Jump to content

Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn/Archive 2

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

Please read this (or f*** off)

Sorry for the attention-getting title (but this is getting beyond a joke).

I live in France (19 years), am not for or against DSK, but I would say I am against French hypocrisy which is pervasive in all strata of society, but I do have some ideas about notability and the Jewish aspect of this personality and so on, which have never been notable, maybe because France is, supposedly, a secular country.

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.

I know Jewish people who view identify themselves with the community, the religion and as a ethnic group. Some consider themselves Jewish and atheists. So you need to be respectful in different ways. Unless someone has gone to measures such as leave the faith for another, you should assume, if Jewish, they still identify with the community.--Cohen2011 (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Jewishness is quite complex as we both know and varies from person to person (the name makes me assume you're Jewish too). Lord knows how he characterises himself exactly. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and not only from person to person, but also for a given person from time to time. As far as catgorisation is concerned then the tests must be per Wikipedia policy 1 self identification 2 notability and presently neither would seems satified at the present time. Suppose DSK runs for president. Then likely his Jewishness would become an issue and therefore notable and to be included in the BLP. But unless DSK actually publicly identified himelf as a Jew, that still wouldn't be grounds to categorise him. FightingMac (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It strikes me that there is a political strand at work on this page, which celebrates Jewishness in fitting circumstances, then abandons it when the political tides shift. DSK is Jewish on both sides, went to synagogue in DC, has represented French Jews outstandingly and now there are some Jewish people on these boards that are renouncing his identity because it is politically unfavourable. Reason suggests that based on the criteria applied to every other French Jew, DSK is fits the category. There are some people purposely obfuscating this fact, which is very deceptive. Please add DSK to the 'French Jew' category or address specifically why he does not fit and being willing to apply your standard to every other French Jew. As a jew I'm offended by the whitewashing that seems to be going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaedalusD (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion yet again (doesn't anyone actually READ talk pages before posting?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/europe/18france.html

The source above and several others say that Strauss-Kahn is Jewish. Based on that, his religion/ethnicity should probably be added to his Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.235.86.70 (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh goody, another one of these topics. They are talking just about ethnicity (a New Yorker idea of it) from the sound of it (it is the New York Times after all). Seriously though, it's not that huge an issue to warrant this much attention. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi 169.235.86.70. The issue is discussed in two places above and ErrantX points out that the relevant policy is WP:BLPCAT

Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

and this applies to infoboxes as well. It's not disputed that DSK is Jewish and where that is notable or relevant that should be included in the article. But categorising him as Jewish is a different matter and the tests are as above and presently it doesn't seem that DSK passes either test.
I don't think we should be noticing a fourth attempt at this topic. FightingMac (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest categorising him as French Jew (see Category:French Jews). 88.178.38.7 (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
What about Category:French_people_of_Jewish_descent instead? Can't be denied he's of Jewish descent at least. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
1 Does he self identify with his Frenchness of Jewish descent? 2 Is it relevant to his notable activities or public life? 'No' on both counts I think FightingMac (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Meh, I was just looking for a compromise if we need one. =p Btw, this topic needs to be renamed as the arrow directs to the first #Religion Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to these boards and very surprised to see the French Jew tag has been removed, which is a terrible sort of revisionism. He is Jewish and was long considered to be potentially the first Jewish President. His Father was Jewish and he went to synagogue several times in DC, why have editors removed the tags? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaedalusD (talk • contribs) 08:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Scoreboard tally

Here's the latest tally of key word counts to date on this talk page:

  • rape - 16
  • crime - 6
  • jew(ish) - 96

Note that the word jew(ish) is used only 2 times in the article itself. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

We're always a popular subject. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You forgot: Sodomy - 22. But that still leaves rape+crime+sodomy way behind Jew/Jewish. After all, crime, rape, and sodomy happen everyday. But a Jewish banker? Now that's a story! Kauffner (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

About his Jewish identity

"I consider that all Jews in the Diaspora, and thus it is true in France, should everywhere they can lend their support to Israel. This is why it is also important that Jews take political responsabilities. [...]. In sum, in my functions and in my everyday life, through the whole of my actions, I try to make so that my modest stone is brought to the construction of the land of Israel." - Dominique Strauss-Kahn, in Passages, No 35 - February/March 1991.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn was suddenly awakened to his Jewish identity during the Six Day War (1967) : "mon identité juive a été réveillée par la guerre des Six-Jours en 1967, puis celle du Kippour en 1973". Who is really Dominique Strauss-Kahn ? (in French) Sirius2044 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen these but one swallow doesn't make a summer (erm .. 'swallow' here is a kind of bird). FightingMac (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Lol, best pun ever on a wiki talk page ;) 86.176.36.33 (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! FightingMac (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should re-evaluate all the people on List of French Jews first, which includes DSK. Evaluating Jewishness is a bit like the 1930s Mischling Tests, isn't it? It seems that the issue of his Jewishness has only arisen since he was charged with crimes — not even convicted.86.42.198.107 (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should re-evaluate all the people on Lists of Jews by country, no ? Sirius2044 (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

For those who cannot read ...

For those who cannot read, we have this helpful video with audio showing the alleged attack. (though I'm not seriously suggesting it be added).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I especially like the touch where he loses his mobile phone... but fortunately has a spare one to call the hotel with. Facepalm Facepalm --Errant (chat!) 20:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Naughtily off-topic but it is amusing. The Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad (which is pretty well as serious a newspaper you can get) had a page for it yesterday. But of course Wikipedia won't let anything in off YouTube. It's an outrage. FightingMac (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
@Errant A guy with his kind of job doesn't have just one cellphone. More like 3 to 5... --Jules.LT (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Censoring out the specific charges of the indictment

I just realized the specific charges of the indictment have been removed. I reinserted it. Please obtain a strong consensus here before removing such notable information. Readers come here looking for unfiltered and non-editorialized information just like that. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of court documents in BLPs is strongly discouraged by policy, and there is no requirement that this article go into any detail relating to charges that may not come to court. This is not a newspaper.
And Grant, the next time you refer to 'censorship' in relation to what is clearly a content dispute, I intend to raise a complaint, per WP:NPA. 13:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggested it's removal the other day. No one objected. The content is primary sourced (and was poorly written in a form that came across as OR "according to court documents", sourced to those court documents is OR of primary sources). Also I don't agree it is necessary detail to include a list of his charges - these are readily available in the sources. If tried and convicted it may be relevant to record the exact things he was convicted for.
Per our usual policy, as these are allegations we should be treating it with as little article time as possible/sensible until charges are dropped (and it can be cut to a couple of sentences) or he is convicted (and we can assess where to go next). There is no rush on this, and waiting some time to write the content is always the recommended approach in a BLP. --Errant (chat!) 13:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep, core information on the case. Wiki is not a newspaper, so it should focus on facts. The list of charge is all what is need to said about the victim's position. Yug (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we are not a Newspaper. We are not a complete record either. We summarise information - the charges are fairly lengthy and long term (remember; the here and now is irrelevant, we are writing a historical record) it is a level of detail that is not required (the public record will exist for reference to in the future). Supporting this level of detail is problematic because we overwhelm the biography; it is akin to saying that a list of classes he lectured at the University of Nancy. That information is probably on record somewhere, but we don't need it in a summary. --Errant (chat!) 13:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Frequently prosecutors chuck everything in at an early stage, never intending to proceed with them, or in order to use them as in any future plea bargaining. John lilburne (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
And your reliable source for your claim that they did this here? Oh, you don't have one. I find this amusing that we've reverted to a 1970's ideal of the whole idea of rape. "Supposed rape" is just reprehensible. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Who said anything about supposed anything. If you really think that prosecutors only charge people with the crimes that they think they can get a conviction on you are very naive. Lawyers, judges, and police, will tell you that they do not do that. The charge list, if it ever gets to court, will not look anything like it does today. IOW shoving it in here now is not encyclopaedic. John lilburne (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I find this amusing that we've reverted to a 1970's ideal of the whole idea of rape. "Supposed rape" is just reprehensible.; yeh that's a bit of a problem, I'd recommend avoiding approaching the topic with that attitude. No one here should care, in the context of editing the article, whether these allegations are true/false etc. --Errant (chat!) 15:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't keep, agree with Errant. FightingMac (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Yug. Notable, and highly reported in RSs. Though, per wp:summary, if the other article on the incident becomes stable, it could simply be summarized here perhaps.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Poll date

87.212.165.118 (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The page being semi-protected, I cannot edit it myself. There is a factual inaccuracy regarding the date of a poll. The article states that "Four days after his arrest, a majority of French citizens, according to a poll, believed he was the "victim of a smear campaign."". The poll was in fact made on the 16th of May, that is 2 days after the arrest and 1 day after the news of it reached France. The source for the other date is not accessible freely, but it is likely that the publication date of the poll was confused with the polling date. Here is (in French) the report from the polling organism. Page 3 states clearly that the poll was conducted on the 16th, not on the 18th of May. The date is very relevant to the interpretation of that poll, so it is important to set this right.87.212.165.118 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could update Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case, which looks like it will survive its AfD, or you could request an exact change here (diffuse won't do), showing A what's there and B your change in the article; and include this template {{edit semi-protected|answered=no}} under your headline "Poll date" to attract an editor's attention. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. It is unnecessary to edit the other article. The present article could simply be changed from
  • Four days after his arrest, a majority of French citizens, according to a poll, believed he was the "victim of a smear campaign."<ref name=FT>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5c6cc5d0-814c-11e0-9360-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Mj6QoTzK "French suspect smear campaign lies behind NY arrest"], ''Financial Times'', Paris, 18 May 2011</ref>
to
  • Two days after his arrest, a majority of French citizens, according to a poll, believed he was the "victim of a smear campaign."<ref name=FT>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5c6cc5d0-814c-11e0-9360-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Mj6QoTzK "French suspect smear campaign lies behind NY arrest"], ''Financial Times'', Paris, 18 May 2011</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.csa.eu/multimedia/data/sondages/data2011/opi20110516-les-premieres-consequences-politiques-de-l-affaire-dsk.pdf |title=Les premières conséquences politiques de l'affaire DSK |format=pfd |page=3 |publisher=Sondage exclusif CSA |accessdate=20 may 2011}}</ref>
"Four days after his arrest, a majority of French citizens, according to a poll, believed he was the "victim of a smear campaign."" to "Two days after his arrest, a majority of French citizens, according to a poll, believed he was the "victim of a smear campaign."" The source can be changed to a direct link to the CSA report for the poll, given above.87.212.165.118 (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
good luck - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Done Looks correct to me; while I can't read French, I can puzzle out the dates and the relevant questions, so I made the change. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion

