Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Not sure of this one

I just wanted to question this one sentence in the lead:

On June 30, a special hearing was called at which prosecutors told the judge that the credibility of Strauss-Kahn's accuser was in serious question

According to all of the sources I have read this evening, this line is a fabrication.

• The hearing was short (apparently minutes in length, which is not unusual for these situations) and consisted of various submissions officially entered on record, prosecution did not oppose lifting bail
• I don't think the credibility was openly raised at the court proceeding
• The questions were raised the day before in the letter of disclosure (which was then submitted to court the next day)
• The two legal teams met on the Thursday to discuss the problems with her account etc.

I don't think that the sentence accurately reflects events, but I am struggling to find a better way to summarise it. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

First, there's no cited support for it being a "special" hearing. Someone once before called it an "extraordinary" hearing, which also was unsupported and which I removed. Second, I don't see why we have to discuss the length of the hearing or the details of who said what. It's enough to report the outcome of the hearing, which is much better supported. I'm not going to change what's there now because I'm tired of feeling like I'm going in circles in this article. Too many times people futz with it without improving it. Another less important example is the damned wikilinks in the lead. Now, we even have a wikilink for not guilty. Gee, I wonder what that means. Does WP:OVERLINK mean anything?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Release on own recognizance" vs. "Housekeeper credibility"

Resolved

 – FightingMac (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are there still strenuous objections to there being any sort of sub-section header which even mentions the housekeeper? Is this article only about Strauss-Kahn, and people are trying to pretend the housekeeper, whom we cannot name, doesn't even exist?

In that section, there are currently only 85 words about Strauss-Kahns being released from home arrest, and 292 words about the housekeeper and her credibility problems. With 3 1/2 times as much text about the housekeeper, can we now label this section appropriately? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The title still seems a bit loaded, go for NPOV. PatGallacher (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to try to work out some sort of compromise. But as things stand, 3/4 of that section is about the housekeeper. It's my strong opinion that we need a section title which reflects that. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Pat makes it 6-3 against you. Thanks for your revert, Pat. You beat me by seconds (funny thing, I thought I had actually booked mine). I see you've now taken it upon yourself twice 1 2to restore it, young Bob {* on bended knees*}.

Now 3 as "Housekeeper revelations. FightingMac (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Everyone stop reverting! :) Let's discuss it - can people throw their ideas out here for good ways to express it. The point that most of the section relates to the housekeeper is a sensible one. As is the point that the "Housekeeper..." headings are a bit pointed. Here's my suggestion: "Prosecution disclosures" - factual and to the point. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

FightingMac, as for your comments trying to denigrate me based on my age, and calling me a dick are both clear violations of the no personal attacks rule. Whatever your age, that behavior is _totally_ inappropriate.

Instead of continuing to revert things can you provide a clear explanation why you think a section which is almost entirely about the housekeeper should have a section header about Strauss-Kahn? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Errant, thanks for providing a voice of reason. I think your suggestion meets my goal of trying to have the title accurately reflect the content, it fixes a POV issue about making all of the titles about Strauss-Kahn when the housekeeper is now a major a part of the story, and I think it also takes care of Pat's POV concerns regarding the housekeeper. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you concede Pat's POV concerns about a section header "Housekeeper credibility". That's my concern too i.e that undue weight adds a POV bias. So fnally you concede, as was always quite clear anyway, that there is no consensus for a "Housekeeper credibility" section, or for that matter "Housekeeper revelations" section and all variations including the word "Housekeeper", because they all introduce POV bias.

Nothing more to add here. FightingMac (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you've now named it "Prosecution disclosures". Great. Drama over. Dispute resolved. FightingMac (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I didn't expect it to be that "easy"! but I am glad everyone is happy with that suggestion :) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

According to...

Not sure the issue being raised in this reversion mac :S I wasn't able to understand the context of your revert summary. I changed it because you have two sentences, one after another, that say "According to". In addition the source only attributes what the second sentence to an "official" but presents the translation as fact. The other issue is the first sentence is then very long, and very wordy :) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I see how the source could be read in your way. I still think the phrasing is clunky and can be improved - particularly as other sources are reporting it (and so it's not really worth noting the NYT in particular). We could try assembling more sources on this? --Errant ^(chat!) 11:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I simply wanted to stick to the sources, which source the whole thing to law-enforcement officials and not the DA's office. As I write 'Housekeeper credibility' section has been restored, a blank made of established 'media reaction' content, content about the housekeeper's lawsuit and Thompson's request to the prosectors to recuse their office was cut, an important balancing edit quoting Thompson's defense of his client removed and absurdly partisan content added as follows:

On June 30, 2011, the district attorney sent a letter of disclosure to Strauss-Kahn's defense team detailing serious problems with both the housekeeper's version of events and her past. It was reported that prosecutors were concerned that the revelations could affect her credibility in front of a jury, pointing out that she admitted having lied to a grand jury about her actions after the alleged assault. She also admitted fabricating statements about her personal life in order to gain asylum in the U.S. The New York Times subsequently reported a phone call the housekeeper made the day following the alleged incident. According to an official who translated the call, she said words to the effect of, "Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing." As explained in the New York Times:

Little by little, her credibility as a witness crumbled — she had lied about her immigration, about being gang raped in Guinea, about her experiences in her homeland and about her finances, according to two law enforcement officials. She had been linked to people suspected of crimes. She changed her account of what she did immediately after the encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn.

As a result, prosecutors met with Strauss-Kahn's defense lawyers on June 30, 2011. The following morning, after a brief court hearing, in which prosecutors explained that they had reassessed their evidence, Strauss-Kahn was released from house arrest on his own recognizance without bail. He was required to remain in the U.S. until the case was resolved. The next scheduled hearing is on July 18, 2011.

I'm restoring to your last edit. I am happy to regard you as de facto lead editor here. FightingMac (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sincer here, what's style guidance on including the year of a date. Seems unecessary to keep on reminding readers all this is happening 1n 2011. My style would be to include it first date every new paragraph and thereafter just month and day? FightingMac (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Eek,n no :) just doing my bit! Anyway; dates wise I usually never bother unless the event spans multiple years. Maybe every now and again drop a 2011 in for context. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well your bit really appreciated. I'll do some year deleting next time I go over the top. Regarding that primary source business, I see the source has been put back in. But WP:BLPPRIMARY really interesting and totally on the money because in fact that's exactly what I did. I read the primary source, corrected some edits accordingly (and felt virtuous about it) and added in some extra content from it for good measure. But on reflection of course that is OR and it would be a real mess if everyone did that. Happy to admit not being thoughtful about that. I've edited Wikipedia a fair bit, but I'm relatively new to BLP and really a newbie there. FightingMac (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no real BLP issue with linking to the source, in this instance. But interpreting anything from it (i.e. what we write about it) should come from reliable sources, really. In a BLP situation you could note something non-contentious/factual from a primary source, but this whole article is far from non-contentious. With thta said someone added it as an external link and I think that is a really neat solution. At the end of the day it does hold interest. Not going to lose sleep over it as a reference though :) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'll hang fire on editing the year out for a bit while I check other articles and look for guidance. It's actually not unpleasing to see a single format being repeated and I'm inclined to think that sometimes including the year and sometimes not is perhaps more tiring for the reader. FightingMac (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Media disclosure practices

Why is this material being reverted? The provided edit summary reads: "rv - privacy issues in relation to living person". I do not see any "privacy" being breached. Material being removed relates to media treatment of this case. Additionally, this case is compared to other cases, providing background on U.S. media practices concerning the disclosure of information. But no information is disclosed in that edit concerning any living person. Can we have an explanation for why this sort of information should be removed? Bus stop (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you were seconds ahead of me :) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

originally posted in another section, merged with Bus Stop's section: Can we get some feedback on why this was removed first as "off-topic" and then citing privacy issues? The material was written with some car and over a period of consensus building to avoid the privacy issues - and I don't buy that it is off-topic, being that it was all over the papers for a good while and is still being commented on. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

lol : ) Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Heartfelt with you both on this. Thanks. Several editors built this content and it was thoroughly discussed. I conceded a lot on the Paris Match content and Bbb23 and others went to a lot of trouble over finding a good form of words for the name issue. It really is too too bad that editors just wade in like this. FightingMac (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

POV pleonasm?

What's the point of this 2nd in "Prosecution disclosures"?

• It was reported that prosecutors were concerned that the revelations could affect her credibility in front of a jury.[3]

It looks to me like a wwism that got orphaned in all the recent drama.

