165 (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes - made redundant is completely different to fired. I don't think from the reports I have seen that he fired her. This also seems unsupported, as I can see he did nothing legally wrong - what are thee three proven charges? Its unsupported in the citations Three charges were proven over an affair with economist Piroska Nagy, ? Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
In the US, you can get fired for cause or you can get fired because your job is eliminated or outsourced; it is a very imprecise term. It is also an informal one. If we want to avoid sounding British in this article (and I am not arguing that we should avoid it) then wording along the lines of "whose job he later eliminated and whom he assisted in finding a new job" might have a more international sound. It is a little clumsy but perhaps it's a place to start. 192.234.148.250 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The term is not imprecise, and certainly not too British, in my opinion. We use it in Canada as well. Its simple straight forward english language and in this context is perfectly precise. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
In British English both 'fire' and 'sack' are colloquial, even 'slangy', while 'made redundant' on the other hand errs on the side of being rather formal and is often in fact a euphemism for 'dismissed'. Wiktionary here notes 'fire' as especially suggesting 'cause', such as improper conduct or poor performance and which is I think is indeed pretty well always so in British English as the contributor above suggests. Wiktionary uses the phrase 'terminate the employment', which I suggest is the right one to use here. Wikipedia has a useful Style guide but I would like to see it much amplified to cover recommendations in situations like this and especially referencing the problem that we Brits very unfortunately don't know how to write our language right :-) FightingMac (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I've seen various sources which say that Nagy quit. I don't know the facts. If true, it would avoid the confusion here. FatTrebla (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, but this [good Financial Times source] says (paraphrasing) 'left with severance pay as part of a restructuring exercise' and perhaps the best thing would be to adopt that citing the source? FightingMac (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes - add and use that. Nice one. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use "dismissed" as someone else has suggested? "made redundant" is not a term used in the US and many folks will not understand what it means.--v/r - TP 15:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I read, she received a cash payment because she was made redundant. (for example - because we are moving to a smaller office three staff will not fit in the new office and so will be made redundant and will receive compensation for the loss of their position) One of the claims that they did not prove was that there was some irregularity in this. She was not fired or dismissed. If I can find the quote about the beneficial departure conditions we could add the internal to made redundant. - Off2riorob (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think made redundant is UK either, I've heard it in the US. Its the small scale equivalent of loosing a job through "down sizing". Certainly it is more informative then merely saying fired. Monty845 17:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Any consensus here? It's not just a question of terms, but also a question of what actually happened at issue. Was she pressured? Favoured with a payoff? Anyone know what the IMF enquiry into the case actually concluded? A link? FightingMac (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This appears in The New York Times today
Ms. Nagy put an end to the affair after her husband became aware of it. In the spring of 2008, she left the fund, taking advantage of an attractive severance package when the organization cut staff, but also feeling uncomfortable in light of the affair.
After the I.M.F. board heard of the affair, it hired a law firm to investigate it, focusing on whether Ms. Nagy had received any advantages in promotion or pay as a result of her relationship.
which does support FatTrebla above and does suggest 'made redundant' is not at all the right choice of words. Following NYT, perhaps we can replace the existing sentence with something like (revised FightingMac (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)) "Following a brief affair with Strauss-Kahn, Nagy had left her job, taking advantage of an attractive severance package when the IMF cut staff. Strauss-Kahn assisted her in getting a new job". FightingMac (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
People who are fired (sacked) do not usually receive a payment (because they have lost their job due to being a bad employee). People who are made redundant typically receive a redundancy payment, providing they have worked for their employer for at least a given length of time, such as a year (although this depends on the employer and the relevant law in the part of the world concerned). The distinction between the two terms is important. 109.249.208.134 (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but in this case isn't it clear that Nagy in fact quit? FightingMac (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Isn't laid off the US equivalent of being made redundant? DeCausa (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between "made redundant" and "dismissed, fired, or sacked". In fact it would be illegal to make someone redundant instead of dismissing them. Some one that is made redundant is entitled to redundancy pay, and they are eligible for unemployment pay, and other welfare payments, whilst someone that is sacked for cause is not eligible. Thus to sack someone for cause and declare that they were made redundant would be fraudulent. John lilburne (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well - going for the pedantry prize - that's not quite right in English law. Redundancy is a form of dismissal, it just carries with it some extra compensatory elements. The same could be said for such terms such as "sacked" and "fired" but as they are not legally used terms, colloquially they do suggest that it's not a redundancy. The normal legal redundancy terminology is either "dismissal" or "termination of employment"... "by reason of redundancy". DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Dismissed (sacked, fired) is usually used when a person has his employment terminated because he is lazy, incompetent, unreliable or has done something wrong. Made redundant (laid off) is usually used when the position the employee is in no longer exists, typically due to downsizing, closure of the organisation etc. Resignation (quitting) is usually used when the employee chooses to leave their job. Some cases are in a grey area, but we need to know what the situation is in this case. 89.194.43.231 (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Times On-line, 9 May 2010
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn/Archive_1&oldid=1142758866"