On what grounds is Strauss-Kahn's religion listed as Judaism? He is ethnically Jewish but what evidence is there that he is a practising Jew? There is no mention of this on the French page, and in view of his former position in a secular party, it would seem likely that he is not active as a religious Jew. I will edit to amend unless somebody can provide evidence to the contrary. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Indeed as a member of the Grand Orient de France it's very likely he's not religious. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I see no reason to include either his religion or his ethnicity in the article, as neither is in any way relevant to his notability. Certainly, neither should be without adequate sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree on this point as well, and already removed the religion field as it is not supported by the article. Further, the source cited in the article for his ethnicity is rather weak. I suspect we'll be seeing more shortly however. Tvoz/talk 00:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
NO! His religion was listed as Jew on this page for years. He is a Jew born and bred. All of sudden he is in the news for Rape and you are using your Jew POV to change the article. It is all sourced. He is a member of the category French Jews. If you don't like it then change the religion of every single living and dead person listed under French Jew. It's directly relevant. The infobox has a Religion and Ethnicity field available automatically for a reason. 64.136.197.17 (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
How is his religion 'directly relevant'? Given that we don't seem to have a source that states that he is Jewish by faith, it is difficult to see how it can be. Personally, I've always argued that we shouldn't include ethnicity or faith of people in articles about people unless it is relevant to their notability. Others think differently, but it is always open to discussion, and the mere fact that an infobox has fields for such content has never been grounds for automatic inclusion. Incidentally, I find your use of the term 'Jew POV' offensive (and incorrect in my case). Do you have an 'anti-Jew POV'? If not, I suggest you reword your comments, and if you do, I suggest you take a hike. AndyTheGrump (talk)
Well, the point is, how do you personally know that things like religion or ethnicity aren't relevant for notable individuals? Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference tool that ppl can use in the same way as a bona fide encyclopedia. Am I right about this? Isn't this the reason for the suffix "-pedia"? Let's say I was doing some research (superficial research of course) about US Presidents. I'm interested in the relgions and ethnicity of all the Presidents, because these factors may or may not point to trends that may or may not support certain theories I may have. How can I do this if ppl like you personally decide that religion and ethnicity aren't relevant and thus had all such info removed? I would then have to ditch Wikipedia and use a REAL encyclopedia. Doesn't this kill the purpose of Wikipedia? The goal of Wikipedia should be to list as much info as possible and let THE READERS determine for themselves what is and what isn't relevant. Of course some of them may use such info for bigoted reasons, but that is the nature of free speech and free, uncensored scholarship. Like it or not, religion and ethnicity are still very much relevant issues for billions of people (and even relevant for those who claim that it isn't). If DSK is actually Jewish, then list it. Of course, that fact may not be a factor in the job that he does, but, then again (I don't know) maybe it was a factor (I doubt that it was, but who knows???). And besides, for good or ill, this fact might be relevant to ppl who think that his relgion did play a role in some of the decisions that he has made--and ones that he might make in the future (much like the religion of George W. Bush may have played in his decision making). Of course, these ppl may be dead wrong--and may even be hardcore anti-semites--but the fact of the matter is that, political correctness aside, you have no more proof on your side saying that his religion isn't relevant here anymore than others have proof that it is--and in the absence of such knowledge, and the fact that relgion is still, unfortunately, a major factor in influencing the lives of billions of ppl on this planet, shouldn't you just err on the side of encyclopedic completeness and just list the information and let the readers of the articles decide for themselves if it is relevant or not. Considering that Wikipedia is, again, an encyclopedia, I really don't see how you could go wrong here by doing this.108.86.23.214 (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is a source from the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13405268 64.136.197.17 (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The source you link says that he was "Born in 1949 to left-wing Jewish parents". It says nothing whatsoever about his religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This source does. He was born Jewish. His wife is Jewish. His new criminal defense lawyer for the rape charge is Jewish. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/europe/18france.html
If you don't like it then go ahead and change then talk to the administrators about removing all the Jew by Country categories and then change every single biographic article for yourself. There is only a few thousand. 64.136.197.17 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Being 'born Jewish' doesn't make you Jewish by religion - and again, the source you cite doesn't state that he is. Neither does having a Jewish wife, or a Jewish defence lawyer. The fact that you seem so obsessed by this suggests to me that you are only here to push an agenda. Push it elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Arguing that ethnicity and religion shouldn't be included in biographies is ridiculous. A biography is an account of a person's life, not only about his notability. That's why biographies include info such as education and family, which are not usually connected to the subject's notability. Ethnicity and religion are obviously relevant to a person's life, and as such they are routinely stated when known. 188.29.217.115 (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The current article identifies him (and his parents) as ethnically Jewish. Several sources support that, and though ethnicity is of rather dubious utility, it is the sort of factoid appropriate for inclusion in a biography. Hence I support keeping that information. As far as I've seen, no sources have discussed whether he is religious. Unless/until there are sources discussing his religion, there is no basis for identifying his religion as Jewish (or anything else). Dragons flight (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Some excerpts from the book: « Roman vrai de Dominique Strauss-Kahn » (Editions du Moment, 310 pages,) - in French can be found at: http://libertesinternets.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/qui-est-vraiment-dominique-strauss-kahn/
This source indicates that with his last marriage, at least in part for pleasing his wife, D.S.Kahn started observing religion practices more closely. For example: the third (current) marriage included a religious ceremony, in recent years he is observing the Kippour (practice which he started even before meeting his third wife).
I would consider that for a top personality in the world of finance, it is relevant to list his religion (if properly sourced and acknowledged). This is relevant because certain religions have significant different views with respect to finances: for instance, in certain religions it may be "illegal" to have interest on loans. Gigi marga (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
At present we have no idea if he was / is religious - the wordpress citation presented above is not a WP:RS - Who is his Rabbi? Does he attend a synagogue? Has he spoken in reliable sources about how his belief in the Jewish faith affects his life? Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The wordpress citation does not express an opinion, it merely presents excerpts from the book written by Michel Taubmann. It is a book 310 pages long which appears to have been written based including on interviews with the family. I indicated the wordpress citation because I do not have access to the book. I assume other editors here do have access to it. There are certainly degrees of religious observance, from someone only born into a religious family but no longer a believer to extremists. I would consider that someone who is married with a religious ceremony and is observing the most important Holiday of his religion should be considered a religious person. I don't think one needs to demonstrate publicly that his faith has affected his life in any particular way. However, the book goes on to cover even this aspect by indicating that D.S. Kahn appreciates the return to origins - the book acknowledges that in his early life the religion was relegated to antiquities in his family but that later in life (prior to meeting his third wife), the return to origins and traditions (with respect to religion) had a beneficial influence on him. Gigi marga (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be an official biography but investigative journalism from Michel Taubmann. So as a minimum any comment included would need clearly attributing and would not be enough to classify/categorize him as religious/religion - Judaism. Does it quote the subject (D Strauss-Kahn)? In England its normal to get married in a religious ceremony without that reflecting or asserting any religiousness in the subjects getting married. Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the book above is both written by the official biographer of Dominique Strauss Kahn and approved by him. Several sources support this including The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/15/dominique-strauss-kahn-imf-sex-charges) Gigi marga (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, well found - the Guardian says - Michel Taubmann, author of a new official and approved biography of Strauss-Kahn... so that book seems a useful resource for additions to this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm amazed but not surprised that the usual suspects aren't here supporting ethnic tagging. Does religion ethnicity play apart in his notability or a major part in his life story. If NO then it shouldn't be here. John lilburne (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
@John lilburne: I hope I am not accused of suspicious ethnic tagging here. I only noticed an official biography that might be of use to improve the article. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the book to allow me to further comment.Gigi marga (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the 'religion' entry from the infobox: I fail to see its relevance, and without a source for this cited in the article, it cannot be justified. I'd also point out that per WP:BLPCAT, such matters require self-identification. Unless Strauss-Kahn has explicitly stated that he is Jewish by faith, this entry is unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I noted that they weren't here (at the time), you were already here - OK? That said what ever this guy's ethnicity, or religion is, as far as I'm concerned it has no business in the article UNLESS it is relevant to his notability or plays a major part in his life story. I see that ATG has removed the stuff, so I'm good with that. John lilburne (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
DSK is Jewish. Here French Jews who are his friends state so. http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/05/17/3087740/arrest-of-top-presidential-contender-shakes-frances-jews

Needs to be added back in. 64.136.197.17 (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Article from the Paper of Record, the New York Times. He is a Jew. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/europe/18france.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.197.17 (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
A person's religion is something personal and private. It is Never - and I mean N-E-V-E-R - relevant unless the person is a known activist, or a priest, or such things. -Period-.
Imho, there should not even be a "jewish people", or "muslim people", or "christian people", or "whattheheck-ist people" article or category.
Faith (or no-faith) is private, and should Never interfere or have any weight in our judgement of someone.
For example, and because we are here talking about a french man : In France, there is a bunch of laws that prevent people for wearing religious distinctive signs, there are laws that prevent us to compile religious and political, and sexual, and racial informations about people. There are laws that prevent anyone to simply want to know your religion !
As I will never grow tired to say, and write, and even shout if I need to, religion, and faith is P-R-I-V-A-TE.
I cannot even begin to understand how in this world someone could ever imagine that it be relevant to an encyclopaedic article...
Arktor (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, those "protective" laws in France that you speak of that supposedly try to make religion a "private" matter, are a bit selective aren't they? Why is the Muslim headscarf illegal to wear in public, but the Catholic nun's habit and Jewish skullcap aren't? Sounds more like a law to promote religious discrimination and hate than protect against it.108.82.70.126 (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Arktor, although I commend your open-mindedness, I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this. Religion and ethnicity (and even race, or whatever you choose to call it) are very much parts of people's upbringing, and, for good or ill, they very much affect how a person and their thinking are molded. All other things being constant, would Miles Davis have created the same music if he was born white? Would Sarah Palin (cringes) have the same beliefs if she was an African-American? Would the comedy of Mel Brooks be the same if he was a Baptist? I very much doubt it. Now, for an average Joe Schmoe listed on Wikipedia, things like religion/ethnicity/race may not be that important to mention. For the head of a world-affecting body like the IMF, though, how is it irrelevant to mention the factors that molded the thinking of the head of that body, anymore than it is irrelevant to mention the religion, ethnic or economic background of the President of the US or Russia (and like it or not, being brought up with religion--even if it is one you no longer hold adherence to--very much influences a person's molding, even though many would deny this in themselves)? I'm sorry, but, like it or not, religion/race/ethnicity are very much relevant things. Besides, what is religion but a belief in a certain ideology? If the economic or political ideology of a mover and shaker in global policy are deemed relevant (relevant because it is assumed that such things filter their viewpoints, and, thereby, the decisions they make), why not also list the person's "spiritual ideology" (i.e., religion), as well, for certainly aren't we all just as molded by our respective faiths (or lack of them)? For any Wikipedia entry on anybody who is in a position of influencing the world, things like religion, ethnicity (or race, or whatever these terms mean for different ppl) are very much relevant and should ALWAYS be listed, for not doing so would be deliberately diluting the utility that Wikipedia represents in giving millions of ppl out there free access to useful information that they can use to educate themselves (and, though you may not view a global mover and shaker's religion as a useful bit of info, for many others it may be useful).108.82.70.126 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Just one more thing. Above you said that a person should never be judged on their faith? Why not? If one can judge a person by their political/economic theory affiliations, why can't one do the same for one's "spiritual" ideology? Honestly, if a evangelical fundamentalist ran for the President of France, and this person believed that the world was only 5000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs lived together, are you seriously saying that this would not be enough for you to judge that candidate on (and judge harshly I would hope)? If somebody was running for US President and was a fundamentalist who thought that the world was going to end next year and all non-evangelical protestants were going to burn in hell, as a voter, I would definitely want to know about this, and I wouldn't give a darn how much he thought his "views" should be a "private matter". By having a certain faith and proclaiming it, a person is basically telling the world that they view the world, if not all existence, by a certain set of principles. If somebody doesn't agree with those principles (whatever they may be), why can't he/she judge another for their professed adherence of them (or at least their inability to break free, as is most often the case, from the religious brainwashing such ppl were obviously given as children)? If somebody professes to embrace the ideologies of, let's say, fascism or stalinism, can they be judged by those factors alone? If so, why not the ideology of religion? (Of course, I mean "judge" in the intellectual "I don't agree with you" sense, not the "I must kill/legally marginalize you" snese.)108.82.70.126 (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that 64.136.197.17 has deleted a comment I made in this discussion page. I assume the deletion occurred by mistake. Gigi marga (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, came here as 64.136.197.17 has also been doing the same thing over at Anne Sinclair adding both religion and ethnicity to the infoboxes and reverting the undo. So just checking their contribs before they get twinkled to admin.
As for the debate, I have lived in France for 19 years and there is nothing notable at all about his Jewishness, either in terms of religion or ethnicity. I had no idea until all this broke out. There is no mention of it in the infobox over on WP:FR either, and some people seem to obsess about placing anybody with Jewish ancestry into Jew boxes or categories (IP guy you come across as most offensive in the way you use this term.)
This from a debate we are having over on Talk:Anne Sinclair about whether US-born is notable or not in her life, added by another editor after my comments (not notable):
    1. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)
    1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.
    2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. --Garik 11 (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
So the information is going to be removed as consensus is clearly against having it due to its non-notable nature in the person's life or career. CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
As a Yankee Jew who read this whole mess, I must ask. WHY did this need three sections on a talk page? Seriously. Just so people know btw, there is such a thing as a secular Jew. I wish I had found this earlier, but I am glad it is resolved now. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Can I assume that that your assertion that this is "resolved now" is another fine example of the renowned Jewish humour at work? ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
A good Jew knows that no issue is ever resolved, rather it's put on the shelf; apparently to wait for some prophet named Elijah. At least now any other attempts can be speedily stamped out via citation of consensus, or just wait for things to cool down and have a half-relaxed discussion. Still, my thoughts on this whole thing are wow, just... wow. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It is borderline here I think. The point is that religious identity especially is subject to flux. The young Strauss-Kahn was rather observant I recall (can't remember my source - sorry), appears indifferent in mid-life and following his marriage to Anne Sinclair has possibly become more observant. Insofar as they are notable, these matters certainly shouldn't be omitted from the article but that doesn't mean Strauss-Kahn should be categorised as Jewish except when he identifies himself as such. On balance the source doesn't suggest we presently should categorise him thus but that could change. I recall a certain world class heavyweight boxer who had got himself into a bit of an embarrassment over a similar hotel room liason who underwent a religious conversion in prison (not that that stopped him biting people's ears off and so on when he got out) and I can imagine the same with DSK (conversion I mean, stupid) and that would be a case when he should be categorised. It's not difficult to foresee that religious identities could also become an issue here if any forthcoming trial becomes a 'word-word' contest and that will be a problem. But for now I agree there's no cause to categorise him as Jewish. FightingMac (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the majority that it's not important, and maybe not mentioned often, but neither is one's date of birth(month and day) important nor is that mentioned often. I don't mind having an encyclopedia that leaves out all of the superfluous details, but I don't think selective application of policy is a good practice. What would we be doing about it if he had recently been awarded a nobel prize? If we were deleting reference to his religion at that point in time, that would seem like inappropriate timing to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If he had won a nobel prize some would be here arguing for inclusion, the majority in this thread however would be making the same point that it was irrelevant. John lilburne (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand firmly against any categorization of people not directly relevant to the person directly, and no way should heis religion be any sort of theme in the article at all. Collect (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about making religion a theme. Just saying that it should be listed (reliabley sourced, of course). If DSK was known for being a golfer, I would say leave out his religion (though this may put out some ppl who may take pride in knowing that one of their own is a great golfer and may be using Wikipedia to make a list for this...not so far fetched). But since he is a world figure and makes decisions that, like it or not, affect the entire world, anything in his past or present that could be said to have molded the man that he is and, potentially, affects the decisions he makes should be listed (and I wouldn't call it speculation to consider that a person's religion or upbringing may have an affect on the person that they are today and the way they view the world). In this sense, his relgion (even if it was something that he was only brought up with and no longer adheres to) should be listed, just as his political affiliations, his economic background, or anything else major in his life/upbringing should be mentioned. I'm not talking about writing up a whole paragraph on this, but at least mention it and give the reader as much info as they can on DSK and the major things in his life that may have molded him (and, for good or ill, religion, or lack of it, is most definitely a major part of a person's belief systems).108.82.70.126 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This is what the article looked like before the revisions related to his religion. The religious references to the Subject seem very benign, to me and I don't see anyone arguing that his religion should be emphasized in the BLP. The question is whether all references to his religion (I think its an info box and category issue mainly) should be removed at this point in time after apparently having been accepted there for quite awhile attracting no problems. Maybe its just as Errant said somewhere that when a BLP gets a lot of new eyes on it, these types of concerns naturally develop and are dealt with accordingly, and if John lilburne is correct that there would still be this removal of his religion from the info-box if his increased media attention was of a positive heroic nature, then everything is fine. I don't think that John is correct about that. But I have no strong feelings about keeping it in the info-box because I am not a fan of info-boxes in the first place as they in general tend to oversimplify and give false impressions.
  • What I am saying is that the timing of the removal is not appropriate given the fact that so many other BLPs have similar debatably inconsequential religious affiliation information in the info-boxes; its too selective and the optics of the timing does come across as censorship to many less involved contributors, I think. I don't see what the rush is to dealing with this. If I were to guess I'd say we are trying to preempt and cut the legs out from under any possible "aha, no surprise there"" moments among Readers who might be anti-semetic. If that is the case, its too much political engineering; and if that's not the case, then those who are opposed to inclusion of religion in info-boxes for BLPS where the religious committment is of similar unimportance should strike a committee to implement removal of that description from all info-boxes for BLPS where the religious committment is of similar unimportance. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I've not yet seen a reliable source where it is stated unequivocally that DSK is Jewish by faith. Secondly, per WP:BLPCAT (which applies to infoboxes), self-assertion is required for categorisations by faith, and thirdly, that other BLPs are imperfect, and often violate policy is hardly news. And yes, I've argued that we should stop using categories for religion, ethnicity etc entirely. Others think differently, hence the mess here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Mr.Grantevans2—Dominique Strauss-Kahn has the identity of being Jewish—that is established by reliable sources—but no source characterizes this identity as an ethnicity. We address that here. In your above post you link to a version of the article that characterizes Dominique Strauss-Kahn's Jewish identity in the Infobox in a way that is not supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Bus stop, a simple question. How is it possible to identify oneself as being Jewish without this being an ethnicity? What do you think the word 'ethnicity' means? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Dominique Strauss Kahn is an observant jew : In his youth, he received a jewish religious education according to the Pilpul traditions, and made his Bar mitzvah at the age of thirtheen. After his jewish wedding with Anne Sinclair (jewish also), he becomes an observant jew and claims that he wakes up every morning thinking about what he can do to be useful for Israël (own-self declaration). Source : "Linternaute" (serious and neutral french newspaper). Why this kind of information is censored on Wikipedia ? Esthertree —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC).
What kind of information is censored on Wikipedia? None, that I'm aware of. We have standards regarding what we consider reliable sources, and we also have policies and standards regarding what we find appropriate in an article - we try to avoid tabloid trivia for example. If the source you cite states than DSK is Jewish by faith, we will no doubt take note of it (I'll leave this to others with a better grasp of the French language than me). I would however point out that doing 'whatever you can for Israël' isn't actually a declaration of faith. I get the impression (perhaps wrongly) that DSK has avoided making any explicit statements in this regard - and if this is the case, we cannot 'declare his faith' for him. This has nothing to do with censorship, and everything to do with respect for individual rights. It is a pity that it takes such contentious articles as this one to bring such issues to the foreground, but it would be hypocracy to argue one position for one individual, and another for another, merely because an individual is being seen in a negative light. If Wikipedia has a problem, it isn't 'censorship', but inconsistancy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
@Esthertree, sorry but what you write above about the source L'internaute is completely untrue, I live in France and the site in question describes itself as a news and leisure magazine that also lists restaurants, recipes, friendfinding services, sells products, has a free dictionary to consult and so on. So it is not a newspaper, anybody taking one look at the home page would not consider it to be a serious source and as to its neutrality, what do you know? Having had a quick look at the news articles it appears to be sensationalist, tabloid fare on many subjects (and badly written I might add).
Misrepresenting this website as a serious source is deceitful and smacks of agenda-pushing. CaptainScreebo Parley! 02:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Dominique Jewish? Are you kidding me? Research the background of the name you will see references to the "day of the lord." This means the lord in the Christian context, and the sabbath of the Christian version. In Romance languages variations of Dominique indicate Sunday, the Christian sabbath. Granted, his parents had a Jewish background, but naming their child "Dominique" is not passing on Jewish heritage. And in the period of many Jews fleeing northern Africa for Israel (the 1950s), his family actually relocated from Paris to Morocco. Furthermore, the New York Post has written of original terms of DSK's release. The newspaper has written that among things he would be allowed would be attending church. Such a practice would be more befitting someone identifying with Christianity, not Judaism. Additionally, google Bat Mitzvah and his last name. You will find nothing of his daughter celebrating this Jewish rite of passage toward adulthood. As to the earlier comment "Jewish born and bred," this strikes me as loaded with implicit prejudice.Dogru144 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Strauss-Kahn is a true jew, that is an evidence. If not, could you explain me why the measures ordered by Judge Michael Obus (New York state court) include the right to go to the synagogue every week ? Here is an extract from an article of AFP (Agence France Press) : « Once in the next residence, he will be allowed to go out -- after giving six hours' notice -- for medical visits, legal visits and a weekly visit to a synagogue ». Furthermore, according to the magazine "Le Point" (major center-right french magazine : 340,000 copies each week) : 1 His mother is jewish from tunisia, 2 The name "Kahn" is attached to the "Cohen" familly (Rabbi statement), 3 He was circumcised after birth (a Mohel practice Brit milah), 4 He practiced Pilpul during his youth, 5 He made his Bar mitzvah at 13 years old, 6 He married Anne Sinclair during an Orthodox-Jewish cereromony with the Rabbi of the city of Sarcelles, 7 Each year, he observes the traditions for Yom Kippur (no eating and drinking for example). He is jewish and this is a fact. Wikipedia is simply censored. This page should mention his ethnicity (jewish) and his religion (judaism) as other jewish personalities, or you should also remove it on Albert Einstein page. This is a shame and pure censorship. Esthertree (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Self identified and relevant