Anyone mind if I discreetly bin it? Reference [3] is cited in a following sentence. FightingMac (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I constructed it; its from the NYT article and was an attempt to note that her credibility was in question - but in the context of who noted it :) No real issues over removing it. Although we do need to make mention of the credibility issue somewhere. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a letter of disclosure from the DA's office and an associated meeting between the parties' legal teams that resulted in a court hearing where prosecutors conceded that they had reassessed their estimate of the strength of their case and did not oppose a weakening of bail terms. I would be very surprised if prosecutors ever put on the public record any concerns they may or may not have about the housekeeper's credibility. The reference [3] cited says this "Prosecutors acknowledged that there were troubling revelations and glaring inconsistencies in various accounts given by the housekeeper" and cites another NYT web article that in fact now brings you to a login but which is this Strauss-Kahn Prosecution Said to Be Near Collapse (yet another of my references that got sunk in the editing chaos, that existing [3] is repeated as [31] which is where I suspect it got sunk). That originating article says this, my emphasis, "The sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is on the verge of collapse as investigators have uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper who charged that he attacked her in his Manhattan hotel suite in May, according to two well-placed law enforcement officials. " Notice that prosecutors never said anything about the credibility issues.

I did finally find a transcript of the July 1 court hearing here. It was very short

WOMAN: Although it is clear that the strength of the case has been affected by the substantial credibility issues relating to the complaining witness, we are not moving to dismiss the case at this time.

WILLIAM TAYLOR, attorney for Dominique Strauss-Kahn: The defense moves for the exoneration of bail under the current conditions and for Mr. Strauss-Kahn's release on his own recognizance, with the condition that his passport remain surrendered.

JUDGE MICHAEL OBUS, New York State Unified Court System: I understand that the circumstances surrounding this case, from the viewpoint of the parties, have changed substantially, and I agree. There will be no rush to judgment in this case. The people will, I have no doubt, continue to investigate and reexamine the matter, as is appropriate. And I expect that the process will go on, as hopefully it should, in a manner that is fair as it can be to all of the concerned parties.

To say prosecutors "were concerned revelations could affect her credibility in front of a jury" goes beyond what they submitted.

This is unfortunately where I move into the conflict of interest territory I sometimes mention (of course it doesn't arise at all in any conection to do with the prosecution of this case but any wannabe writer, yourself included though in your case you actually are published, will know what I'm getting at here in relation to future plagiarism issues and the like, of the sort for example that plagued Michel Houellebecq recently) and where I'm reluctant to get involved, but the fact is that the issue of the housekeeper's credibility has always been a matter of media speculation and as such should always have been avoided in the article.

Bottom line is that I do think it ought to go and I shall stick it the next time I go over.

A possible rewite would be

• It was reported that prosecutors acknowledged that there were troubling revelations and glaring inconsistencies in the housekeeper's accounts.[3]

or if the source quoting the transcript is cited

• Prosecutors acknowledged that the strength of their case had been affected by the substantial credibility issues relating to the housekeeper

but that should never go beyond 'relating', for example suggesting her credibility as a witness.

I see Wikiwatcher1 has yet again restored one of his contentious edits. I shall open a new section here detailing problems with it. As you point out in the edit history he has paid absolutely no attention to your concerns about it not being the law enforcement official who translated the call and I do think that is absolutely disgraceful, as is his cavalier deletion of all balancing content referring to the housekeeper's lawsuit and her attorney's request that the prosecutors recuse their office. FightingMac (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise for a wee dram on the job. Part of the job description MHO. FightingMac (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you and everyone else is aware that who translated the letter is totally irrelevant. Just fix it. No one really cares what language it was in or who did the translation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware it's irrelevant, Wikiwatcher1, not least because a conscientious editor should alway strive earnestly that their content accurately reflects the sources they cite. You don't even care about that even when your deficiencies are pointed out. I also know, because it's in the public record, that's it at the heart of Thompson's request the prosecutors withdrew from their case over issues involving their handling and translation of the phone call. Yor remark is absolutely fantastic, completely breathtaking in its arrogance. The diff is noted. FightingMac (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I stated earlier, "about the translation of the letter. It's essentially a minor and hardly noteworthy issue. Unless it's established in the body that the fact that it had to be translated effected something significant . . ." Until then, we're not interested in what you personally "know." What's relevant is what you personally keep doing, which is to downgrade, hide, bury, or delete anything by the DA or RSs that relate to the credibility of DSK's accuser, even if it means renaming section headings. If you need proof of that statement with diffs, simply say how many examples you want, staying sensitive, of course, to the memory capacity of WP's servers to avoid overload. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's your POV that it's essentially a minor and hardly noteworthy issue and it's flat-out wrong. It's in the public record in numerous sources that the housekeeper's attorney disputes the translation, nothing to do with anything I may personally know. Here's a ref from today's NYT:

• The woman said something to the effect of, “Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing,” according to a law enforcement official. (The woman’s lawyer has disputed the translation.)

Will you now please explain in the next section why your recent edit is neutral for POV when you ignored every single balancing content in the sources you cite and moreover deleted balancing content in the content you replaced with your edit. You should also respond to ErrantX's request at media diclosure practices why you removed well-established content because it was "off-topic trivia" (to quote you). FightingMac (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I will. As soon as I figure out what you said above, in that 110-word sentence:

This is unfortunately where I move into the conflict of interest territory I sometimes mention (of course it doesn't arise at all in any conection to do with the prosecution of this case but any wannabe writer, yourself included though in your case you actually are published, will know what I'm getting at here in relation to future plagiarism issues and the like, of the sort for example that plagued Michel Houellebecq recently) and where I'm reluctant to get involved, but the fact is that the issue of the housekeeper's credibility has always been a matter of media speculation and as such should always have been avoided in the article.

I'll let you know how I progress.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It simply means that I don't want to comment further on the issue of the housekeeper's credibility because I may be writing about it elsewhere and I don't want the absurd situation arising where it's claimed I plagiarised content from Wikipedia that I originally contributed in the first place. It's got nothing to do with your issues and there's nothing you need to figure. I repeat 1 explain why your content is neutral for POV when you ignored every single balancing content in the sources you cite and moreover deleted balancing content in the content you replaced with your edit 2 respond to ErrantX's request at media diclosure practices why you removed well-established content because it was "off-topic trivia" (to quote you). FightingMac (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Character Assassination of Strauss-Kahn Accuser

Would a section devoted to this help to throw the light of truth on the subject. I mean she either is a prostitute involved in money laundering or she isn't. Who are we to believe? Some anonymous quote in the New York Times or the assistant DA who says there is no evidence of such. Which begs the question as to where the NYT got its quotes from. emacsuser (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's nonsense and I removed it. We favour privacy in the case of non-public individuals and that is way over the line in speculative content. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow ... ? emacsuser (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

AP has a story out, "Some fear chilling effect on women reporting rapes." - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

NY Post

Unlike Newspapers, we do NOT subvert our BLP policies or mention libellous statements simply by saying "as The New York Post had reported". This is the most serious BLP issue so far and anyone adding it back should think very long and very hard about doing so. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be me you're getting all hot and bothered under the sporran about I expect.

This is from the main article 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.

I take it you will be right along to their Talk page dishing out whoever that was (not guilty) a right seeing to.

This is the diff for the edit I made in the article as I found it in the lede (is that spelt right for American 'lead' - I have to say I really like it).

Here's the original

• The San Francisco Chronicle of July 4 quotes Chief Assistant District Attorney Daniel R. Alonso, as saying that "We're going to complete our investigation", nor were there evidence that Strauss-Kahn's accuser is a prostitute or targeted him for financial gain. Subsequently Reuters reports that the maid is suing the New York Post and five of its journalists for libel.

and here's my edit of the material, which I translocated into the Trial section before it got hijacked by our primary brigade (@BobTheKnobbWhatever -it's "Strauss-Kahn" next time you're churning section titles)

• Daniel R. Alonso, chief assistant district attorney at the Manhattan District Attorney's office, said his office was going to complete its investigation and that there was no evidence that the housekeeper is a prostitute or targeted him for financial gain as The New York Post had reported, citing sources close the the defense team. Subsequently Reuters reported that the housekeeper is suing the New York Post and five of its journalists for libel.

Sorry I missed on that subtle libel thing of yours. Long and hard thought hasn't helped so far either. For what it's worth I did rather guess that about the New York Post a few days back.

I shall be looking back to check you're dishing it out in the main article as well (sorry, can't offer because I am after all challeneged, even after very deep thought indeed, what your logic could possibly be, although I am beginning to rather strongly suspect hidings to nothing here, you know - because 'because stupid' sort things). FightingMac (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, still there. I do have conference calls with my friends in low and high places here and there starting soon , so what I'll do is email the foundation I'm that concerned. I'll be back on this to let you know how I'm getting on. FightingMac (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the email:

To: info-en-q@wikipedia.org

Hi,

I'm very concerned about the following in Dominique Strauss-Kahn

> 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 .

This is the diff

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominique_Strauss-Kahn&diff=437869200&oldid=437855718

It seems to me that the editor involved is attempting to subvert our BLP policies on libellous statements simply by saying "a report by The New York Post".

I would appreciate your remarks.

Thank you.

FightingMac

Let you know how I get on.