Strauss-Kahn's faith/background is both self-identified [1] and an important part of his public life [2][3]. Ergo, the 'BLP' claims for keeping it out of the article are unfounded. He says he is Jewish. He was the first openly Jewish politician to have a good shot at the French presidency. It's relevant and verified. --CBD 15:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Both of those are Jewish sources and so not independent (i.e. it is clearly important to them...) so I am not sure they are strong in establishing this as important part of his public life. Personally, for me, in politician articles I look for either activism on Jewish issues OR a source that analyses his political career (or a significant part of it) in the context of the category (i.e. Judaism in this case). The forward.com source, though, worries me because all it really says is that he is open about his Judaism but "rarely spoke of his religious beliefs". I'm wavering over it as borderline but at this stage it seems worth dealing with this issue in the text, but is not strong enough to qualify categorising him. --Errant (chat!) 15:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
'Both of those are Jewish sources and so not independent' - what a bizarre line of argument. So presumably no British media sources can be used about any subject which/who is British? Or why stop there, presumably no European media sources can be used about any subject which/who is European? That line of argument has no basis in WP policy and is beyond ludicrous. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
For convenience I'm reposting here the link which I originally tried to use as a source but which was quickly removed: [4] It also makes clear also that Strauss-Kahn's being Jewish and his arrest is has been of great impact to the French Jewish community, which is itself noteworthy and should be in the article in my view. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed it should be in the article. Also; my point was that sourcing how important his Judaism is in general to his political career to Jewish sources is fine... but with the caveat that clearly they will view this as a significant thing. If other sources (i.e. independant ones) raise the same issues we can safely say it is a general issue of relevance. Hardly "bizarre" :P --Errant (chat!) 16:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see the distinction between 'Jewish sources' and others here, but there is plenty of evidence for both: [5][6][7] --CBD 16:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Nidrosia has just opened a section down on this page where she supplied the following sources:
American Jewish Year Book, Vol. 91 (1993), pp. 248-249:
A cabinet reshuffle in early May was expected to bring about a warming in France-Israel relations. Although the new prime minister, Edith Cresson, apparently had no strong views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, pro-Israel partisans were optimistic. Their hopes were dampened, however, when, contrary to expectations, Dumas remained as foreign minister. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a French Jew, was appointed minister of industry and external trade, and hope was expressed that he would help fight the Arab boycott, especially in the L'Oreal affair (see below). On the negative side, the Jewish community lost an important ally when Lionel Stoleru, former minister of planning, left the government... Article online
The Economist, vol. 372, July 24, 2004, p. 49:
Among the most successful members of France's 600,000-strong Jewish community--the largest in Europe--are Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a former finance minister, Laurent Fabius, a former prime minister, and Bernard-Henry Lévy, a leading intellectual...
The New Yorker, November 7, 2007, p. 46:
France has had Jewish Prime Ministers, like Leon Blum and Pierre Mendes-France, and the current top ranks of French politics include Jewish politicians such as Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former finance minister, Laurent Fabius... Article online
That being said, the "Jewish sources" argument by Rangoon11 is ridiculous. The Time magazine and also the other sources are reliable. I strongly support the mentioning of DSK being Jewish in the article and adding the article to Category:French Jews per the reports of multiple reliable and, yes, independent sources. De728631 (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
None of which goes to the heart of why he is notable. He is a notable person who happens to supposedly be Jewish, he is not notable on account of being Jewish. John lilburne (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
According to your principle, the category "French Jews" should be deleted from a number of articles, including Bernard-Henri Lévy. Lévy is a notable person who happens to be Jewish. The category "French Jews" will soon be empty, if this principle is to be adhered to. Nidrosia (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I would say his being Jewish is relevant to his public life / notability, because people treat it that way in discussing his electability / role in politics. I don't think it should be relevant, in an ideal world, but I do think it is relevant in the world we live in. Strauss-Kahn himself is quoted as saying "Jewishness" is important to his election chances [8]. So I would say including it in his biography is appropriate per WP:BLPCAT, etc. Dragons flight (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, with all those sources he is not only "supposedly" being Jewish. And holding such a prominent public office as he did (IMF) has as a matter of fact made his religious believes important. He has been the subject of clumsy racist attacks in France: "But there have been other, uglier notes in the right’s reaction, circling around the fact that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is Jewish. Christian Jacob, a legislator and farmer, described him as an urban intellectual — a “bobo,” short for “bourgeois-bohemian.” Mr. Jacob said that Mr. Strauss-Kahn did not represent “the image of France, the image of rural France, the image of the France of terroirs and territories.” This notion of rootless cosmopolitanism, of being out of touch with the soil and the mystery of “la France profonde,” is an old trope for foreign and Jewish influence." which caused some political outrage (read more at NY Times)"; The Israeli Haaretz paper called his Jewish lawyer an "Orthodox troubleshooter", the CNN Religion blog writes that "now, the arrest of the former IMF chief on sexual assault charges has rattled France’s Jewish community, raising concerns that the case could inflame anti-Semitism and inspiring similar handwringing among some American Jews" and the very fact that the media care to mention his religion speaks for that fact being notable. His being Jewish has long become a public affair and therefore it contributes to his notability. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Please note there is an article named "List of French Jews," which includes Dominique Strauss-Kahn. I am still struggling with understanding why Strauss-Kahn should be part of this list (pace Xionbox), while at the same time the category "French Jews" is not allowed to appear in the article. I have to update myself on the relevant definitions of "category." Nidrosia (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Being from France, and having followed DSK relatively closely in these past couple of years, I cannot remember of any personal attack on him for being Jewish. In addition, religion is close to a taboo subject in France (especially because of the relatively recent, only sixty years old, Nazi occupation and because France is secular country since 1905) and I have never heard until this past week that he is/would be Jewish. Unless a major trustworthy French newspaper (not the case of L'internaute as previously mentioned) states he is Jewish and affirms that he practices the religion, then his alleged religion should not be mentioned in this article. In addition, all Jewish related categories assigned to this article should also be removed.
Xionbox₪ 18:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter any more what the French press says about him or what the French point on his religion is. We have multiple reliable sources from around the world that make a fuss about his Jewish background, i.e. they make his faith/background/call-it-what-you-like publicly notable and relevant. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
And as to French sources reporting about the Jacob accusations: JDD, Le Point, La Tribune, Le Monde. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:EGRS is clarifying, indeed. Thank you for useful information, De728631. Bernard-Henri Lévy, a famous French Jew, labels himself an "atheist" in numerous reliable sources. The implication of the guidelines given in WP:EGRS is that the category named "French Jews" should (probably) be deleted from the article on Bernard-Henri Lévy; and Bernard-Henri Lévy should (probably) be deleted from the List of French Jews. I can see months of work ahead of us. Nidrosia (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding DSK, Le Point has recently published an excerpt from The true novel about DSK (Roman vrai de Dominique Strauss-Kahn) which explores on his Jewish and half-Jewish family background. In 2006 L'Express wrote about the capital J in "Jew", listing DSK and others as "secular French Jews (sont des Juifs français laïques)". And of course Atlantico has recently been riding on that wave [9]. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
What Christian Jacob said about DSK concerns only his (financial) fortune, not else. It may have been interpreted by some as linked to his religion, such as fr:Serge Klarsfeld, but by most it was not related to personal beliefs. Concerning the extract of the book on DSK posted in Le Point, DSK's mother was not Jewish (although stated indirectly as of Jewish mother descent in l'Express source La majuscule du substantif Juif), but his father (and grand father) were of Jewish descent, but not religious. In addition, his grand-mother was Christian. As for the Atlantico editorial, the author hypotheses that radicalism is rising in France and may harm a potential candidacy by DSK because of horrible amalgams by French radicals. However, this is not, in my opinion, a proof that DSK practices the Jewish religion. Finally, the La majuscule du substantif Juif extract is a comment from a reader of the magazine, not an actual published information by the magazine. Even if it were actually published by L'Express, the exact sentence, which De728631 stated, is indeed (...) DSK, (...) sont des Juifs français laïques; laïque means secular but also free of all religion, as in not a religious person (Le Petit Robert, found on my desk).
As for the closest possible source, which is the fact that DSK is currently allowed to go to a synagogue once a week, it is very possible he asked for this in order to be able to go out more often (instead of just going to court and to see his lawyers).
Xionbox₪ 20:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As the lead section of List of French Jews explains, one does not need to practise the Jewish religion to be listed there: "The following is a list of some prominent Jews and people of Jewish origins,[2] among others, (not all of them practice, or practiced, the Jewish religion)..." and that seems to be the case for the category as well. So like Nidrosia I'm beginning to wonder what the category was actually made for. There's no header on the category page that restricts entries to practitioners of the Jewish religion but instead WP:EGRS implies that people who are notably and reliably linked with a religion or ethnic background may be sorted into such a category. And that is the case here, not so much with French sources (on a second look I agree with the L'Express text just being a comment) but rather with the American and even Israeli reports. So before we go on arguing about the international perception of DSK's religious believes we should first of all have a proper definition of whom to list in [[Category:<Location> <people affiliated with religion X>]]. De728631 (talk)
As indicated above, the category "French Jews" comprises believers as well as non-believers. It is interesting to note, for instance, that Marcel Proust, a Roman Catholic of Jewish ancestry, is identified as belonging to the category "French Jews," and so is Jean-Marie Lustiger, a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church! There are countless other examples. Nidrosia (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with De728631, we should first figure out when a person should be placed in the French Jew and List of French Jews categories with respect to WP:BLP and WP:EGRS before considering adding these categories to the DSK article. I'll post a question on the Help Desk. Xionbox₪ 05:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to the question I posted on the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Clarification_needed:_Assigning_religion_categories_to_BLPs_according_to_WP:EGRS. Xionbox₪ 06:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiJews working overtime on this one

"Quick, remove all mention that he's a Jew" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.139.144 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It's really the exact opposite. The bio had only 2 references to his religion, but over the last week this Talk page has added 133 196 so far! PDQ. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand how DSK is not listed as a French Jew. As a jew myself I rather startled by this change. There are numerous articles about his proud Jewishness and the fact of his ambitions to become the first French Jewish president, what is going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaedalusD (talk • contribs) 08:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Zensur ! Stupid censorship. Sirius2044 (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Not really censorship, but probably a counter-reaction to a few editors' obsessive religion-pushing, without any effort to explain relevance. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say no effort. You had one IP editor who was at least honest about his reasons. And I quote "The subject himself admits he is a Jew. http://www.businessinsider.com/dominique-strauss-kahn-liberation-interview-woman-raped-parking-lot-set-up-2011-5 It needs to be added back to his Infobox. We always have the religion listed in infoboxes - Just look at the US Politicians. We need to know how many jews on the Supreme Court, US Congress, etc. The head of the IMF being a Jew is directly relevant. He is a Jew international banker. Why else do we have the Category French Jews - So we know who is one of course. Idiots. - 64.136.197.17" Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:French Jews

The category "French Jews" has recently been deleted from the article.

According to the American Jewish Year Book (1993), The Economist (2004), The New Yorker (2007), and numerous other sources, Dominque Strauss-Kahn is a "French Jew." According to Wikipedia, the American Jewish Year Book "is regarded as the authoritative record of events and trends in Jewish life in the United States and around the world by many Jewish organizations." Would somebody please explain to me why the American Jewish Year Book is not a reliable source as to the ethnicity of Dominque Strauss-Kahn?

American Jewish Year Book, Vol. 91 (1993), pp. 248-249:

A cabinet reshuffle in early May was expected to bring about a warming in France-Israel relations. Although the new prime minister, Edith Cresson, apparently had no strong views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, pro-Israel partisans were optimistic. Their hopes were dampened, however, when, contrary to expectations, Dumas remained as foreign minister. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a French Jew, was appointed minister of industry and external trade, and hope was expressed that he would help fight the Arab boycott, especially in the L'Oreal affair (see below). On the negative side, the Jewish community lost an important ally when Lionel Stoleru, former minister of planning, left the government... Article online

The Economist, vol. 372, July 24, 2004, p. 49:

Among the most successful members of France's 600,000-strong Jewish community--the largest in Europe--are Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a former finance minister, Laurent Fabius, a former prime minister, and Bernard-Henry Lévy, a leading intellectual...

The New Yorker, November 7, 2007, p. 46:

France has had Jewish Prime Ministers, like Leon Blum and Pierre Mendes-France, and the current top ranks of French politics include Jewish politicians such as Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former finance minister, Laurent Fabius... Article online

Thanks. Nidrosia (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Has been discussed; see this talk page ^, several sections. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, but as far as I can see, there is no reference to the American Jewish Year Book here. The only possible conclusion is that Wikipedia disagrees with the American Jewish Year Book on the question of Strauss-Kahn's ethnicity. Nidrosia (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion about his religion above. I haven't read it but you should present your arguments up there. De728631 (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As in the case of Bernard-Henri Lévy, another French Jew, this is not primarily a question of faith. Nidrosia (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As previously mentioned, please read the discussion above concerning his religion and why it should not be added in the article. I also encourage you to read the first message on this talk page which states:
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.
As for my personal opinion, why the heck is his alleged religion anyhow important ?! I just can't seem to figure out why (especially) Americans are always focused on the religion of public figures. Isn't religion a practice one is allowed to keep private? Here in France, it is, and I'm very thankful of such privacy.
Xionbox₪ 18:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The category "French Jews" has recently been deleted from the article on Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Should Strauss-Kahn be deleted from the List of French Jews as well? If so, what is the purpose of the list? What is the purpose of the category named "French Jews"? Is the personal faith of the listed persons relevant? If so, I can think of several names that should be deleted from the list. Nidrosia (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you point out to that category. I do think this article should be deleted from "List of French Jews". As mentioned several times in the discussion on religion, DSK is not known for his religion or religious faith, more so for his political and economist career, which is in no way linked. As this discussion is directly related to the discussion in the previous sections, I think we should close this discussion section to only talk in one discussion.
Xionbox₪
Nidrosia, Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality says that categories should not be based on religion (and ethnicity, etc.) unless the belief/ethnic background has a specific relation to the topic so please join us up there in explaining why DSK is notable because of his faith and/or Jewish background and why we should add him into the category. When there is consensus from that discussion on his religion that his believe is important for his notability we may apply the category again.
And sorry to disappoint you, Xionbox, but not only some Americans but the world press have already linked his being Jewish to his office and his public importance. See the sources I presented in the discussion above. Unfortunately public figures don't have a private life any longer once they become public, that's the oprice they pay. De728631 (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
To answer Ndrosia's query, the US press takes full advantage of the freedoms granted them by the rulings of the Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (after reading, please also look up the term "unwarranted self-importance in relation to Sullivan). Basically a news organisation can print what they like, so long as they don't knowingly print something they know is false and meant to damage a public figure. As a result, nothing is required to be kept secret about a politician or any other public figure really. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
With all respect, are you suggesting that the American Jewish Year Book, The Economist, a British magazine, The New Yorker, Le Monde, a French newspaper, etc. are part of a conspiracy? Nidrosia (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has noted that DSK was a Jew for five years. As soon as he's arrested for attempted rape he's not a Jew anymore? Ridiculous. Let's see how long it takes for Joseph Brooks not to be a Jew anymore. --32alpha4tango (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh ... fourteen minutes --32alpha4tango (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
We voted him out. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Needs to go to RFC or BLP noticeboard

There seems to be sufficient dispute about inclusion of acknowledgment/references of/to his Judaism that it needs to be taken to the broader community or the "experts" at the noticeboard and resolved once and for all. If I was Jewish I'd be getting annoyed at all this commotion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Grantevans: It would help if you could do that. A message should be placed on the noticeboard for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons. From WP:EGRS: Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic. From my limited point of view, the implications of this statement are enormous. An American Nobel laureate who happens to be Jewish should not be placed in the category called "American Jews," as her/his race is completely irrelevant to why she/he is notable; see, e.g., Paul Greengard. Hundreds if not thousands of biographical articles need to be checked, given that my understanding of this principle is correct. Nidrosia (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with both points: it would good if the issue settles through noticeboard action and if in fact EGRS is to be followed as currently written, then a lot of articles must be rechecked. There currently is a question about the wording in EGRS on the help desk: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Clarification_needed:_Assigning_religion_categories_to_BLPs_according_to_WP:EGRS. Xionbox₪ 19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah might be best to let BLP handle this. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please correct bias against Dominique Strauss-Kahn

This sentence is biased against DSK:

He sat and failed the entrance examination for École nationale d'administration, but obtained a degree in public law, as well as a Ph.D. and an agrégation (1977) in economics at the Université Paris X (Nanterre).

It can be expressed in a neutral way:

He obtained a degree in public law, as well as a Ph.D. and an agrégation (1977) in economics at the Université Paris X (Nanterre). -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.161.245 (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesing point. Since so much of the Subject's notability is based upon exceptional credentials, it actually helps balance the article(making it less biased) by mentioning 1 academic failure. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's quite right. FightingMac (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Jewish Ethnicity"

Oh yeah, just thought of something before turning in for the night. If we do put his ethnicity as Jewish, well you'd have to say that he is Ashkenazi Jewish as that is the actual ethnic group. (he is Alsatian Jewish after all) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an 'actual' ethnic group, except for the one somebody decides they are a part of. At the time they need to decide. Which depends on "who's asking" amongst other things. That is one of the few verifiable facts about ethnicity, and it drives census-compilers and other statisticians nuts. Fortunately, it is less important to 'count' ethnicity than to understand it, if one is compiling an encyclopaedia, rather than running a bureaucracy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is a certain point at which that ends and you have real distinctions begin. Like I cannot say that my ethnic group is Ruthenian or Hungarian for example as I don't believe I have that ancestry. You don't really decide which Jewish ethnic group you are born into. Heck, most Jews can actually usually tell people from the three main groups (Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim) apart just by looking at them (which is odd because the actual distinction is supposed to be more cultural and historical than physical). They are all Jews of course from a similar genetic ancestry, but they are quite distinct (though as you can see, some people broadly lump all non-Ashkenazim in as Sephardim). You have to remember that given the unique history of Jews in Europe, they often married inside their own community and kept their own customs (except those who converted and were absorbed into their host communities) much different from those of their host nation. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Edit: Looking more closely I didn't see the last bit about his mother being a Tunisian Jew, so you would put Ashkenazi/Sephardic Jew if you put ethnicity in the infobox at all. 10:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For those who might be interested, a closely related subject is being discussed here at the Help desk. Bus stop (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll check it out. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Strauss-Kahn denied the allegations through his lawyers, saying that any sexual encounter had been consensual

I've already been through all this over in the main article. Bottom line of course is that nothing of the sort has been said about consensual sexual encounters. There has been speculation in main stream media that the defence will eventually centre around a claim of consensual sex but it remains just that - speculation - and shouldn't really be included in the article at all and if it must at least be qualified as speculation. I can add that I've also seen the first speculations about plea bargaining and that too really ought to remain speculation and not be sourced (you can find it at Bloomberg).

Looks like they're in trouble over at the main article about a section 'American reaction' by the way. They could probably do with a helping hand from someone with at least basic grasp of the English language :-). Me I've got other poissons to fry now ... Been amusing here. I'll be back... FightingMac (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Right on; I took out the speculative "consensual defence" misrepresentation of what his lawyer actually said. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Cutting down to a summary

I'm very very pissed off with the reversion. Sorry for the strong words but I worked hard to move detail from here to the other article. I am pissed enough to revet back, and I apologise for that in advance.

For better or for worse we have a full article on this event, and the proper approach is to move detail there and leave a summary here. I moved all of the detail cut from here to the other article. I can work back in details people feel are specifically important to his biography, but the prior material was undue and a BLP violation, so please do not go back to it.

The other major problem was that some detail was here, some in the other article. It should all now be unified.

In terms of the personal life change - this can be discussed but it is the standard approach. The 2008 incident rides a fine line, certainly. My view is that it could be moved into his career section. All of the rest is related to his private life, though. Sorry for being cross. --Errant (chat!) 15:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I added back the specifics of her allegation. Not overly important IMO but it may work as a compromise? I'm willing to discuss expanding it, but the lengthy content is very undue in his bio (which was why it was forked, after all) and adding it back is very strongly discouraged. --Errant (chat!) 15:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Errant. Would you go along with something like the way sex allegations are dealt with in the Bill Clinton BLP? Because the 2008 affair with an IMF employee brought in an IMF investigation and determination, so I don't know if it should be left in the "Personal life" section. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for chastising me over that... It was a bit irrational/angry and I really deserve a trouting. :S Yes, I am in agreement this is a bit of a pain to try and figure out. On one hand it fits with the other sex allegations, on the other it is much more work related. I'd be inclined to support moving it into the main work section. In fact I'll give it a go now, see what you think. --Errant (chat!) 16:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
2008 - Piroska Nagy got disappeared from allegations. There was an IMF investigation. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
67.224.51.189, Its in the IMF Managing Director (2007–2011) section.
Errant, I like it in there; don't know why but somehow it seems to fit nice and definitely livens up an otherwise boring section. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the description of the alleged attack; I have tried to live with the compromised wording but it still reads ambiguous to me. The UPI and ABC sources have very clear descriptions of what is alleged to have happened. The anal and oral sex are alleged to have actually happened whereas the male/female genital intercourse is described as "attempted".

  • ABC: DSK "is accused of forcing the housekeeper to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex "
  • UPI: "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."

The BLP right now could be interpreted by Readers as if all 3 sex acts were only attempted. I am not going to revert again but I suggest we mike a slight change from; "She alleged...he attempted to forcibly have intercourse with her, to submit to anal sex and to perform oral sex" to "She alleged...he attempted to forcibly have intercourse with her, and that he did force her to submit to anal sex and to perform oral sex." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't know what she alleged (her Grand Jury testimony surely isn't in the public domain). All we have is the charge sheet and our imaginations. FightingMac (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I still don't see any need to detail anything other than "sexual assault" here, because summary style means we can't give fair dealing to all of the information here (and if we did that gets us back t square one). --Errant (chat!) 07:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Concerning this section, I agree with Errant and don't see why over at DSK sexual-assault case the wording is summary: According to the woman's account, while she was cleaning his suite Strauss-Kahn lunged from the bathroom naked, chased her down a hallway and pulled her into a bedroom.She alleged that she was sexually assaulted, but eventually fought him off and told hotel staff about the incident, who then called police. Whereas here we still have the anal/oral sex thing going on and a mountain of citations. If people really want to read the diverse allegations they can go to the sources.