(important note to sock-fishers: this was sent via one of my group's most trusted agents - just fucking forget it ;-}) FightingMac (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Due in at the Kremlin 04:00 but just quickly to say it's STILL there AND NO ONE HAS DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT! And of course you can forget emails. I'll ask Vladimir in a moment if he can use his influence to get something done about it. I mean I'm pretty sure he's had a stake in pretty well all of this from the start. But yes, it's a total eye-opener this. I do hope it leads to some long hard thinking at the powers that be in Wikipedia. FightingMac (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WTF? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ask him to expand on his quoted conspiracy comments, if you can. Especially now that the case has changed a bit. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be better to suggest we all go to bed (separately, I mean), and comment on it tomorrow when we are sober... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@Andy: it's STILL there FCS look for yourself

• 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.

and ErrantX is so right. It's a disgrace. Why isn't something being done about it!!!

@Wikiwiatcher1. I'll have to be a bit careful how I phrase it in case I'm offered a cup of tea I can't refuse but I'll try my best, promise. FightingMac (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

He says he will put one of his best people on the case. Oh thank god thank god thank god. I think I will go to bed a few hours now, Andy. It's been a really tense night. At least something will get done now. FightingMac (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I went to bed :) Sorry Mac - it was not directed at you exactly (though you should probably have cut it when it was restored to the lead :)) but at the person who keeps trying to add it in the first place. I cut it from the main article as well now. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi ErrantX. Perhaps a bit OTT from me (but only a wee bit). I did get a response from the emergency team (about a fortnight faster than it usually takes :-O) supporting you, so I have to defer. But really I can hardly understand it.

Not much I can do about Irina though, I'm afraid (we go way back). She's activated now and she's a law to herself I can tell you. It would have been better if you hadn't gone to bed (you sleep?) FightingMac (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something has changed in everyone's behaviour in the last few weeks, but can someone tell me what the hell is going on here? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit at 00:04, 8 July 2011.

Wikiwatcher1 has contributed this edit at 00:04, 8 July 2011 with the following edit description Prosecution disclosures: restored per violation of ownership edits and ignoring discussion on trimming verbosity; plus erroneous rationale .

The edit restores a number of edits he had made earlier in the day and its effect is entirely to change the existing content.

I want briefly to summarise some issues I have with the edit.

Heres' the material before his edit:

Prosecution disclosures

On June 30, 2011, the district attorney sent a letter of disclosure to Strauss-Kahn's defence team detailing problems with both the housekeeper's version of events and her past.[28] It was reported that prosecutors were concerned that the revelations could affect her credibility in front of a jury.[3] According to the letter, the housekeeper admitted she had lied to a grand jury about her actions after the alleged assault, where instead of waiting in a nearby corridor before reporting the encounter she had cleaned a nearby room and then returned to clean Strauss-Kahn's room before contacting her supervisor.[3][29] She also admitted fabricating a statement in support of her asylum application.[30]

According to a law enforcement official quoted by The New York Times, a translation of a phone call, made by the housekeeper twenty-eight hours after the alleged assault to her boyfriend in an immigration detention center, was completed the day before the letter was sent.[31] According to the official, she said words to the effect of, "Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing."[31] On July 6, 2011, Kenneth Thompson challenged prosecutors' handling and interpretation of the phone call and asked them to withdraw and appoint a special prosecutor.[32] The prosecutors declined to recuse their office.[33][34]

On 30 June, 2011, prosecutors met with Strauss-Kahn's defense lawyers. On 1 July, 2011, after a brief court hearing, in which prosecutors said they had reassessed their position on the strength of their case and did not oppose a reduction in bail conditions, he was released from house arrest on his own recognizance and had his bail returned. Under the terms of the adjusted bail, the District Attorney's office retained his passport, but Strauss-Kahn was free to travel within the U.S.[35][36]

Thompson, the housekeeper's attorney, defended his client: "It’s a fact that the victim here has made some mistakes, but that doesn’t mean she’s not a rape victim."[31] The next scheduled hearing is on July 18, 2011.[37]

On July 5, 2011, the housekeeper filed a lawsuit against The New York Post over allegations about her personal life published the previous day.[38]

and here's the material after his edit:

Prosecution disclosures

On June 30, 2011, the district attorney sent a letter of disclosure to Strauss-Kahn's defense team detailing serious problems with both the housekeeper's version of events and her past.[28] It was reported that prosecutors were concerned that the revelations could affect her credibility in front of a jury,[3] pointing out that she admitted having lied to a grand jury about her actions after the alleged assault.[3][29] She also admitted fabricating statements about her personal life in order to gain asylum in the U.S.[30] The New York Times subsequently reported a phone call the housekeeper made the day following the alleged incident.[31] According to an official who translated the call, she said words to the effect of, "Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing."[31] As explained in the New York Times:

Little by little, her credibility as a witness crumbled — she had lied about her immigration, about being gang raped in Guinea, about her experiences in her homeland and about her finances, according to two law enforcement officials. She had been linked to people suspected of crimes. She changed her account of what she did immediately after the encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn.[31]

As a result, prosecutors met with Strauss-Kahn's defense lawyers on June 30, 2011. The following morning, after a brief court hearing, in which prosecutors explained that they had reassessed their evidence, Strauss-Kahn was released from house arrest on his own recognizance without bail. He was required to remain in the U.S. until the case was resolved.[32][33] The next scheduled hearing is on July 18, 2011.[34]

In the first place it entirely ignores an issue that ErrantX had tackled him on concerning the so-called translation by the law-enforcement official. That's doubly serious because the issue of the translation was at the heart of Thompson's request that prosecutors withdraw from the case and appoint a special prosecutor.

Secondly it gives undue weight to the issue of the housekeeper's credibility, which is matter of media speculation and for that reason should not be made the basis of content. No reasonable person reading the section could doubt that it is emphasising the issue of the housekeeper's credibility, and moreover directly as a witness in the case. The quote itself is miscited, It comes from this source Strauss-Kahn Accuser’s Call Alarmed Prosecutors and the source includes balancing remarks such as this concluding the article

• Mr. Thompson [the housekeeper's attorney] said that the housekeeper’s account of what took place in Suite 2806 is the only one that matters, and said that in the jail recording, she recounted a version of the encounter that matched what she had told the police.

• “It’s a fact that the victim here has made some mistakes, but that doesn’t mean she’s not a rape victim,” Mr. Thompson said Friday.

• The woman has been crushed that her inconsistent statements have been brought to light, Mr. Thompson said. “I will go to my grave knowing what this man did to me,” she told him on Friday, he said.

None of this is included. In fact, thirdly, all balancing material has been cut 1 Thompson's defense of his client 2 Thompson's request that the prosecutors recuse their office 3 the housekeeper's lawsuit against The New York Post.

I note that this talk page has already reached consensus that the housekeeper's credibility is POV contentious. FightingMac (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You are continually trying to turn the article into a moot court, which is against WP guidelines. If comments by attorneys on behalf of their clients, along with quotes by the accuser and accused, are allowed, the article will be undermined and useless. It seems that none of the other editors mind your desire to insert quotes which also violate guidelines about soapboxing the article. Giving encyclopedic notability to the accuser's law suit against a newspaper for libel does not belong here. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong about lawsuits. Currently discussed here Lawsuits in wikipedia/general.

• Depends on what kind of "third party report" we are talking about here. Allegations reported in the actual press are different from mere gossip on blogs and in the shabbier tabloids. We are always cautious about biographies of living people; but we are not subject to nonsense like the English superinjunctions. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Recent example: the Dominique Strauss-Kahn article deals with the recent charges against him, even though they have not been heard by a court. The allegations have been discussed in reliable sources so that's OK. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I stated, "does not belong here," in this section of "prosecution disclosures." It's a different topic.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's because of all the section naming churning that has been going on here. The fact of the matter is that all three contents I mention are important to maintain POV neutrality (do you dispute that?) and you have removed them becaue of a quibble about whether it properly belongs to a newly named section. Will you please demonstrate your good faith and commitment to upholding NPOV standards by returning that content. If you do not then the only sensible conclusion that can be reached in the circumstances is that indeed you find that content "verbose" and "erroneous" in its rationale, exactly as you say in your edit decription and you cannot subsequently deny or retreat from that position. As noted in the above section you should also respond to ErrantX's request at media diclosure practices as to why you removed well-established content because it was "off-topic trivia" (to quote you).04:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm unable to respond thoughtfully to an editor who bases their comments by first violating AGF guidelines, not just with this question, but on many of your previous comments, ie. "please demonstrate your good faith." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat 1 explain why your content is neutral for POV when you ignored every single balancing content in the sources you cite and moreover deleted balancing content in the content you replaced with your edit 2 respond to ErrantX's request at media diclosure practices why you removed well-established content because it was "off-topic trivia" (to quote you). FightingMac (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The essence of that verbose paragraph, heavily cited and French sourced, of a simple fact, could and should have been summarized with a single short sentence. It was a trivia flood which dilutes the article. It could simply state, "The accuser's name is not cited because . . . " and move on. I can give you examples of dozens of similar trivia floods where the key facts get washed away into a sea of minutia, all of those floods initiated by your past edits. I now first put on waist-high fishing boots and an inflatable life vest before reading your edits. I'm also considering taking scuba lessons as a backup.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you your remarks my style. I used to be a scuba diver. Most scuba divers I knew couldn't swim properly. You see that sort of thing everywhere. I repeat 1 explain why your content is neutral for POV when you ignored every single balancing content in the sources you cite and moreover deleted balancing content in the content you replaced with your edit 2 respond to ErrantX's request at media disclosure practices why you removed well-established content because it was "off-topic trivia" (to quote you). FightingMac (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I answered them all above. Nor will I ever respond to a request to prove a neutral POV in my edits, since that's my basis for edits. It's also another obvious violation of AGF.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So you're never going to respond to 1 explain why your content is neutral for POV when you ignored every single balancing content in the sources you cite and moreover deleted balancing content in the content you replaced with your edit 2 respond to ErrantX's request at media disclosure practices why you removed well-established content because it was "off-topic trivia"? Is that what you're saying here?