@Mr.Grantevans2, I actually intended to change the wording to reflect what is over at DSK sex assault but seeing the mountain of citations and knowing that this sentence has been a bit of a hot potato I just made a minor change to make it more readable. As it stands, it is awkward English, notably saying "forcibly...., forced ....", not very elegant, could we not just go for a simple summary style as above?

It is illogical to have more details, especially allegations of specific sex acts, in the main BLP than in the split (which doesn't mean we should add more detail in the split). Any thoughts from all and sundry? CaptainScreebo Parley! 10:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

@FightingMac; its not taking something from the charge sheet: UPI and ABC include this specific description ""is accused of forcing the housekeeper to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex ". My view on this is simply that if the charges are to be mentioned at all, there should be clarity as to what they are. By analogy, "assult" is a charge that can include anything from a slap to knocking someone unconscious with a baseball bat.

If we are putting references to the charge, we need to be specific, I think, in order to be informative; and I think this is a selective thing regarding sexual terminology.

  • If it was physical assault with a baseball bat, there would be no avoidance at all of being specific about the alleged actions.
  • The alleged crime includes, as reported by UPI and ABC, "forcing the housekeeper to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex". What's the big deal; tell it like it is. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a BLP and you are not adressing my point that the consensus appears to be a summary style saying "alleged that she was sexually assaulted" as is the case over at DSK sex assault case. You appear to be the only one hanging on to have the specific details included and it would be more logical to be general here and more specific over at the split article, but even there the consensus is to wait and see what becomes of all this.
As to what's reported in the media, even the BBC was carrying a story the other day about the rumoured (and unconfirmed) positive result of DSK's dna/semen on the maid's clothing, so in this type of case we have to proceed very cautiously and not print every single titbit that makes its way into mainstream media but wait for the dust to settle. CaptainScreebo Parley! 11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your policy reasoning, just with your and others' opinion that the details of this alleged crime should be handled differently than the details of other alleged crimes. As I say, were someone charged with "assault" and RSs said the accusation was that the accused beat someone up with a basebal bat, there is little doubt the BLP would not simply say "charged with assault"; because that would not be detailed enough to truly inform the Readers nor fully representative of what Reliable Sources were saying. I am just saying there is no logical reason to keep the specifics of the allegations out of the BLP if the specifics are reported by Reliable secondary Sources. I know its not intentional, but imo to leave out the specifics of alleged sex crimes has the effect of shrouding the allegations in a fog of vagueness; which may be why UPI,ABC and others are being quite specific in their articles. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
IMO, that's their job not ours (reporting on specifics and allegations). Hey, if he get's convicted and the allegations are proved then we can print "was found guilty of two counts of" whatever felony/misdemeanour etc. he's been charged with. What I was pointing out above is that even the BBC (an RS if ever there was one) said:
  • "DNA found on the clothes of a New York hotel maid who accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexually assaulting her matches that of the former IMF chief, US media reports say.
  • The unconfirmed reports cited sources close to the investigation."
Look, in these sort of cases, we don't know what is verifiable, reliably sourced, notable etc. Take a look at BBC article about a Twitter hoax that got out of hand and then was relayed seriously around the world for a few days before the author owned up and killed it. Yes, OBL was really downloading porn/playing Zelda on his Wii/watching the IT crowd when the Seals stormed the compound! Do you see what I'm getting at? CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
ok we'll just agree to disagree about including the specifics at this time in the BLP; looks like I'm in the minority for sure, so I'll walk away on this one, here at the BLP. I'll try to do something over at the forked article (which right now is misleading,imo, by exclusively including "attempted" rape).Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is everyone practically updating info on the sex scandal case?

Again I call for balance--this is not a tabloid. There has been less on this sex case and more on his performance as IMF MD. If you want to add info on his sexs case, there always the forumsOther dictionaries are better (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I responded to you at Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn#Good gosh; nobody responded to you at Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn#Balance is really required on this page; and now here, at Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn#Why is everyone practically updating info on the sex scandal case?, rather than pointing you back at good gosh and Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case, let me ask for your opinion. Why do you think people are doing what you are complaining about? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems like it is the objective of everyone to describe DSK's sex scandals bit by bit. While that may be importantt, is is going out of hand. Get an account.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, but I asked you to guess why people are doing what you are complaining about. The Economist suggests that everyone is fascinated because, "this would not be the first time that a dominant man, blinded by the habit of abuse and the arrogance of power, had thrown it all away and ruined the people unfortunate enough to cross his path." By not using an account I hope to avoid that. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual misconduct

Under Personal Life there's a subhead "allegations of sexual misconduct," which I think is an inaccurate label that trivializes the accusation. It's my understanding that "sexual misconduct" is normally used to refer to behaviour that may be untoward/unseemly/unethical, but is not coercive. I believe that in this case the journalist is not alleging sexual misconduct, she is alleging sexual assault. Sue Gardner (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The section title has been changed accordingly. Quigley (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that he has been charged with a criminal offence is significant in the biography but since there is a separate article on the case and it has yet to come before the courts, the previous level of detail was not necessary and moreover, was unbalancing the biography. Whiteghost.ink 22:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
There is an article on the case though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
So quite sufficent to publish appropriate detail over there, n'est ce pas? CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Oui, nous y devrions écrire l'information. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Voulez-vous que je vous traduise WP:NOTNEWS ? WP:PASNEWS, voilà, ça c'est fait, double %-p. Shalom. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well you were putting wee French expressions, and so I thought there should be consequences (:p), but no, I'm an American anglophone who's read WP:NOTNEWS tyvm. I was just saying we should write the info there in that article so readers seeking info can find it there in the proper article.:p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
'Twas a wee joke, dear friend, I was not doubting your ability to read English. What I meant was okay, put relevant and appropriate detail into the forked article keeping in mind the role of WP and the NOTNEWS approach. CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, lol, je suis devesté. I misinterpreted it while I was in the car (should take French 003 at some point). xD Yeah I know, but it's always so easy to slip into reporting news in certain ways rather than conveying info; especially when you put it in the context of "what info is the reader here to find?" Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Lol aussi, c'est facile de perdre la tête sur ce sujet ;-) As you are well aware, there has been a lot of argy-bargy here and over at the fork with people insisting on publishing salacious, trivial or unconfirmed details that do not have their place in an encyclopaedic BLP.
"In your car"? Are you saying you drive and edit Wikipedia at the same time? Have you checked yourself for signs of Wikipediholism? :) CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Oui, oui, je préfere l'Allemagne. Il est très facile. Indeed, like the physical description and name of the alleged victim. Hopefully with attention focused elsewhere, this article can be cleaned up a bit.
Oh my no, lol, a family member was driving at the time. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(Off-topic subject continues) Actually a bit confused, "je prefère l'Allemagne"!!! really surprised me I suppose you mean "je prefère l'allemand" (la langue quoi, oh shit there I go again blathering in French, you mean sprechen Deütsch don't you?) Esperanto, anyone? CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Confusion between religious and ethnic categories for Jews

I've removed both Category:Jewish politicians and Category:French Jews. Both of these categories are part of the Category:Jews tree, which is for people who profess Judaism as a religion. The ethnic categories are the "of Jewish descent" categories. The article only establishes membership in Category:French people of Jewish descent. Due to active Jew-tagging campaigns by editors such as User:Bus stop, the use of religious vs. ethnic categories has become seriously confused and should be straightened out and a notice put at the top of every related category specifying whether profession of Judaism or simply ethnicity is required for inclusion. Yworo (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—you refer to "active Jew-tagging campaigns by editors such as User:Bus stop". One can disagree without being disagreeable. When one chooses wording such as "Jew-tagging" one is choosing to be offensive for no reason. Standard English is perfectly capable of communicating the same ideas without running the risk of alienating some of the community. "Jew-tagging" gets a grand total of 7 Google hits. By the way, Talk page guidelines suggest that we "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
So what do you think we should be doing about the confusion between religious and ethnic categories for Jews, Bus stop? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
WHY? DSK is a self-admitted French Jew. This should not be removed. I am restoring the category. We need consensus before removal of a Category. Blatant censorship by Yworo. Judenwatch (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no documentation or citation of that in the article. The only thing documented in the article text is his parentage. Categories may only be placed when there is cited supporting text in the article. That's not censorship, that's simply the application of our BLP policy on categories. Yworo (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
We have plenty od coumentation right here. According to the American Jewish Year Book (1993), The Economist (2004), The New Yorker (2007), and numerous other sources, Dominque Strauss-Kahn is a "French Jew." According to Wikipedia, the American Jewish Year Book "is regarded as the authoritative record of events and trends in Jewish life in the United States and around the world by many Jewish organizations." Would somebody please explain to me why the American Jewish Year Book is not a reliable source as to the ethnicity of Dominque Strauss-Kahn? Mcbeeotch (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The only person questioning DSK's ethnicity is Bus stop, though that is part of his general approach in Wikipedia, which is to label (almost) everyone he can as 'Jewish', in an ambiguous way as possible. The problem with the 'French Jew' category is that it is a subcategory of Jews by religion, not Jews by ethnicity. As for categories in general, many of those we apply to people are of dubious merit, and actually tell us little. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—you say "…that is part of his general approach in Wikipedia, which is to label (almost) everyone he can as 'Jewish', in an ambiguous way as possible."
At WP:TALK I find: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Bus stop (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
So what do you think we should be doing about the confusion between religious and ethnic categories for Jews, Bus stop? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
And I would like to point out that the sources you cite cataloguing DSK as a French Jew are American (not sure about the Economist), but over in the States there seems to be a huge fixation with Jewish identity and the irony is that both the pro- and anti-semitic camps are as ardent as each other (good jew/bad jew syndrome I guess). Have you ever considered that the American Jewish Year Book might have an agenda? (i.e. to catalogue everyone and anyone even faintly Jewish, ethnic and/or religious strike out as appropriate, to prove how wonderful and chosen the Jews are/were).
This is getting tedious, I have lived in France for 19 years and listened to public radio for at least 13 or 14 (France Inter/Info) and had never heard that DSK was Jewish until now!. This means it is not an issue, he does not go around shouting Mazel Tov and proclaiming how much his faith influences his political career and so on. Compare Tony Blair who publicly announced his faith, belief in God, Christianity and so on. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Captain Screebo—you say that "…I have lived in France for 19 years and listened to public radio for at least 13 or 14 (France Inter/Info) and had never heard that DSK was Jewish until now!. This means it is not an issue…
That would be original research. That you have lived in France is not a substitute for verifiable sources, therefore we should try to adhere closely to reliable sources.
Additionally I am not sure why you are making references to "chosen" Jews, expressions of "Mazel Tov" that were not uttered by DSK, or an edit summary such as "++ for no Jew-tagging". That elevates the level of drama on this Talk page unnecessarily and I feel that it might have the potential to alienate some of the people in the diverse Wikipedia community. Bus stop (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
At WP:TALK you found: "Comment on content, not on the contributor.". Now tell us what you think we should be doing about the confusion between religious and ethnic categories for Jews, Bus stop? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but you're not making much sense, Bus Stop, I am trying to point out that DSK's Jewishness is not notable as concerns his political career or public personality here in France, please don't quote policy at me which has nothing to do with what I'm saying. If I heard a rumour or a radio programme here in France claiming Strauss-Kahn likes doing karaoke in a tutu and I tried to include it in the article without a RS then, yes, it would be original research.
As to "chosen", this comes from a discussion in which you were involved about, hey the same subject, with, hey, some of the same people, and specifically references Richard Feynman and his refusal to be categorized as a Jewish Nobel Laureate, saying:
  • "Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way "the chosen people."
To cut to the chase: as has been mentioned here, there and everywhere putting people into categories based on ethnicity, religion and so on requires self-identification and a high degree of relevance to their public notability. CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Dozens of Wikipedia biographies of people who are ethnically but not religiously Jewish are in Jewish categories, such as Category:American Jews, Category:British Jews, Category:French Jews, Category:Russian Jews. My understanding is that a person can be categorised as Jewish if they are either ethnically or religiously Jewish, and that categories such as Category:French people of Jewish descent are for people who are merely of partial Jewish ancestry, such as Nicolas Sarkozy. The categories should have a description on them to clarify their scope. 89.194.39.65 (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, dozens of people are miscategorized, and the category trees have been hopelessly corrupted by well-meaning editors who don't bother to understand the distinction between the categories. The two separate tree were originally intended to differentiate between profession of religion and ethnicity, with the whole Category:Jews tree related to religion, not ethnicity, and the whole Category:People of Jewish descent tree for ethnicity. This was done because living people cannot be placed in the religious tree unless they have self-identified their religion as Judaism. Any living person who is of Jewish descent but chooses not to make a statement about their religious beliefs cannot be placed in a tree with does not distinguish religion from ethnicity, since WP:BLPCAT prohibits the use of religious categories except in the case of self-identification. Yworo (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Yup. It is a total mess. Further evidence the such categories are inherently problematic. What is the point in having a category that you have to back-track through multiple pages to understand the meaning of? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Most Jewish-related cats, including French Jews and French people of Jewish descent, don't have a description on them. That's why editors of this article disagree as to whether DSK should be categorised as a French Jew or a French person of Jewish descent. Cats should have a clearly defined scope, otherwise confusion and disputes over who does or does not fit into various cats like these will happen many more times. 188.29.58.59 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This IP has a very good point, though I suspect most people add the kitties (can't resist) without actually viewing their page. In fact isn't their some category-addition tool some people use (which I suspect is just start typing the name and then it appears in a dropdown)? Anyway, yes the categories should be MUCH more clearly defined to avoid confusion and multi-section debates. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree totally, as per above, most of the problems seem to come from non-defined specifics for categories, so we have people chucking BLPs willy-nilly into "Jewish this" and "thingy of Jewish descent that" whereas there seems to be a clear distinction between identifying as an ethnic Jew and being a religious one. Look at Sacha Baron Cohen, middle paragraph, so, IMHO, he should be in cats concerning Jewish ethnicity but not cats concerning practising Jews. Sorry about all the wiki-markup but just trying to emphasize bits to make apparent contradictions and so on stand out. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Anon contribution

The article should mention that DSK resigned as Minister of the Economy - In France - in November 1999 after he was indicted by a criminal court for falsifying an invoice ("faux et usage de faux") he had made to a public institution while he was a lawyer. Using sophisticated technology the public prosecutor established that the paper of the invoice had been manufactured after the date of the invoice. DSK admitted that he had made a mistake but denied his intention to lie. The case was later dropped. Other defendants in the case were sentenced to suspended jail terms and fines. All the charges were covered by an amnesty law that had been voted earlier in the French parliament.

Incorrectly posted in first section and added by CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does Orangemarlin consider a news item from the NYT to be a "rumor"?

Question concerns this edit [10]. He refuses to discuss it on his talk page. Qworty (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

While OrangeMarlin could've been more civil about it, the section you added probably fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT in a BLP. It looks like consensus has generally gone against adding too much about the trial to this page, and the article about the trial already includes a paragraph about this. This will be sorted out in a few days, and the result of the hearing might be more appropriate for this article. Archaeo (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
No, its all but sorted out allready. The major French TV stations have cleared their late afternoon/evening schedules for coverage dedicated to DSK, as its well known he's going to be exonerated - the maid has freely admitted the story she gave police was false
Its very dissapointing how this article has been handled theese past few weeks. I thought Id been quite clear on this talk that including the past allegations but not saying anything about the extremely widespread suspicions of a setup would be a gross NPOV violation? Thank God that for the first few crucial days the article correctly reflected the grave concerns about the legitimacy of this charge, and subsequently the worldwide suspiscions of a setup flooded newspapers, radio, TV and online..
In Fance they're now widely saying this was a feeble attempt of "assanation by image" and that they have to look back to the Dreyfus affair for a stitch up of similar magnitude. Next time something like this happens can we please not effectively collaborate with right wing propagandists in their attempts to smear a living person? Its embarrassing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, first of all, he hasn't been exonerated yet. And secondly the main article on the case has always (or at least from an early stage in its building) had a section on the conspiracy speculation. All the BLP had to do was note the case and direct to the article about it.

The New York Post is now confident enough (from a legal perspective) to claim in print that the "hotel maid" is a known prostitute (with a criminal record for prostitution going back more than four years) and that DSK refused to pay her the evening before he was accused of sexual assault. Mardiste (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? Link please? NickCT (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It might be (at least in part) that one but if true, the main press (RS's) will catch up on this quickly and we should wait for this to happen before jumping the gun. TMCk (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
...And it is worth noting that the Post isn't claiming anything. They are saying that "a source close to the defense" made the claims. Not "the defense", but someone "close" - i.e. nobody who is willing to say anything on the record. Hardly definitive... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's absolutely right from Andy. ErrantX has taken me to task in the main article ("the gravest BLP violation yet" - ouph), on libel grounds (wise after the event I have to say I suspect), for editing content (edit mind you, not provide it) that merely mentioned the existence of the New York Post story and that a libel suit has been filed against it. I don't undertsand his point and have emailed the Foundation for clarification. Meanwhile I expect to be chatting to Mr. Putin in a few minutes time and I'll see if I can get him to do something about the dreadful libel currently in this article EVEN AS I WRITE
  • "In a July 3 statement by Chief Assistant District Attorney Daniel R. Alonso he is quoted as saying that "We're going to complete our investigation" and that there is no evidence to support a report by the New York Post alleging that the accuser is a prostitute or targeted Strauss-Kahn for financial gain."
невероятно ... and it's been there hours! FightingMac (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Banon's accusations

I've deleted the reference to Banon's accusations.

Per BLP, biographies are supposed to be written very conservatively with a focus on privacy and fact. We should not be putting accusations against a person in their biography. At least not until after charges have been filed. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

With you there Bob. Plus over in the other place could you please call Mr. Strauss-Kahn Strauss-Kahn and not "Kahn" when you muck with section titles as the fancy strikse you. Thanks. You do sound a proper dear. FightingMac (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn Tristane Banon alleged sexual assault

Shouldn't the new allegations of sexual assault be added here? By Tristane Banon. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That article won't survive unless its AfD gets a lot more opposing votes. The Banon alleged assault is not a new allegation. I agree that eliminating all but the maid from the rut list does not do the subject justice. However, if the article appears to be the biography of a saint, then Wikipedia:BLP is satisfied and DSK is unlikely to sue Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, for defamation. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
No. See the section above about the exact same topic. He was indicted and arrested in the New York case, thus it merits a mention. With Tristane Banon, it is nothing more than an accusation, no matter how many RS speak of it. And accusation against someone have no place on their biographies. As for 67.224.51.189's fears that it might look like the bio of a saint, it's not our job to judge that. But, the NY indictment should remain, whatever the outcome of it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
If it looks like Hagiography it's a bad job. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this article should briefly mention Banon's accusations. It isn't defaming him in saying that an accusation has been made by Banon and that she is attempting to take legal action against him. Jim Michael (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Further info

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14076073 The BBC and other news providers are now reporting that Ms Banon will pursue case because of 'seduction to the point of obsession'. I think this should now be included in his biog as it's not 'breaking news' it IS news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14018727

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8615916/French-writer-Tristane-Banon-accuses-Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-of-attempted-rape.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387621/Tristane-Banon-says-IMF-boss-Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-tried-rape-TOO.html 86.25.245.118 (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Identity and Repercussions for Jewish Community

I added a section that described the reported potential repercussions for the French and American Jewish communities from the alleged DSK sexual assault. All of the material was removed based on the fact that DSK does not "identify as a jew" which has nothing to do with that section, but alas, here is a quote from him about his support of Israel and his efforts:

"I consider that all Jews in the Diaspora, and thus it is true in France, should everywhere they can lend their support to Israel. This is why it is also important that Jews take political responsabilities. [...]. In sum, in my functions and in my everyday life, through the whole of my actions, I try to make so that my modest stone is brought to the construction of the land of Israel."

- Dominique Strauss-Kahn, French Jew and chief of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in Passages, No 35 - February/March 1991. http://radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/france/strauss_khan_imf_jew.htm

Sounds to me like we can put his religion back in the infobox (which was actually there without dispute for years before this alleged incident...)

He is already also on the list of french jews and there are numerous citations with outspoken support for Israel and Jewish faith. I don't know what else you want AndyTheGrump? http://ejpress.org/article/news/5698 (source for list of french jews page)

Regardless, the section I added had nothing to do with that, it was on the potential repercussions to the American and French Jewish communities, not whether he actively identifies as Jewish (which he does.)Factothy (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Factothy, do you consider Radio Islam to be a neutral source? The same page that you're quoting and using as justification for inclusion also says this:
"IMF under Strauss-Kahn´s leadership is nor not an independent international body but an organization hijacked by an agent of Israel. "
The source is _not_ anywhere close to neutral. I have mixed feelings about including his religion in the infobox. But I find it extremely distasteful that you're using such a biased site to try to justify it's inclusion.
As for talking about what effects his arrest might have on the Jewish community, we don't generally quote from blogs. Is this truly notable? Are there other sources that talk about it? If it's truly notable, it might belong on the page for the sexual assault case, but probably no on his bio. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we know from sources that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is Jewish. Doesn't this source establish that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Factothy - the issue of DSK's religious beliefs (or rather the lack of any firm evidence for them) has been extensively discussed on this talk page previously (see archives). You should note that WP:BLPCAT states quite explicitly that categories/lists/infobox parameters for religion require a source demonstrating self-assertion of the relevant beliefs - and the source you provided doesn't provide that. As for the other content, I'm sure that a case could be made for including reactions from Jewish communities to the assault case in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case article. I do not however see why it is relevant here. However, I think that it would be most unwise to use radioislam.org as a source for this. If there has been a response from Jewish sources in the US and France, I'm sure we can find sources more likely to be seen as neutral. Finally, if DSK is in our List of French Jews, this is of no relevance, as it states that it is "a list of some prominent Jews and people of Jewish origins, among others, (not all of them practice, or practiced, the Jewish religion) who were born in, or are very strongly associated with, France". It isn't a list of French people of Judaic faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I still have mixed feelings about it. Is it verifiable, yes. It is notable, maybe. However, there is an ongoing discussion on the WP:BLP noticeboard about this very topic. So how about if we just join that conversation, and abide by whatever consensus is made there? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
What is verifiable? Nobody has, as far as I'm aware, provided a source where DSK states that he is Jewish by faith, so the "religion: Jewish" entry in the infobox is a breach of WP:BLPCAT, plain and simple. The question being asked at the BLP noticeboard is whether religion needs to go in an infobox when it is sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
http://www.forward.com/articles/137926/ is pretty clear on this, no?Factothy (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it? Can you quote the part where he self-identifies as Jewish by faith? I can't see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—it is not a "breach of WP:BLPCAT". You are requiring of Jewish identity that it conform to identity requirements as might apply to some different religion. Not all religions are the same in all respects.
"A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do."[11]
Note the wording which reads: "It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do." Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Bus stop, I'm not the slightest bit interested in your attempt to weasel-word around explicit Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia doesn't recognise www.jewfaq.org as an arbiter of our policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need for a direct quote. That is not a standard that has been imposed on other pages and I don't think WP:BLPCAT's statement of "the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" would surely be met by:
PARIS — Just weeks ago, Dominique Strauss-Kahn worried aloud that his Jewish identity would be exploited during France’s upcoming presidential campaign. Factothy (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The Jewish Daily Forward article does contain the following: "he has always been open about his faith". Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a direct quote is necessary - find one, or this topic is closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that whether the infobox contains religion (and under what conditions it should be used) is a separate conversation that is already taking place. I also think that it's clear that he's a self-identifying Jewish person.Factothy (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no question that DSK considers himself ethnically Jewish. The article makes that clear, I'd think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—I find no occurrences of the term "ethnically" in the Forward article. Nor related terms such as "ethnic" or "ethnicity". This is in response to your asserting that "There is no question that DSK considers himself ethnically Jewish." Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not interested in rehashing old debates with you Bus stop. If you don't understand what ethnicity is, you aren't qualified to discuss anything relating to WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)#
(Note: this response was to Bus stop's original post. In violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines he edited it after I responded. see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Bus_stop AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC))
Please speak respectfully. And point me in the direction of where WP:BLPCAT says that a direct quote is needed. No other citation requires a direct quote.Factothy (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry just returning to the discussion now, but nowhere in that statement does it say a quote is required. There is a reliable source that says he stated in a public forum that he was concerned his beliefs might be held against him. That counts as a public statement of his beliefs. We are debating this because you simply do not want it listed, not because it fails to meet the criteria. Whether we list religion in infoboxes is another story. 66.30.114.229 (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you clarify where he said that his beliefs (as opposed to his ethnicity) might be held against him? And can you please not make comments about what you think my motivations are - you are wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok here you go: http://www.businessinsider.com/dominique-strauss-kahn-liberation-interview-woman-raped-parking-lot-set-up-2011-5 ... a quote from a reliable source.Factothy (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Nope. The source you provide says nothing whatsoever about DSK's religious beliefs. Please stop wasting peoples time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not wasting anyone's time... I will remind you yet again to keep this civil. The question you posed is whether he is religious vs. simply Jewish by ethnicity. There are two quotes in this article: the first minimally specifies ethnicity, but the second quote refers to his strong support for Israel, which represents not just being ethnically Jewish but also supporting actually being a religious Jew. Can anyone else chime in as it's just going back and forth here with two against one? 134.174.188.6 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"...His strong support for Israel, which represents not just being ethnically Jewish but also supporting actually being a religious Jew". Wrong, just wrong. It is possible to be a non-Jew (by any definition) and a strong supporter of Israel, a Jew (by any definition) and an non-supporter of Israel, a non-religious but ethnically-Jewish supporter of Israel, or a non-religious but ethnically-Jewish non-supporter of Israel. Do I really have to provide evidence for this? - Actually, I don't - if you think that being a 'strong supporter of Israel' constitutes proof of being Jewish by faith, provide the evidence yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Honestly I do not understand certain things about this thread. (That is aside from the many things that I disagree with.) One minor thing which nevertheless irks me concerns the first post. I read in the first post, "I added a section that described the reported potential repercussions for the French and American Jewish communities from the alleged DSK sexual assault." Where? I cannot find that edit. Secondly, who are all these IP numbers? 66.30.114.229? 134.174.188.6? If there is any human continuity between different forms of identity could y'all please 'fess up? That's my Southern accent for times when my Northern accent just won't do. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I surprise both of us by agreeing entirely with you over that, Bus stop - it is darned confusing. If people have registered, please log in. (And to answer the question about the original edit, it was here: [12] - in this, the main DSK article, not the assault case article, as a 'Jewish community response' section would logically go). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the reference is to "...a section that described the reported potential repercussions for the French and American Jewish communities from the alleged DSK sexual assault." You are linking to an Infobox entry. Where has a "section" been "added"? Bus stop (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a paragraph was added rather than a section. Scroll down to see all the edits. Yworo (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I apologize on both counts - I was accidentally not signed in. Should I go back up and update those posts with my signature or is that not the right way to fix it?Factothy (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The maid's name