I mean you stand by your record? You don't think there's any sort of issue here that needs explanation? That sort thing? Whatever. You're not even going to discuss it? FightingMac (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't understand your other remarks. Will you please deal with the question of the POV neutrality of your edit. FightingMac (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It was already answered above, which I keep repeating. The entire trivia paragraph you're obsessing about was restored by you with another of your boilerplate attack rationales. Why you're obsessing about this minor point at this time should be a mystery, but it's not. I have pointed out numerous red herring discussions and edits you've made in the past. Where some fishermen need underwater radar to find herrings, my experience with this article has made buying one unnecessary, so I'm grateful for you saving me some expense. On the other hand, having to keep responding this way is taking time away from more important activities, such as eating. If I become anorexic as a result, this will become another ANI issue.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You took me to an ANI at Unacceptable deletions and the result was declined. You then tried for a straw poll to restore the deletions neverthless and, disregarding yourself, lost it 3-1. I neither voted nor commented. I ask you again. Do you intend to respond to my two issues? You have not responded in any way to the first while your response to the second is merely to repeat that it was off-topic and trivial. But that is precisely the judgement I, and I expect ErrantX, want you to justify. But you don't. You simply repeat the judgement. And in any case such response to this second as you make should not be here but at media disclosure practices.

I repeat 1 explain why your content is neutral for POV when you ignored every single balancing content in the sources you cite and moreover deleted balancing content in the content you replaced with your edit 2 respond to ErrantX's request at media disclosure practices why you removed well-established content because it was "off-topic trivia" (to quote you).

What is the problem with explaining yourself? Is it really because you think there is nothing you need to explain? Or is it because in fact you can't explain it? Which, or what else, is it? FightingMac (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in any of your red herring questions. You, and many of the editors here, have a totally different perspective on this U.S. case against a French dignitary - probably "oceans apart." You recently signed up with WP as an editor, and the majority of your edits have been against DSK, directly or indirectly: deleting the positive; adding or inflating the negative. As for the ANI matter, the very last thing I'd assume you'd do would be to hold that complaint up to public scrutiny—and brag about it! It would have taken any typical editor or admin a very long time to go through the many diffs and related comments. Yet the ANI was "Declined" in less than 5 minutes after posted! And the so-called rationale given by the admin had nothing to do with the complaint! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I recently signed up with WP because I wanted to start articles, of which I indeed have iniated several as well as editing in most of usual IP areas as I have done pretty well since Wikipedia's inception (and not just its English version). I am, however, new to BLP editing and certainly to this kind of contentious dispute. While this DSK business has been going on I contributed, amongst other things, Canon of Dutch History and made a major (and time-consuming) contribution to French Socialist Party presidential primary, 2011 . A planned translation of AgoraVox has had to be placed on hold, partly because of the time I have to spend here dealing with you. I can only allow myself limited time to editing Wikipedia. Glancing quickly now at your own recent contributions, I see that in recent weeks they are exclusively devoted to this article. As for your ANI, I defended it fully and no one supported you, and just a single user did when nevertheless you attempted to continue the issue (again) on the Talk page. I would have thought in the circumstances it should be you who would prefer to be discreet about it. FightingMac (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1; no lack of AGF here; I pointed out the error you made when you first inserted it. Both in an edit summary and on the talk page. You then just re-inserted the error! This comes after the entirely innacurate line in the lead earlier yesterday (or the day before). I am simply concerned you are not reading the sources. Also I feel the NYT quote is unncessairily editorial, and we can deal with the material better in our own voice. Finally, I feel that the comments by the woman's attorney about the prosecutors are valid; the witness and the prosecution falling out has relevance! I'm not sure how it can be seen as irrelevant, at least according to the sources. I also think we need to treat the accusations against her sensitively, as we treat those against DSK. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I really am uncomfortable with that quote, and it does not appear to contain much extra detail (I don't think we even need to mention the words "gang rape" per my above comments). Please gain consensus for including it on the talk page. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The asylum application fabrications have been widely quoted by all RSs and by the DA prosecution in their letter. The fact that you personally are "uncomfortable with that quote," strike it, and now demand consensus to include it, is more of the same methodology that's been used to undermine other aspects of the article. I've never gambled much, and when I have, it was never against a stacked deck. And that so-called "error" you keep obsessing about was reinserted because the restoration of a large section of material had many intermediate edits after it was first deleted, and I assume someone fixed it. I've already mentioned how I feel about an editor inflating a minor detail to massive proportions and then needlessly clamoring about it: it's "no more than a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The errors are a recurring problem, and it is not a minor one. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your so-called "recurring problem," IMHO, is a joke! This is part of the the petty sentence restored along with a ton of other deleted text: According to an official who translated the call . . .

And here's the edit you made within 3 minutes, yet are still childishly obsessed about: According to an official; during the call, which had been translated . . .. Sorry, I don't accept your red herring "problems" any more than FM's. What I see is a case study, and a sad one.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll make a comment about WP:OWNERSHIP Wikiwatcher1 implicitly raises in his edit description, likely directed at me I expect. A few weeks ago User: Flinders Petrie, whose remarks I generally support and appreciate, took me to task essentially for being dickish in my POV disputes with WW1 and I did take that to heart. Most of us edit Wikipedia essentially because we enjoy doing so, and it's no fun at all when an article we would like to contribute to is taken over by an editor. But I have made it clear that I want to wean myself off this article, so long as I have accomplished what I set out to do with it, which was to ensure it's neutrality. Nevertheless so long as it's neutrality is threatened I shall be here to defend it.

Yesterday I spent quite a long time engaged in dispute resolution with an editor determined to open a section named "Housekeeper credibility" against clear consensus reached here on the Talk page not to. Thanks 101% more to ErrantX's good offices than any diplomatic skills I may or may not possess, we did reach a resolution and the article did return to its quite reasonably good condition, in which I freely accept Wikiwatcher1 (and I have acknowledged this before) has played his part. At least it compares favourably with its French equivalent, which has been the subject of frenzied edit-warring from its inception. Indeed Errant felt moved to send out Barnstars, of which mine at least I'm proud to display on my Talk page.

But Wikiwatcher1's latest edit clearly unbalanced the neutrality of the article. I'm glad the WP:UNDUE NYT quote has gone and I shall return the three balancing contents I mentioned above later this evening.

I make a last request here of Wikiwatcher1 to address the two issues I requested of him 1 explain why your content is neutral for POV when you ignored every single balancing content in the sources you cite and moreover deleted balancing content in the content you replaced with your edit 2 respond to ErrantX's request at media disclosure practices why you removed well-established content because it was "off-topic trivia". FightingMac (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now made a copy-edit of Wikiwatcher1's edit restoring balancing content. The following issues were adressed in the edit 1 DA's letter not a "letter of disclosure" (that is a civil law concept) and the primary source discloses information without making remarks about the credibility of the housekeeper 2 meeting between prosecutors and defense team relocated here and cited 3 "it was reported' weasel and replaced by "New York Times" which broke the story 4 ensuing reflecting source and especially no mention of jury 5 subsequent worded according to (NYT) report and not letter avoiding OR interpretation 6 sentence about room cleaning undue weight in favour of phone call 7 section heading renamed "Prosection disclosures and subsequent events" 8 Court hearing relocated to preserve chronology 9 first of three balancing contents restored, Thompson's defense of his client following the hearing 10 Telephone call including cogent info it was conducted in the housekeeper's native Fulani language 11 second of three balancing edits restored concerning Thompson's challenge of the translation and his call for DA to recuse their office 12 third of three balancong content edits restored relating to lawsuit and correcting detail of date of the libels.