Why isn't "<redacted>" mentioned anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.114.132 (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

there is a general consensus among editors that the housekeeper's privacy should be protected. There is ongoing discussion at Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case if you want to discuss further. please do not use her name with getting consensus to do so. Ronnotel (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we are not naming her per Wikipedia policy: notably WP:BLPNAME, and WP:BLP policy more generally. This has been discussed extensively, and consensus is that it is unnecessary to name her. Note that this is an online encyclopaedia, not a news agency, and that the article is about DSK, not about her. We see no reason to breach her privacy more than has already occurred elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the name of the accuser may soon be relevant as she may have fabricated some elements as the cops have discovered that she contacted a drug criminal within a day of the accusation according toa breaking NY Times story. We still need to wait until we find out if the authorities drop the most serious charges, i.e. no more felony, and loosen bail conditions. Whereupon the accuser may be a criminal for non sex related reasons but for drug offenses. If something of this kind becomes the reason the prosecution drop charges, she becomes a person whose identity is newsworthy as a subject of a criminal probe. 74.72.44.10 (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This might be the article in the NY Times. Bus stop (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I was actually going to add "On June 30th, the New York Times reported that prosecutors had discovered major issues with the victim's account of the crime and were considering dropping the charges entirely," but I didn't want to rock this boat, really. Not sure if this runs up against WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT. Archaeo (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course, I now see it has lots of coverage in the page about the case, which I didn't see before; this information is too recent to really merit inclusion in the subject's bio, eh? As for the issue at hand, the victim's name will probably only be notable enough to get past BLP if those accusations in the Times article end up being true and they are widely reported on. Archaeo (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Frankly, as this story has developed, and the maid's background and possible role in the matter has become of greater note, I've changed my mind. I'm now leaning towards being fine with her name being reflected, and with even hearing arguments for an article about her (we do, obviously, have others w/articles in similar positions to hers).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Lets wait and see if it does actually go to trial (and then tbh I'd argue see if he is convicted or not). if current media reports are right and this is dropped then it becomes less worthy noting her name --Errant (chat!) 23:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually, it well might be more notable if it does not go to trial, as with Tawana Brawley. If it goes to trial, and he is convicted, she may be just the unfortunate person in the wrong place at the wrong time. If it is akin to the Brawley incident, her role is far, far greater.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Id still prefer we didnt name her on the principle of do no harm and BLP1E. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Previously there was consensus not to name her so as to not invade her privacy. Fair enough. (Though I wish we'd show similar respect to the accused.) However, now that has gone public and been interviewed on ABC news we are no longer protecting her privacy. She has chosen to make her name extremely public, and there is no need for us to hide it. At this point, it's time to stop using "the housekeeper" and simply use her name in the article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree with Bob drobbs: She decided to go public, so are we now protecting her from her own decision, or are we censoring the mainstream media??? Crnorizec (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that the alleged victim has given a interview ....

Now that Nafissatou Diallo has given a interview BBC News report and Newsweek interview; suppression of her name seems pointless and just an attempt at censorship. VERTott 03:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case talk page. Frankly though, you'd do better than to drag up old chestnuts about 'censorship'. Wikipedia has policies, guidelines, and a means to arrive at a consensus (or at least try), and we don't need lectures on 'free speech'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia already names her, if you go to her page Nafissatou Diallo it is clear who she is VERTott 03:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
That page relates to an entirely different person who happens to have the same name. Dragons flight (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
That page is entirely irrelevent to the policy-based arguments expressed. The person is a non-public figure that should not be named on the article, per presumption in favour of privacy, and because her name is irrelevent to this article.  Chzz  ►  10:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please try to reach consensus here -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

what is the correct amount of coverage to comply with WP:UNDUE?

Given that the case is the major part of media interest in him at the moment. I myself have no position on the issue (though I do not think the idea that there is a conspiracy perpetuated by his political opponents is that ludicrous), but at the same time I am concerned that use of WP:UNDUE has been much too aggressive to the extent that it favours the agenda of DSK's legal defence. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 04:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mery Scandal

Why is the Mery scandal not mentioned? This is mentioned in the French language version and should be here as well. It resulted in his almost forced resignation, Hollande saying that such a mafiaesque character had no place in the French socialist party and every other French socialist potentate condemning him.

For references see the French Wikipedia entry for him.

It was almost a French Watergate.


To build up a decent picture of his character, the Mery scandal and the backdated invoice ('mistake') in the MNEF affair are important details.

~~Rob~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.14.21.250 (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Idle thoughts

Apropos nothing, does anyone else find it slightly odd that according to categorization;

  • Before the sex scandal this guy was Jewish
  • Immediately following the scandal he wasn't
  • And now that he has been partially/mostly vindicated he is again!

It's the amazing appearing/disappearing ethno-religious categorization. Yet more argument for stricter observance of WP:BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(BLP violation removed.)

Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 7 Tishrei 5772 03:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd actually be for removing Category:Jewish politicians per WP:BLPCAT, but this is such a hot button issue, I doubt that idea will go anywhere. For the record, I think the "Jewish Descent" category is fine. NickCT (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree Jewish politician is a stretch indeed - boldly removed with two supports. (me and you) Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Sources support that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is Jewish. This source for instance supports that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is Jewish. Does anyone have a source indicating that Dominique Strauss-Kahn might not be Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I think as NickCT appears to support also, that external supports person of Jewish descent and not identification that he is a Jewish this or a Jewish that. - in exactly the same way as Ed Milliband - Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
note- User:Bus stop has reverted - diff with the edit summary, "sources are supporting that DSK is Jewish; one such source has already been presented on Talk page" - Off2riorob (talk)
The source is in fact chock-full-of references to Dominique Strauss-Kahn's Jewishness:
1. ) "Just weeks ago, Dominique Strauss-Kahn worried aloud that his Jewish identity would be exploited during France’s upcoming presidential campaign."
2. ) "…and his Jewish identity as the issues his political opponents were most likely to seize on as the election season got under way."
3. ) "The 62-year-old IMF chief who seemed poised to become France’s first Jewish president next year…"
4. ) "One Socialist Party lawmaker, Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, said that such remarks were a way of “implying that he is a foreigner, a stateless member of the ‘party from abroad’ or alas something else” — a transparent reference to his Jewishness." Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The comments from the subject seem clearly related to his Jewish ancestors rather than his own Jewishness. Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
From what do you derive that? I see no reference to ancestors. Nor do I really see the point that would be made even if there were a reference to ancestors. He acknowledges his Jewishness. I think that is all that counts. I mean—he could deny his Jewishness—could he not? We have acknowledgement from the individual that he is Jewish. I can't quite understand why we would doubt that. Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree he is French? Its exactly the same as Milliband - He is a French person of Jewish decent - he is not a French Jew - I am more interested in Milliband so I won't bother resisting or continuing in this discussion and I have stated my position, so , bye for now. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
DSK is a French politician with Jewish ancestry - he is not a 'Jewish politician'. Your arguments are synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
And further to this, read WP:OC#EGRS: "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career". Can you provide a reliable source that states that JSK's ethnicity has had any effect on his career? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this enough? "Dominique Strauss-Kahn worried aloud that his Jewish identity would be exploited during France’s upcoming presidential campaign." He actually gave thought to it. Stop this semantics mental masturbation. JSK is Jewish. End of story. 108.35.36.227 (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a weird Wikipedia bio - loads of stuff left out

This is a weird Wikipedia bio. I came here to find out information on the Tristane Banon mess, but amazingly, there is nothing here. Also nothing on him being photographed leaving that wife-swapping club, Le Chandelle or whatever it is called. It is as though this bio has been cleansed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.20.95 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I came here to find that too but it's not here. 108.35.36.227 (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Its well covered at Tristane Banon. Perhaps there is a case to add some small comment here, Kahn was accused by Banon of attempted rape and Kahn said it was a kiss at the door and the French prosecutor did not pursue any charges. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I also came here to find this information for the record...it's odd that his other scandals aren't mentioned at all Hardtospell (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is laughably biased

I don't care to get into a big argument with the French astroturfers who clearly must be in control of this article so I'll make this comment and likely not return. But this article is absurdly and blatantly slanted to try to make what happened in NYC seem like something very small and completely harmless. It should unquestionably be in the lede of this article. There should be much more about their sexual contact than simply vaguely noting that a semen sample found on her matched his DNA and a much more than half sentence reference at the very end of his IMF experience noting why he resigned. There should be a description of him attempting to flee the country and being arrested and taken off the plane. There should be something stating he spent time in one of America's most notorious jails and that he had his own cell for his own safety. There should be a photo of him being led to court in handcuffs etc. All of these things were reported in the media and that is the basis for inclusion here, not whether the French media or DSK supporters agree with the reports.

The main reason this is absurd is that most people reading this article are going to be reading it to find out the status of these things or more details about them. As it is they have to dig deep within the article to find them and there is very little detail once they do. Second, the truth is not nearly as bland or as benign as the article paints it. The truth also is not where the biggest haters would put it, implying or saying he was guilty. The truth is in the middle. And while taking into account the BLP requirements of Wikipedia that is the story that should be told here, not the one that was clearly crafted by French people who are ardent supporters of and possibly associated with DSK or his political party or business interests (I know you are French from the way you have given dates in the article. Native English speakers do not say 15 May they say May 15th - take this propaganda to the French media and if you must the French version of Wikipedia).

I suspect nothing will be done and the angry mob of French DSK shills will win but this had to be said. 213.179.208.29 (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the present state of that paragraph is satisfactory, but I'm amazed there isn't anything on the other sex scandals that have erupted this year, no mention of Tristane Banon and the rest of it. Mezigue (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Is all this hostility toward French people really justified or necessary? The French-language version of Wikipedia mentions the scandal in the introduction and gives a lot more detail than this article. You are also completely mistaken regarding the French media. Newspapers are now lashing out on DSK and his sex scandals made the cover page of two major news magazines this week. The idea that any French-speaking person should be suspected of association with DSK is simply ludicrous.
In fact, everything you mentioned is in New York v. Strauss-Kahn. Clearly, those points are somewhat relevant but it's still a fact that DSK had a long career, even if Americans might not know it or be interested in it right now. If anything, the bias lies in the excessive focus on the US perspective and the lack of information on the many other allegations that have surfaced in France since then and the end of DSK's political career (surely a much bigger loss for him than an IMF position he was going to renounce soon anyway). In light of all this, speculation on whether he was “fleeing the country” or the details of his detention are mere anecdotes. GL (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Made by the SK's PR agents?

Amazingly positive article about a person that is reviewed very negative in public. The credibility of this article is around zero as the source is most likely on the payroll of SK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.67.238 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

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


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

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

  • "I disagree about the breaking news. If it's verified such as he resigned, then yes go ahead and source anamountd 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 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!

That sort of activity by public figures has led in the past to blackmail and can affect the public policy of governments, companies and NGOs. We pay for these bodies and may be affected by policy shifts, so it is of public interest. Using one brand of mobile phone or another doesn't lead to blackmail - yet!86.42.202.235 (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Subsequent allegations of sexual impropriety

"Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s wife is considering divorce following the latest claims linking him to a call-girl network in Northern France, but she fears leaving him will send him into a nervous breakdown, friends have told the French press". [1].
"Strauss-Kahn has been implicated in a burgeoning French sex scandal involving a prostitution ring that operated out of the Hotel Carlton, in Lille .. An associate of Roquet’s—Fabrice Paszkowski—has been arrested on charges of “aggravated pimping.” An exchange of suggestive text messages has been recovered from a cell phone that Paszkowski left in a Washington hotel room, and Strauss-Kahn picked up" [2]

Microphage (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Strauss-Kahn admits to attending sex parties, where he claims he wasn't aware the girls were being paid. [3] [4] [5] Microphage (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

DSK PR article

This article is incredibly biased and presents a positive view of a man with incredible moral failings. Who wrote this article? His PR team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.82.18 (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This latest matter ought to be integrated: [13] PatGallacher (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Μεταφραση κειμένου

Σχόλιο. Η ελληνική Μεταφραση του αγγλικού κειμένου είναι επιεικώς ΑΠΑΡΑΔΕΚΤΗ. Σχεδόν ακατανόητο όσα γράφονται. Υπάρχει τρόπος βελτίωσης;;;; Θα έπρεπε να εξετάστηκε! Ευχαριστω για την φιλοξενία . Gisele Gozlan Athens-Greece ggozlan@mausas.gr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.89.217 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Now this is all Greek to me - shouldn't be here. Gisele, voulez-vous traduire en Anglais s.v.p.? 144.136.192.32 (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Comment. The Greek translation of the English text is mildly unacceptable. Almost incomprehensible what is written. Is there any way to improve???? Should be examined! Thanks for the hospitality." À votre service ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.24.138.1 (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Family

Given that no one disputes a sexual encounter of some kind took place in the New York hotel (notwithstanding disagreements about consent), are his wife and daughters just fine with all this or what? The article needs to flesh the personal life section out slightly (a sentence or two would do fine) to resolve the question in the reader's mind of what the consequences of the encounter were for DSK. Credulity (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Our articles are based on published reliable sources - not speculation. If one discounts tabloid tittle-tattle (which we do), there doesn't appear to have been much published on the question, as far as I'm aware - not that it is really encyclopaedic material anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I'm not asking for speculation. While I'm no fan of prurient tabloid stuff either, I do think this would be encyclopaedic, given the highly public nature of the whole affair. I mean, if it's considered relevant to mention the name of his wife and that he has four daughters at all, it must be relevant to mention any reaction they are known to have had to the event that has made DSK more famous around the world than anything else he has ever done. Credulity (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you see if you can find suitable sources for this, and then we can discuss what, if anything, needs to be added to the article? Without actually seeing what such sources say, this discussion isn't going to get us far. 18:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as I have observed none of his daughters or his now estranged wife have ever commented on the 'incident' in New York or what else was revealed about DSK's 'lifestyle'. His daughters may have children, so there's a big reason not to comment and attract attention to yourself that you are indeed the daughter of a man who has been ridiculed worldwide and despised in those quarters where (mostly women) people do not appreciate men thinking they are butterflies. His 'private' life cost him his job and his marriage, and wherever he now goes he'll be the one .... When people do not comment at all on something, I interpret that as they haven't got anything positive to say. His involvement in the elf Aquitaine/Leuna-Minol/Mitterrand/Kohl thing would actually be a lot more interesting than what his daughters think, not much to crow about I reckon. 144.136.192.32 (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
His wife strongly supported him, as noted in New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn#Support_and_opposition. I doubt there have been any other public pronouncements. That stuff about chess in the 'personal life' section strikes me as fairly naff, while the subsequent juxtaposition of his sex partying in the next sentence is quite comical. Courtesy his PR team I expect. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Washington Consensus