I repeat the two issues I ask Wikiwatcher1 to address 1 explain why your content is neutral for POV when you ignored every single balancing content in the sources you cite and moreover deleted balancing content in the content you replaced with your edit 2 respond to ErrantX's request at media disclosure practices why you removed well-established content because it was "off-topic trivia". Why will he not explain himself? It can only be that he does not think there are issues here he needs to address. FightingMac (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the quote about her "credibility crumbling" has no place here. But the facts about what she has lied about, etc. has to remain! We cannot simply whitewash all of it away. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

FightingMac, and please stop the hypocrisy. Above you ask me to show you the respect of allowing you to decide what you chose to answer:

...for future reference please understand that people like me do expect the courtesy of being allowed to judge for themselves what they wish to respond to in dialogue

And, now you're insisting that wikiwatcher answer your questions??

Why will he not explain himself? It can only be that he does not think there are issues here he needs to address.

So please, remember to assume good faith, treat other editors with respect and, whether or not you're religious, treat others how you wish to be treated is always a good policy. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your and Wikiwatcher1's edits, unfortunately forgetting to give an edit description. Please make sure you have consensus here for your edits as is accepted etiquette in Wikipedia, especially when, as apparently here, the edit are likely to be opposed. In this case Wikiwatcher1 has been given ample opportunity to explain himself and he simply hasn't. I suggest you make it clear here exactly what your edit proprosals are, as I do. (Personal attack removed) Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of your mass changes are totally unacceptable and violate numerous guidelines, including ignoring consensus on the section title, exerting ownership of sections, adding newsy and non-neutral quotes made to the press by an attorney supporting their client; deleting cited facts added by other without explanation; and continuing to add material which turns the article into a moot court. Those are not all the problems. You are continuing to violate guidelines to assume good faith and are again attacking editors rather than focusing on edits. Your violations of wiki ethics and civil behavior are likewise not acceptable. You're also doing mass edits of cited text within numerous sections at the same time. This makes it nearly impossible or at least extremely difficult to review properly. Do edits in smaller portions so others can see what's been changed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your normal mode of operating seems to be to simply revert everything under the guise of it being POV. I've reverted your revert because everything that was there was notable and factual.

Also, I've put back the section title which we managed to get consensus on, and then you decided you had a right to change on your own.

Are you ready to talk, and explain specifically why you think that information about the housekeeper needs to be whitewashed? Please go through it line by line, and say what you find objectional about this notable information backed by RS. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

And to answer your question about what was changed. I did two things:

1) You changed an title we managed to get consensus on from "Prosecutor disclosures" to "Prosecutor disclosures and Subsequent events". Can you explain why you think you have a right to change things we've gotten consensus on, but no one else has a right to make any changes without going through you first? I changed your fix back to what we had agreed upon by breaking it into two section: "Prosecutor disclosures" and "Subsequent events" Why one earth would you feel a need to revert that?!?

2) I expanded the detail about information which came from the prosecutors. What is your objection to any of that? The article as it was simply said that there were "issues". What is your objection to listing out specifically what those issues were? And why would you feel a need to revert it?!? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Wikiwatcher1. I see you've reverted my edits. Can you explain to me what the personal attack you removed above was? It was simply a request that User: Bob drobbs explains what you will not explain. Here's the diff. Regarding your edits, for now I would like to challenge you on this

• Prosecutors claimed that the conversation, one of at least three they recorded, raised "very troubling" questions about the credibility of the accuser "because she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing charges against a wealthy man."Jim Dwyer and Michael Wilson (July 1, 2011). "Strauss-Kahn Accuser's Call Alarmed Prosecutors". New York Times. Retrieved July 4, 2011. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)

where I cannot find any of the material you quote in the reference you cite. I have often complained to you that you quote material that doesn't appear in the sources. I referred to it in my defense at your failed ANI.

Regarding these most recent edits, I will deal with them after the weekend. I encourage other editors to make their contributions here.I don't wish to appear to own this page and indeed there must come a time when I myself simply can longer spare the time to contribute. I would ask that you (Wikiwatcher1) at least edit them for basic literacy. For example "after a brief court hearing" rather than "in a brief court hearing". I note that you have deleted two of the balancing contents I identified above and still haven't responded to the issues I asked you to 1 explain why your content is neutral for POV when you ignored every single balancing content in the sources you cite and moreover deleted balancing content in the content you replaced with your edit 2 respond to ErrantX's request at media disclosure practices why you removed well-established content because it was "off-topic trivia". You need to both restore balancing content and explain yourself before Monday evening to satisy me.

@Bob drobbs 1The need to amend slightly the section heading was because Wikiwatcher1 objected to mention being made of the housekeeper's lawsuit since it wasn't part of "Prosecution disclosures". It seems that was disingenuous of him because he nevertheless hasn't included it in "Subsequent events" anyway. I would rather, as would everyone else here, that you stopped subsectioning willy-nilly as you do. However the main point is the lawsuit and the other balancing content WEikiwatcher1 deleted (Thompson's defence of his client after the Jul 1 hearing). Do you support Wikiwatcher1 here or not? If you don't will you please restore the content. If you do will you please give your reasons. In the absence of either, the assumption must be that you do support Wikiwatcher1. 2 My objection to expanding the details is of course undue weight. It's quite unnecessary to include that level of detail and positively sinful to do so while omitting any balancing edits for the housekeeper.

If you are to support Wikiwatcher1 like this then I do feel justified in asking, in the absence of his own explanation, an explanation of the matters I asked you before (and which he deleted as a personal attack) 1 explain why his content is neutral for POV when he ignored every single balancing content in the sources he cited and moreover he deleted balancing content in the content he replaced 2 respond to ErrantX's request at media disclosure practices as to why he removed well-established content because it was "off-topic trivia". I would also like to have your opinion about his edit "Prosecutors claimed that the conversation ..." I challenged above. Specifically I would like to know whether you too think it unimportant that an edit quotes content not in the source he cites. Finally I asked you for your opinion about the balancing content he omitted.

It is important that you do this Bob if you are to continue to receive my attention. I trust you agree I have been adequately attentive to your concerns. On a minor point I would appreciate it if you copy-edited Wikiwatcher1's edit for grammar and style, paying particular attentions to tenses, which should generally be in the simple past in this article. It's tiresome to have to continue doing it and since you are a fan perhaps you could take over the task. Thank you and have a nice weekend I'm sure. FightingMac (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the two balancing contents I mentione above (Thompson's defense of his client, lawsuit) on the AGF assumption it was oversight. Please do not delete without discussion here. FightingMac (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Wikiwatcher1 I would also like to have an explanation of your bizarre remark above "adding newsy and non-neutral quotes made to the press by an attorney supporting their client". I remember you in early builds of this article insisting that Brafman be quoted as saying that any sexual encounter had been consensual. Why is it alright to quote Brafman but not Thompson? Do you agree with Wikiwatcher1 about this as well, Bob? FightingMac (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

FightingMac,

"...if you are to continue to receive my attention..."', yes, it's all about you, and I'm really concerned about having your attention.

Now in response to the rest, there is nothing "willy-nilly" about the way that I've sub-sectioned the article. I've cleaned up the mess where "arrest and indictment" never should have been a top-level section with all sorts of things not-related to those things stuffed into the section because there was no where else to put them. Secondly, I've also fixed your "lame" title of "Prosecution disclosures and Subsequent events". That is far better as two different sub-sections.

I support the inclusion of Thomson's rebuttal. I never deleted it, and ask wikiwatcher to please leave it. I also understand your concern of there being undue weight on the housekeeper's credibility problems. However, the way to fix it is not by a mass deletion of very relevant, notable, and referenced details. Can you imagine if we said that Strauss-Kahn was indicted on "crimes" but refused to list what crimes they were??

My suggestion would be cleaning up and shortening the "phone call" paragraph. That phone call doesn't seem particularly more notable that all of the other "issues". I think the first 3 lengthy sentences there can be condensed to one well referenced sentence. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Note the earlier discussion about verbosity and specific examples on rephrasing.

@FightingMac, if you have a specific question, of your own, and can state it clearly, then do so. I simply ignore your interrogation methods for discussions, using rapid-fire multiple unrelated questions, in order to confuse issues. Or trying to get two other editors carrying on the argument for you. That sort of methodology for debate is transparent and counterproductive. As for your silly complaints about grammar, just fix them. One thing I have rarely, if ever, complained about during years on WP is someone correcting my grammar; I prefer it, since I benefit. I can't recall seeing editors, like you and others have done, transforming petty grammar problems into major disputes, and using it to demean editors. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a side-note here. I'm pretty sure Bob drobbs is a sock of the infamous Breein1007. I've filled an SPI. NickCT (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@NickCT Cheers about that NickCT. Keep us posted on that.