DSK was abandoning the Washington Consensus/Kurswechsel (Stiglitz: It is a set of policies formulated between 15th and 19th streets by the IMF, U.S. Treasury, and World Bank. Countries should focus on stabilization, liberalization, privatization. It's based on a rejection of the state's activist role and the promotion of a minimalist, noninterventionist state. The analysis in the era of Reagan and Thatcher was that government was interfering with the efficiency of the economy through protectionism, government subsidies, and government ownership. Once the government "got out of the way," private markets would allocate resources efficiently and generate robust growth. Development would simply come. The Washington consensus also considers capital market liberalization essential, and the IMF took it as a central doctrine. The focus is on deregulation, not on finding the right regulatory structure.):

New York v. Strauss-Kahn and later allegations

The fact of claims that DSK was exposed to a honey trap should be included, as it's relevant. 88.88.22.29 (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No it is not relevant and Wikipedia does not routinely give a soapbox to fringe theories. There is a steady stream of this stuff. Mezigue (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully, the "steady stream of this stuff" as you call the honey-trap claims should be included as factual occurences in mainstream media http://www.businessinsider.com/dominique-strauss-kahn-liberation-interview-woman-raped-parking-lot-set-up-2011-5 http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2011/nov/28/dominique-strauss-kahn-conspiracy-theory --88.88.22.29 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

The CounterPunch.org "article" unfortunately fails RS for use in any BLP on this planet, as it is utterly in conspiracy theory territory. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Cf. ref above to "Businessinsider.com" plus "The guardian". Cheers bakatcha. 88.88.22.29 (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Clues: Screaming headlines generally indicate that the source might not be reliable. SHOCKING STRAUSS-KAHN INTERVIEW: I Could See Myself Becoming The Victim Of A "Honey Trap screams. As well as "another translation ..." which invariably means "this is the most lurid interpretation we could say he meant without actually lying". Scratch the BusinessInsider fluff. The Guardian specifically calls it a "conspiracy theory". Clue: The Guardian does not believe a word of it. Six out of 10 for the Dominique Strauss-Kahn conspiracy theory is not a vote of confidence in the claim at all. At this stage I should draw your attention again to Epstein's biography. As this brief Wiki entry suggests he's what in our trade we call a "grassy knoll" man — ie, he believes the murder of President John F Kennedy on 22 November 1963 in Dallas (48 years ago last week, but unremarked) was a conspiracy yet to be unearthed. Yep-- The Guardian fully believes this. Not. Collect (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Lille 'pimping' trial

Why is the Strauss-Kahn article edit protected for heavens sake? There may be a few elderly gentleman in Florida retirement homes still making a nuisance of themselves insisting what a gentleman the greatest economist since Groucho Marx was with hookers, but we can live with them surely. I don't really see why some mention is not made of the fringe theories that he was set up. They're out there, verifiable and notable, so I don't see why they shouldn't be recorded.

At any rate, can someone please mention that the Lille trial is now in progress. Use this citation if you like. [6] 109.149.193.131 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8888071/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-facing-arrest-over-prostitution-racket-allegations.html
  2. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/11/strauss-kahn-and-cain.html
  3. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17110618
  4. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/world/europe/dominique-strauss-kahn-prostitution-ring-new-questions.html
  5. ^ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/02/23/bloomberg_articlesLZT2136KLVRB01-LZUFR.DTL
  6. ^ Mullholland, Rory (2 February 2015). "Dominique Strauss-Kahn trial opens for 'pimping'". Daily Telegraph.
 Done BMK (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Appreciated. 109.149.193.131 (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2015

There's a typo in the following line: "As of February 2015, that trail is underway." This should be "As of February 2015, that <trial> is underway." Rainbowsurfer (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Natalie Doyle-Hennin aka "rainbowsurfer." Am an established user who once made a small correction in another page but can't recall exactly how I did it (perhaps page wasn't quite as "protected" as this one is. Thanks. It's small potatoes compared to the over-the-top nature of the story...

Fixed - thanks for spotting it. Regarding not being able to edit this page, see WP:AUTOCONFIRM - you'll need to have made at least 10 edits (and to have been registered for at least 5 days, which you obviously are) to edit semi-protected articles like this one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Out of date

This page is way out-of-date. Among other things, it still shows DSK as head of the IMF.

As of today (6/12/2015), he has been acquitted in a French court of the pimping charges that had been filed against him.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to deal with this right now.

Sburban (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither of your claims is now correct. The lede quite clearly says that he resigned as head of the IFM, and a section in the body states the we was acquitted of the aggravated pimping charges. Either you read the article too quickly or it has been updcated since you poasted your comment. BMK (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2015

In section "Early Life", please change "He sat and failed the entrance examination" to "He appeared for and failed the entrance examination" Mlavannis1 (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - you have not given a reason, but "sat" is the usual term, whilst "appeared for" is quite confusing. - Arjayay (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

diplomatic immunity

Strauss-Kahn entitled to diplomatic immunity? [1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-28/strauss-kahn-s-lawyers-to-argue-for-immunity-in-maid-s-suit.html
It's in the main article on the case (New York v. Strauss-Kahn). The judge in the civil case brought by Miss Diallou memorably described DSK's application for diplomatic immunity as "his own version of a Hail Mary pass" when rejecting it. It was this rejection that forced DSK to come to terms; for around $1.5 million if the French press are to be believed - nice work if you can get: I make it about $100,000 a suck based on my own (alas limited) personal observations of the central event in question. Miss Diallou has since entered the restaurant business. Next time I'm in New York I'll try it out. Kenneth P. Thompson, Miss Diallou's admirable and charismatic attorney, is now a District Attorney in New York, another matter repressed by the Florida herberts who own this article. 109.153.80.183 (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

BLP issue: Jewishness in lead

In the lead, please delete the last paragraph as WP:UNDUE.

The last paragraph of the lead records The Jerusalem Post voting him the 5th most important Jew in the world back in like 10 AD or something (yah, and it's been downhill all the way since ...).

The point is that Strauss-Kahn has never identified himself as a Jew or taken positions I am aware of based on his putative Jewish identity. It looks like profiling to me. At the very least there's a manual of style issue since the question of his Jewish identity is not dealt with elsewhere in the article. It's undue and shouldn't appear in the lead.

I suspect Florida herbies at work here (yah, and Hustler voted him the eighth horniest politician of all time back in 2012 ...). 109.153.80.183 (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Disappointed not to see a response here. This page is edited frequently enough for a response to have been forthcoming by now. If I don't see a response by this time tomorrow, I shall take it to an ANI for the attention of administrators and experienced editors. At the same time I shall raise the issue of repressing the so-called conspiracy theories regarding DSK's New York folly. He has aired them himself and, as I have pointed out before, they are not implausible as these things go. At any rate, they are notable and well sourced and should be included in the record. 109.153.80.183 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
This is User:AndyTheGrump, an experienced editor who still edits here, on the issue at the time of the New York folly:
Personally, I see no reason to include either his religion or his ethnicity in the article, as neither is in any way relevant to his notability. Certainly, neither should be without adequate sources.
The Talk page debate at the time can be read here
By way of comparison, editors might like to look at Ed Miliband and Bob Dylan. Ed Miliband is the recent leader of the UK's Labour party, whose parents, like Strauss-Kahn's, are/were Socialist Jews. His ethnic identity is mentioned in the article text, but not the lead. In Bob Dylan's case, his Jewish identity and religious observance is mentioned in the article text, but not in the lead (let alone that the Jerusalem Post, in the same survey cited, esteemed him the 46th most influential Jew ever back then in 10 AD whenever). 109.153.80.183 (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
By way of contrast, this is User:AndyTheGrump again on the honey-trap theory. Of course it's multiply documented that Strauss-Kahn was opposed to the austerity measures demanded by the IMF of Greece (he wanted to avoid the mistakes made in the 1990 Asian financial crisis, see for example here) and we see the fruits of that policy coming home to roost now (whoops, sorry User:Sca, le paysan dans moi). 109.153.80.183 (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you drop the infantile attention-seeking attitude (do you think Wikipedia contributors are on call 24 hours a day?), along with references to 'Florida herbies' and soapboxing. I agree that the '5th most important Jew' sentence is inappropriate for the lede, and will remove it - as for 'conspiracy theories', they are covered, briefly, in the New York v. Strauss-Kahn article. Greater coverage would of necessity require further sourcing, and WP:WEIGHT is also relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a personal attack. You indulge it because you know you can get away with it. You get it away with it because indeed you edit Wikipedia 7/24. I suggest it's only because I put you on the spot that you respond now. You're entitled to your view that I'm infantile and attention seeking, but not to propagate it in this way. If you want "infantile", I suggest you look at this sort of thing from an editor here who runs his his Talk page as some sort of an art club (compare that with the scholarly notes the uploader took the time to provide at Commons). As for "attention-seeking", it is precisely because I seek to avoid attention that I do not operate a Wikipedia account. I contribute regularly to Wikipedia on a (UK) BT internet IP - that is a shared dynamic address which is regularly changed by them (and every time I re-power my system) so my edit history, which would identify me immediately, is concealed. And in truth there are no shortage of infantile and attention-seeking editors at Wikipedia in any case.
Of course that sentence should be removed from the lead. As for conspiracy theories, this is Strauss-Kahn's BLP and the plausible theory that he was set up for the event that now defines him in the eyes of the world, for a while anyway believed by a majority of French citizens, should be mentioned in it.
It's clear to me that the management of this page is not fit for purpose. I shall apply for its protection to be removed. As is is so often the case, the cure is plainly worse than the disease. You might care to atone for you gratuitous attack by telling me who the administrator is who protected the page in the first place. I need to apply to them as a first step. 109.153.80.183 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Fuck off. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Would Jimbo defend you? Would you like me to enquire? 109.153.80.183 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sure you will indulge in whatever attention-seeking behaviour suits you.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You continue the attack. Please provide me now with the name of the administrator who protected this page. I shouldn't have to search for it. I'll mention your incivility when I make the application for unprotection. As for Jimbo, I suggested him because you're one of his Talk page helpers. You regularly remove incivil interventions from that page. I'm genuinely curious what his position would be. I'll see how I fare first, in my infantile attention-seeking way, with the protecting administrator. 109.153.80.183 (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Restore citations please

@Sca: I can understand why Sca deleted the material he did, but it's unfortunate they took out the citations. These will really useful to future generations (one area where Wikipedia could be developed in my opinion is to make available some kind of archive for mass media and social media references to ongoing news stories). I should be grateful if these citations were restored. I also really don't see why the BLP of the greatest comedian since Karl Marx shouldn't be thrown open to the masses just like good old Groucho himself is. Grumps in Florida retirement homes can still keep a watchful eye on what the world has to say about their favorite comic cuts character. It's precisely because DSK was protected so by the French media that his fall from grace was so catastrophic. And those so-called conspiracy theories should be noted and cited: they are after all indeed notable and not entirely implausible as these things go. At the very least they represent one aspect of the attention this matter received. Frankly, the whole section on the New York affair needs the attention of a popular historian, and not Wikipedia administrators. It's a loss, and not a credit to Wikipedia. 109.153.80.183 (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to restore a citation about the trial beginning. But here's the ref if you'd like to make a record for your own interest:
cite news|last1=Mullholland|first1=Rory|title=Dominique Strauss-Kahn trial opens for 'pimping'|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/dominique-strauss-kahn/11384848/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-trial-opens-for-pimping.html%7Cwork=Daily Telegraph|date=2 February 2015
Sca (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
What I'm asking you to do is to restore the citation for everyone's interest. What you've done is remove a citation to an account by the Daily Telegraph's respected Paris correspondent Rory Mulholland that filled in some of the human elements of the story - the "carnage on mattresses" remark for example (400 Google hits and counting). This sort of thing is the life and soul of popular history, and basically you are repressing it. Another example in this affair was Tristane Banon's celebrated "rutting chimpanzee" remark, which was also airbrushed out of Wikipedia the last time I looked.
It's your sense of entitlement that fascinates me ... "I don't see" ... Really? I look at your Talk page. Van Gogh's "Starry Night", stuff about what someone really said in Danish about Carl Nielsen ... Excuse me, but I miss on your credentials in popular and social history. 109.153.80.183 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't seem to locate your talk page to point out that the last sentence in the preceding comment doesn't make sense in English. No worries. As it says at the top of my talk page, "Sca does not respond to unsigned comments." My reply above was intended as a polite gesture. Sca (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
You can't have tried very hard with the Talk page. English is not my first language but I am published in multiple places in it, so I must be getting some of it right. To make it clear, I'm suggesting you don't appear to have any special skills in determining what is worth preserving or not in a biography of a living person. My post was not unsigned and no more anonymous than, say, you are. Regarding Strauss-Kahn there was much of interest in the popular response to his New York folly. Almost none of it reached Wikipedia, courtesy of such as yourself. 109.153.80.183 (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 • By unsigned comments, I meant comments left by unregistered users and signed only with an IP address. I've corrected my talk page accordingly.
 • Your IP-address-generated 'talk' page contains no talk.
 • I have no personal interest in the Strauss-Kahn topic.
WP:NPA WP:AGF WP:CIV – Sca (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Eh bien, mon tres plus literate ami that makes you rather elitist does it not? It is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia that IP contribuitions are permitted, the blessed Jimbo very clear on that. And Vincent wouldn't have approved. 109.153.80.183 (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn/Archive_2&oldid=1253579360"