@Wickiwatcher I added two templates to your edit. One {{clarification needed}} for your assertions that the prosecution "reported" the telephone call (they did no such thing) and a {{not in citation given}} (because it's not). You have [1] removed both with the edit description "restore citation deleted during previous mass deletion - per talk explanation" without addressing either problem. Please do not do this because they are not inserted to challenge you but to alert other editors that there are problems which need to be addressed. You still have not addressed the issues I ask you (and this really will be the last time I remind you) 1 explain why your content is neutral for POV when you ignored every single balancing content in the sources you cite and moreover deleted balancing content in the content you replaced 2 respond to ErrantX's request at media disclosure practices why you removed well-established content because it was "off-topic trivia". Please do this before Monday evening to satisfy me or accept that the inevitable conclusion must be that, like the issue of ensuring content you quote is actually to be found the source you cite, these are not issues you think are important. FightingMac (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs. You renamed the main section as 'Chronology'. When I made my edit this morning of the content before Wikiwatcher replaced it with his own, it was chronological. It's not now. The content about the maid 'cleaning' an adjacent room (in fact key data leaked into the public record shows she was in there for less than a minute before being found by her supervisor and taken back to Strauss-Kahn's room) and the telephone call were discussed in the media after the hearing releasing Strauss-Kahn. Will you please address this. FightingMac (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The NYT article, "Strauss-Kahn Accuser’s Call Alarmed Prosecutors," footnote #33, makes it clear that the prosecutors learned about the translated call before DSK's release hearing. When the media discusses it is not critical to the chronology. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I will not allow the innacuracy problem be swept under a table cloth - mostly because you are shrugging your shoulders about it. The problem is not trivial, it is critical to the authority of the Encyclopaedia that we are accurate. And correcting it consistently is by no means childish, that you are not seeing how huge a problem it could be is simply causing me deep concern. You've written wholly innacurate sentences a number of times now - so, yes, this is something you need to bear in mind. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage

In the media coverage section there is this claim:

They found that during the first ten days of the scandal, 'DSK' appeared on the front page of more than 150,000 national newspapers around the world

Knowing that there are 192 member nations of the United Nations and doing some quick math this number of newspapers corresponds to an average of about 781 national newspapers per member Nation. I find this rather excessive. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The number per nation would be diluted by adding in those nations that are not members of the U.N. Another way that number (150,000) could be correct, or more understandable, is if each of the ten days are counted as a separate incidence. They (the sources) are not being clear on this point. One of the two sources is in French; here is the Google translation to English. And this is the one originally in English. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But is cited and WP:VERIFY applies I suppose (from ref [81] Irish Times).

• A study by the French Kantar Media institute reported that during the first 10 days of the scandal, DSK appeared on the front pages of 150,000 newspapers around the world.

I also raised my eyebrows when I saw it. I expect it's indeed because of Bus stop's comment that they counted every edition of every day. Since it's very likely that the story did appear in very edition of pretty well every paper in the world over most of those days, then it becomes much more likely. I know it was in every single African newspaper I follow, including some very minor ones indeed. FightingMac (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks to both of you. I think that the average number of national newspapers per nation (781) is way too high. Even if we include the nations not recognised by the UN, I don't think it would decrease to a more realistic figure. For example, how many national newspapers does Great Britain have? I don't think it even comes close to a hundred. On the other hand maybe, as Bus stop said, each of the ten days is counted as a new occurrence. At least this would reduce the number by an order of magnitude. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should remove the adjective "national" because the Irish times quote above does not mention it and a national newspaper circulates throughout a nation as opposed to a local newspaper. This way we also reduce the high number of "national" newspapers. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very good point indeed about "national". Hadn't noticed that. It's not in the French source either. I hope that wasn't me who let that in. I'll remove it tomorrow, if it hasn't already gone, as a sort of passing shot here (though I will keep an eye on the article). Thank you for your occasional input re me. Always appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW the French study almost certainly included local papers I should imagine. France does have national papers, but nothing on the scale in the UK (possibly US - doin't really know) and most French prefer a local to national. FightingMac (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you FightingMac for your reply and your nice comments. I took the liberty and I removed the adjective before you indicated your intent of doing so. So I apologise if I somehow jumped the gun. It is always a pleasure talking to you and I hope you continue contributing to this article. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks. FightingMac (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic?

Yes, indeed, the DSK sex assault talk page has probably become as riveting as, if not more, than the actual affair itself. Sorry, real life took over for a while there, but as I noted on the DSK talk page, and per several editors' concerns (ErrantX and so on), this article is just too newsy, and we are supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not reflecting every twist and turn, but giving an after-the-fact summary of events.

I also missed the tag-team accusations but basically I stand by what I said over on Errant's talk page, BLPs, if we are to have them, need rigid enforcement of agreed guidelines, because this stuff is like flypâper for obsessives or quicksand for editors trying to maintain an encyclopaedic NPOV and the like.

Facts fly around the world in a couple of minutes thanks to blogging , Twitter and so on, and journalists (the real ones, who get paid by media organisations) are getting lazier and lazier about checking info (IMO, OR), so unsubstantiated bullshit becomes fact and is reported almost instantaneously by reliable sources, and if it gets on WP then that's it: it's true!

Many people have given up on this article, or gone to do something more worthwhile, so Fighting Mac is all alone, even if he/she sometimes gets a bit carried away defending the neutrality of said article. Shit! Don't you think that we all have better things to do on Wikipedia than to endlessly quibble about "anal rape" or "sexually assaulted" to quote one of the highlights of the debates that have raged on these pages. FM and WW1 both appear to be passionate about editing WP, I know from experience that writing long replies (diatribes) takes a hell of a lot of time, so instead of good editors wasting their time wanking off (sorry!) over guidelines, we need some clearcut guidelines for BLPs which involve elements that are debatable, Hitler is dead, ok, only fringe theorists will try to insist that no, he flew to a Nazi base on the moon.

So, past events are generally referenced and corroborated by a number of RS and debate there is, but it is usually informed. BLPs with contentious subjects seem to be a no-man's-land and WP:QUICKSAND (article does not exist).

Today I was reading Al Capone and consequently edited Prince Buster, The Specials, Madness, and so on. This is just to say that this debate/distraction is rubbish, endless back-and-forth between AGF editors, policy needs to be more clearly defined for ongoing BLPs, instead of diverting GF editors to b*ll*cks.

(This is going to be posted at WP:BLPN hoping that it gets escalated and that there is some serious debate, whales are big, ok no problem, whales are gay! easily refutable by science textbooks and biology classes).

Final statement: I do not give a shit about DSK, I am interested in the goal of Wikipedia, free unbiaised, impartial (ha! but that's philosophy) information for all. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Some "serious debate," of the neutral type, would be welcome. Shortly after the article was begun with a comprehensive coverage, one editor wrote on this talk page, "This is probably the best and most neutral article I've read so far of a very sensationalist case." It was downhill after that: A few days later a new editor joins in claiming:

I could write a 50,000 word essay in my sleep about reaction to this affair, which I happen to think is the story of the century.

To prove his point, the same editor posted his dream wish, knowing it was considered "degrading" in France:

please pretty pretty please beg on my knees please and basically do whatever it takes here please (within limits come on) can someone load an image of the DSK perp walk, even if it's only something off a mobile cam or whatever they're called. It would fit in so nicely just after that deeply moving agonised cri de coeur of Bernard-Henri Levy.

I only question your statement that "Fighting Mac is all alone, even if he/she sometimes gets a bit carried away defending the neutrality of said article." IMHO, he is clearly never alone, not even when he's reported on ANI, and crediting him with "defending neutrality," after observing his edits, is strange. I realize that DSK is no Caesar, but it's apparent that FightingMac did not come here to praise him].--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That's right Captain Screebo. I am acutely conscious of it and I have noted my reservations about it before and I do apologise. I do assure you that I shan't endlessly contribute here. If I find it's simply not possible to build what I think is a worthwhile article then of course I'll stop trying to. Indeed I'm close to concluding that. I do think this latest edit of Wikiwatcher1 is a watershed for the article. I have asked Wikiwatcher1 repeatedly to explain himself above and he either will not or he can not. I have asked him to satisfy me by Monday evening. Would there be any support for deleting this article, assuming that is still possible? I would like to see it deleted and would vote for it to be deleted. Fundamentally because I think it's newsy and ill-conceived but also because if it's really not possible to achieve NPOV because of repeated edit-warring then I think it should go. FightingMac (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Per your interrogatories: #1: "explain why your content is neutral for POV . . ." Answer: All my content is aimed to be neutral, and patently non-neutral material is removed or discussed;
#2: "Respond to ErrantX's request . . ." is meaningless. I have no idea what his request was at this point and don't have time to find out. If he still has a request, after all the intermediate edits over the last few days, he should ask and I'll fix it. Even his uncovering poor grammar issues, which I'd assume editors would just fix rather than writing Talk page essays about.

Per your statement, "Please do this before Monday evening to satisfy me or accept that the inevitable conclusion . . .", all I can say is that I consider it amazing. Not that you made it, but that none of the other editors seem to care that a fellow editor is willing to publicly display such arrogance. I'm amazed, befuddled, and beflustered! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you did here Wikiwatcher1, but it's in the wrong place. I've noted it in the section below. FightingMac (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

@WW1 I know my post was a bit rambling but it was out of a sort of (hungover) desperation seeing that people are willing to spend hours and hours writing talk page essays about minor details, grammar quibbles and so on rather than contributing to articles, cleaning up existing articles and so on. To clarify, "FM is all alone", was a reaction to the talk page where FM seems to be being taken to task by yourself and another editor, who appears to have just joined the debate, for defending a POV about the article that seems to have the consensus of several editors who appear to have given up/gone away. I believe that you edit in good faith and, if you prefer, I think what I meant about FM's contributions were that he was trying to keep the article balanced; this is not to say that you are trying to unbalance the article or impose your POV but each person has their own unique take on things and it can be difficult to detect one's own cultural/educational influence on one's thoughts. And FM has been reprimanded for going too far and reminded about WP policy several times (notably by the overseer Errant ;-) ).

Look, we have all managed to work together at points on this article and agree that each other's contributions have improved what was there before, my problem is with the very notion of BLPs, especially where they involve high-profile people and contentious or scandalous subject matter. It is totally not the same as writing about whales, Hitler or the UK ska revival. And how much time and energy are we all spending on this when it could turn out to be a non-event or maybe the end of human civilization as we know it? (ok ok I'm exaggerating).

@Fighting, yes the article should go, but there was already a deletion nomination (led by Errant I believe) that got "quick keeped" or something like that, the only thing is that the problem will not go away, it will just move back to the main DSK bio. This sort of reporting is more suited to a twitter feed than Wikipedia, IMHO, but what can one do? As the drama is being played out by daily, sensationalist revelations by the parties involved it is extremely problematic to deal with. We have gone from Le perv and the Black Virgin Mary to the Saint and the Slut. I just think that both you and WW1 are GF editors whose talents and energy would be better employed elsewhere, unfortunately here we all are! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree. I do wish some of the people who voted Keep would look in and defend the article. I've always maintained that the article was likely actually to be used by the parties as a mud-slinging pit and my suspicions about that are hardening. I will be basically withdraw from this article as from tomorrow evening. Sorry to try your patience like this and thank you for your remarks. Appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to be sorry and you're not trying my patience, it's just a terrible waste of time and energy, recently some space junk nearly impacted the ISS, if it had hit then it would have been a major incident (and merited a subsection in the relevant article) but it didn't so no news. What I'm saying is that it's almost impossible to report on an unfolding event in real time and maintain NPOV and get a feel for what is or will be pertinent and notable once the dust settles. I respect your dedication (and tenacity), I have already been reported to 3RR for the DSK article and accused (along with yourself, Andy, Errant and so on) of tag-teaming on this article, just so ridiculous and puerile. So I'll keep an eye on it but I'm off to do more productive stuff. Cheers. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, absolutely agree with all that. The Dutch content is a model of brevity. I shall look back quickly tomorrow evening and then I'm off into the sunset, come what may here. I didn't know you had been reported for 3RR warring. It is annoying. I had an ANI as well, which was chopped down immediately before I even had to defend it, but the editor who referrred it claims it in these pages as a great victory for himself ... what to do? FightingMac (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As the French say laisse tomber, the 3RR was before the fork and one late night turned into one early morning and I ended up defending myself at the AN at midday the next day! Obviously, no action taken but it really freaked me out (vehemence and obsession). I would just like to say thank you for your user name, I learned about this rather tragic military history concerning Fighting Mac and was most surprised and taken aback. Anyway, que sera sera, it's not worth getting worked up over, sadly BLPs seem to be a bit of an Achilles' heel for Wikipedia, I can already hear the sound of the horses' hooves as they clip-clop into the sunset ;-) Regards. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

@Captain, your help or suggestions would be welcome, noting your comment: seeing that people are willing to spend hours and hours writing talk page essays about minor details, grammar quibbles and so on . . .. A simple example:

A request was recently made to clarify excessive details about maid picketting, etc. In response, FM demands I respond to Errant's aged request about grammar, etc. along with the equally strange, The diff is noted comment;

Next, he adds an entire new paragraph: Can I ask you to explain why you made this edit at Albert Einstein?, (months ago), ending with a Why did you do that? One would think that those digressions would be enough, but FM continues with another: I've also commented in the past about how the standard of your copy varies, noting variations in the quality of my writing style and grammar. Thrown in for good measure is this standard ending: I would like to see your remarks about both these issues before Monday evening to satisfy me.?

Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are that you and FM have sort of locked horns over several aspects of this article that are (in the long run) fairly inconsequential, that people spend an awful lot of their time focussing on NOT what is being said BUT on the way it is being said (i.e. grammar, style and so on).

That I do agree that it is pretty wierd that you supposedly express yourself eloquently on talk pages whereas your edits leave something to be desired in terms of grammar (I am only going by the section you have quoted above and FM's observations) which would imply that you give more thought to talkpage debate/argument than your mainspace edits.

And also, that I do find it a bit creepy when any editor starts going through people's contributions from ages ago to try and find examples of edits that the said editor construes to be abusive, wrong or misguided. I had the unpleasant experience of my talk page being trolled in relation to the DSK article where somebody added to a discussion that was totally unrelated and cherrypicked a comment I made at the BLPN to accuse me of accusing them of writing English like a chimpanzee!

So, to resume, no sides to be taken, I think that you are both valuable editors but sometimes we get a bit obsessed and irate about certain issues, and I think the problem stems from the notion of BLPs themselves, as noted above. If you think about it, there are several famous people who would probably not have had a BLP about them when they were alive (Van Gogh, Oscar Wilde), or their BLP would have contained facts/trivia that were not considered notable enough to make it into the history books.

And, finally, I think that wars of attrition about wp guidelines and policy are extremely debilitating and BLPs really need a set of guidelines that are enforced by a dedicated team or they should disappear altogether as this rubbish just wears new editors down and does nothing to further the project's goals. That's all folks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time, as it did help. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, per your comment about some apparent variation in some of my edits: which would imply that you give more thought to talkpage debate/argument than your mainspace edits, — it's actually the opposite. I spend a lot more time on article edits due to an overly-cautious effort to add sourced material, trimming possible OR, i.e. adjectives and adverbs, and keeping sentences clear. Hence, I notice my sentences there sound a bit dry. As far as I can recall, I've never had anything re-edited due to OR, but have done so countless times to others' edits, and in this article I've even commented many times on verbosity problems. So yeah, there's a difference in writing style, where here I'll say whatever comes to mind, but editing an article I focus on crossing Ts and dotting Is. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just like to point out that I was only commenting on FM's comments about your writing style and the purported differences, this is not to say that I adhere to this point of view, you asked me to comment on the comments made by FM. Cheers. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Moot court facts

It is against guidelines to turn this current case article into a moot court by adding quotes and off-topic news, such as the following:

After the hearing, Kenneth Thompson, the housekeeper's attorney, defended his client: "It’s a fact that the victim here has made some mistakes, but that doesn’t mean she’s not a rape victim."[39]
On July 5, the housekeeper filed a lawsuit against The New York Post over allegations about her personal life published over the Fourth of July weekend.[40]

Neither of these should be included as they are isolated facts and quotes. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it against guidelines? That's a serious question. Because WP:MOOT doesn't seem to turn up anything.

The first item is a notable quote from her attorney. I think attorney quotes have a place, within reason. I don't personally think that a single quote from an attorney makes a moot court. And I think that particular quote is reasonable.

As for the second item, it seems within the scope of this article as it's related to this case, and her lawsuit isn't notable enough to merit it's own article.

So, sorry, but I think both should stay. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Both of the details are relatively small items that don't effect the article IMO. I brought them up not to nit-pick but to try to set some standards to go by. The attorney quote, for instance, was a clearly cherry-picked statement that came at the very end of a 1,600 word NY Times article about the phone call and all the other fabrications. Once we accept that an article can be misused to pull out select quotes that are gratuitous and really say nothing, a line is crossed for others to follow that precedence. We are adding encyclopedic value to some attorney saying on behalf of their client that their client made "mistakes."

The lawsuit mention is related to the article, but without context it's a news blurb. If it stays in, the context of the lawsuit needs to be added to explain how it relates to this article. The same goes for the attorney's quote, which was in response to other details from the DA. The context of his "mistake" press proclamation needs context as to what he was referring to in the article it was picked out of. I'd prefer to trim both those sentences for the reasons mentioned, but if they remain, they need relevant context from the sources. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)FightingMac (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Wikiwatcher1. Can you please explain the above edit you made which appears to be signed by me? I certainly never made any such edit, nor would I ever unless, I suppose, the attack was actually dangerous to my safety.

Perhaps there's an innocent explanation but it does at first sight look like an attempt to forge my signature or something of the sort. What is that about?

And why are you removing content you provided yourself as a 'personal attack'? You are attacking yourself? Here's the content you removed as a 'personal attack'.

• You used the wrong diff, apparently. This was the edit to delete text as another PA. BTW, you'd save a lot of typing time if you skip the "personal attack" methodology, despite your choice of user name. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Per your interrogatories: #1: "explain why your content is neutral for POV . . ." Answer: All my content is aimed to be neutral, and patently non-neutral material is removed or discussed;
  #2: "Respond to ErrantX's request . . ." is meaningless. I have no idea what his request was at this point and don't have time to find out. If he still has a request, after all the intermediate edits over the last few days, he should ask and I'll fix it. Even his uncovering poor grammar issues, which I'd assume editors would just fix rather than writing Talk page essays about.
  

• Per your statement, "Please do this before Monday evening to satisfy me or accept that the inevitable conclusion . . .", all I can say is that I consider it amazing. Not that you made it, but that none of the other editors seem to care that a fellow editor is willing to publicly display such arrogance. I'm amazed, befuddled, and beflustered!

Indeed befuddled and beflustered you seem. Is this your response? That you think the balancing content you removed is non-neutral? To be specific that 1 reporting Thompson'd defense of his client is not NPOV and should be removed 2 that reporting that Thompson contests the prosecutor's handling and translation of the telephone call is not NPOV and should be removed 3 that reporting the housekeeper has filed a lawsuit againt The New York Post is not NPOV and should be removed?

Understand Wikiwatcher1 that I am not trying to persecute you with these queries. I simply sense that you have an understanding of NPOV that differs from what is generally understood by the term, roughly speaking that it is neutral and balanced and doesn't advocate or unduly stress any particular point of view.

I ask for your clarifications.

@User: Bob drobbs. And I should appreciate your comments. FightingMac (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not re-factor anyone's comments - at all, ever (see WP:TPO). Too much of this is being done on this page - the next time I see it happen without seriously good cause I will go find a neutral admin to put his/her boot down over it. If you feel a comment is uncivil or attacking then take it to one of the noticeboard (Wikiquette for example) or collect lengthier evidence and take it to AN/I. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Was that directed at me Errant? The difficulty is I don't know what 'refactoring' refers to and quickly looking at the guidelines I don't understand the point. As I say I'm new to this kind of editing and the Wikipedia policy corpus is huge. Regarding your original thread, I did join into support you on it, so it seems to me to be fair to ask for the explanation you never received on my own behalf as well. I mean I'm directly involved since I contributed some of it (the Paris Match content over which I conceded so much). I can see that perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned your name. Issue of moral rights I suppose.

As for the flood of comments that have appeared from me here on the Talk page I do apologise again. I am acutely conscious of it. It is fankly embarrassing. All I can really say in my defense is that, for the most part, I haven't edit warred the article itself and did attempt to reach resolution here on the Talk page instead.

As I have remarked I am coming to the end of what I what I think I can usefully do. I do feel I'm on a hiding to nothing here and that it's not worth persisting. Although I will continue to check the article for neutrality I don't expect to be posting much here past tomorrow evening. Thank you for your unfailing patient and courteous guidance. FightingMac (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Refactoring == editing/changing/removing/deleting other peoples comments (wiki-lingo :)). I see some of that happening above (to your comments) and I keep seeing it happen, but it's not the process encouraged in discussion. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher, I took a second look at things. And I agree that the quote was completely cherry picked from the article, and it's very questionable if it belongs at all in an encyclopedic entry. However, it does help create some balance. And, if I'm able to get agreement which allows critical facts about the case to stay there by not worrying about a balancing quote from a lawyer, I'm perfectly okay with that compromise.

As for her lawsuit, I've changed my mind and now agree with you. It's absolutely retarded to say she's engaged in a libel lawsuit, without giving the background and saying what the libel was. As is, it seems to imply that she's suing about the things said by the prosecutor. That's not true. So, either we have to say that the paper called her a prostitute _or_ we need to delete this line. Can ErrantX and FightingMac please comment on that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's just "false response fallacy"; by no means are they our two options. They are suing the paper over tabloid allegations they published about her, if there is ambiguity in that we can remove it by simply rewording, not by repeating the allegations :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have suggestions for wording which will remove the ambiguity?

But I have to ask , if you think her lawsuit is notable enough for inclusion, why would you deliberately hide critical facts relevant to the case? Directly repeating allegations violates BLP. However, this is not the case here. I am suggesting that we be specific about a lawsuit she filed. Do you believe that listing specifics about her lawsuit violates BLP? _Giving the facts is the encyclopaedic choice_, and if this is notable enough to be included at all, that's what we should do. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's either trivia and off-topic news, or it's not. If the former, it doesn't belong; if the latter, it's relevance to the article should be explained. As it is now, it's totally misleading, and we can't expect readers to read every cite to understand a statement's relevance. The same is true of the Paris Match paragraph in "Media coverage." The mere ability to move fingers and selectively cut-and-paste factoids from the web does not make one an "editor." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are waffling about WW1; I don't recall cutting and pasting - every time I try and write something original it gets killed :) But, you know, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

She has filed a civil action, that is of note (if only in a sentence). But there is definitely no need to repeat the allegations she is suing for - because, you know, that is potentially libellous.... so, yes, it is a BLP issue. The Paris Match stuff has been discussed all over the place - it is well written, evolved from consensus editing and within scope and context. Feel free, of course, to try and establish new consensus over its inclusion.

I object to this being cast as "it is either notable or not, and if it is we need to record the allegations". It is a common, and poor, rhetorical fallacy. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Notability" is not the same as "relevance." Per Wikipedia:Relevance of content, "any details not immediately relevant to the primary topic should be moved into other articles." BTW, I have no idea who added these factoids, and my comments were not related to you. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX, I'm sorry, but I believe you are 100% wrong here. By making the facts of the case clear, we would _not_ be "repeating the allegations". This is the same difference between saying DSK has been charged with rape, and calling him a rapist. To call him a rapist is libel. To say he's been charged for rape is fact. By making the facts of her lawsuit clear, in no way are we saying or implying that she is a prostitute. We're just listing factual, verifiable details. What violates BLP in that?!? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Media outlets use the caveat "according to" to get around that problem, but in general we do not do so for such tenuous allegations. There is nothing added by reciting the exact allegations made; of course, happy to get further input on this, but I strongly feel that to do so would be a huge neutrality violation and a BLP problem. It is, unavoidably, reciting the allegations. Both of these items are of reasonable significance and relevance to the topic, and we can properly record them. Certainly an actual filed civil suit in relation to the ongoing event is of relevance! --Errant ^(chat!) 21:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is notable enough for inclusion. However, I still totally disagree with you that we can include a lawsuit, while leaving out critical details about what the lawsuits is. Deliberately keeping things vague is totally un-encyclopedic.

As for WP:BLP. Go back and read that page. Where does it say that we cannot "repeat allegations"?

What it _does_ says is that things about a living person must be "well referenced" and "non-contentious". There is no caveat to be made here. She is filing a lawsuit over allegations that she has engaged in prostitution. Is there any doubt of that at all? If that claim is not at all contentious, then it needs to be included to provide critical details about the case. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And let me add this to help clarify the POV problem, or lack there of. It is not one bit more contentious to say that DSK was charged with attempted rape, then it is to say that the housekeeper is filing a libel lawsuit over allegations that she has engaged in prostitution. Fact and fact. And, as an encyclopedia, it is our job to report the notable facts. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree; DSK has been charged over them in a court of law, as reported in many excellent sources. The allegations against the housekeeper (you know, BLP applies here on talk too..) come from a single, tabloid paper - which she is now suing. Clearly such an allegation is not worth repeating. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd point out that this matches our approach of not recording the various tabloid allegations about DSK in the article... --Errant ^(chat!) 12:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself because you seem to have missed the point. The New York Times is not a Tabloid. And, the housekeeper's lawsuit has gone to a court of law and been covered by excellent sources. (If it didn't meet those standards, then it needs to be deleted entirely, right?) So, please tell me, where in BLP does is say that we cannot use well-referenced material about a notable lawsuit? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I just went and did some more research. In each of these notable libel cases, the article discusses what the accused libel was: Ashley Olson World Net Daily Jose Santos Yet again, it's very clear that publishing well-referenced facts about a notable libel case is not a violation of WP:BLP. I'm adding it. If you want to seek a compromise, you are welcome to delete the libel case from this article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

See that's what pisses me of most about this disagreement - the presentation of it as "well it's going in, if you disagree take away the whole material". Trying to hold me over a barrel fucks me off. I asked for input from BLP/N --Errant ^(chat!) 07:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, and I do understand your frustration. But I also think that as-is it was very poor and confusing. I also think that listing it does not violate BLP, and have precedence to back me up on that. I look forward to getting other, perhaps more dispassionate views on the question. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)