Talk:New York v. Strauss-Kahn/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Including information about Diallo's gang rape story.

I'm surprised to see that there is no mention of Diallo's fabricated gang rape story. Many reliable sources are reporting that this is one of the main reasons the prosecutors stopped trusting her and recommended that the case be dropped.

Important points to cover:

• She told the story to prosecutors twice, over a two week period.

• The story was extremely persuasive and detailed. Told with great emotion and conviction. Including tears, halting speech and pointing out scars that were supposedly from the attack.

• When she finally admitted that the story was fabricated she at first said that she made up the attack to be consistent with her asylum application. But it turned out that this too was untrue -- as her asylum application makes no mention of any gang rape.

I tried being bold and wrote up a three paragraph version -- with was reverted as being too long. Then I wrote up a one paragraph version -- which was also reverted.

Below is my suggested addition:

Also, Diallo told a compelling and detailed story of being gang raped by soldiers in Guinea -- that was completely fabricated. Over a two week period she told the story to prosecutors twice. Both times with great emotion, precision, and conviction, including: tears; halting speech; the number and nature of her attackers; pointing out scars that were supposedly from the attack; and how her 2-year old daughter was present. When she finally admitted that the story was fabricated, she at first said that she made up the attack to be consistent with her asylum application. But that too turned out to be untrue -- as her asylum application makes no mention of any gang rape.

I'm not attached to the wording -- but it seems that the above bullet points are central to a hugely important turning point in the case: the prosecutors no longer trusting the witness. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed some of the not needed externals and the quotes in the citations - the issue is not complicated - the victim lied about having been raped in guinea. 00:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Is this article being maintained by Strauss-Kahn's PR agents?

And apparently mentioning the names of the two PR agencies involved Euro RSCG and TD International (TDI) is a violation of per WP:NOTNEWS trivia .. ?

emacsuser (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Page Watchers New York v. Strauss-Kahn 70 .. and apparently you've really earned your salaries ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.35.85 (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously. PR agents have a financial incentive to spend time editing, an incentive which most volunteer Wikipedia editors do not have. How will Wikipedia handle this, if it were the case? (Here and in other articles.) E.g., the "Support and Opposition" section as currently written in this article is a joke: it is virtually all support, and no opposition -- despite the repeated examples given by Wikipedia editors over the past two months, which drew on reliable sources and in accordance with WP:BLP guidelines. As one editor bitterly noted a few weeks ago, as written this section appears to portray DSK as an avuncular oversexed teddy-bear, based on selective quotes -- exactly what his PR machine wants. (No-one expects that he tried to rape every woman he was alone with. But the number of public accusations against him, versus a normal man of his position, is rather staggering. See: Camille Gutt, Ivar Rooth, Per Jacobsson, Pierre-Paul Schweitzer, Johan Witteveen, Jacques de Larosière, Michel Camdessus, Horst Köhler and Rodrigo Rato, among others.) It's also amazing that this article has been completely wiped clean of any mention or reference to Tristane Banon, Piroska Nagy, etc. I'm sure his PR team would offer all kinds of good WP rationales for this, they're not stupid and WP isn't that hard to figure out, nor to abuse. Benefac (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Pitching this comment the way you have is not going to help make your case. At all. However.. the point you raise is partially legitimate. The problem we had was that the Opposition/Support section was turning into a quote fest of quite epic proportions - some of which were highly selective and of dubious importance. It has, I agree, ended up a little imbalanced. What I've been looking out for is a source that gives a run down of the support/oppose so that we can do the same without a) resorting to WP:OR on summarising the details and b) quoting random people without a higher level context. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, please remember, Wikipedia is NOT a news outlet. This article, while notable and potentially encyclopedic, is not required to be a part of Wikipedia. It could just as easily not be here at all, and in fact, if editors here cannot agree on its current form, it might need to be removed from Mainspace until such time as agreement can be reached for it to be again present in Mainspace.

When editing contentious articles that reference real people, we need to be aware of the BLP issues. Although I'm sure its been repeated over and over, the thing often missed is that we don't need to worry about being timely or following 24-hour news cycles in editing here, but being faithful to sources and hopefully being as accurate as possible without violating our policies. -- Avanu (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

@Benefac. The thought had crossed my mind :-) But regarding Banon etc, there's a more innocent explanation and that is that she is genuinely not relevant to the case ("a subject of interest"). Her lawyer has said they want to keep the two cases separate. The French article mentions her on the very dubious ground that she was described as a subject of interest at the first bail application (she wasn't really although it was widely reported that she was what the prosecutor had in mind). As for "Support and Opposition" that was gien a thorough going-over at the time. FightingMac (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• The lawyer of Banon came to New York on July 19 to meet with the lawyers of the housekeeper and the prosecutor's team. So why are you considering both cases separate now ? Hektor (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no connection at all. Please do not attempt to add such leading content to any of the connected articles. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes that's right, there was a a singularly unexpected meeting but it's entirely speculative as to what its purpose was. My own reading of the birdies flitting the sky would be that any attempt to join the cases is simply out of the question, French public opinion simply wouldn't stand for it and indeed I can see where they would be coming from on that. Much more likely I should think is they were discussing the possibility of the housekeeper launching a civil action in France, technically possible and more likely, if found for her of course, of extracting cash from DSK. In any case the two cases remain separate, whatever the French article is doing. Please don't try to introduce Banon here. It would just make the article more contentious and we do have real consensus here not to, on both 'saint' and 'sinner' sides. FightingMac (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've largely avoided working on this article because of the tag-team ownership of various editors here (including AndyTheGrump, Off2riorob, CaptainScreebo, Wikiwatcher1, and ErrantX.). I have observed perhaps a dozen other good editors also leave work on this page, in frustration with this tag-team. What started out as seemingly good-intentions by the tag-team (protecting BLP, focusing on the longer-term encyclopedic aspects, avoiding salaciousness, protecting the privacy of unnamed accusers, etc.) degenerated into an edit-war, team 3R revisions, ego ownership, etc. If any of these editors were in fact receiving compensation on behalf of DSK, this would be a very serious WP issue, indeed. Months have gone by and the article still reads like a defense of DSK, presenting him as a peaceful, debonaire seducer with a high sex-drive who is supported by his wife and previous lovers, against charges that are portrayed as so out-of-character as to be inconceivable. By implication, the reputation of the dozen-or-so women who have leveled public charges against him is therefore impugned and their voice is silenced. (Oddly, the one critical quote included is from Marine Le Pen, who Francophile readers know has a political agenda against DSK, hence is less credible.) The article still completely ignores reliably sourced critical observations about DSK from Piroska Nagy, Anne Mansouret, Tristane Banon and many others, despite the efforts of experienced Wikipedia editors who ultimately left in frustration. The article fails to adequately present the side of Nafissatou Diallo, the accuser. It fails to address the broader issues which have made the case of interest to so many people. Instead it continues to treat the case as a subset of DSK. It presents a one-sided view of absurd conspiracy theories. The result is an article that is subtly misogynist. (It appears that all of the tag-team members are male, for what that is worth.) It's both sad and amusing to see such pomposity and self-importance grow among volunteer editors, and to see the abuse of arcana from WP guidelines to rationalize POVs. This article itself is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I do not believe that reasonable collaboration is possible so long as the tag-team is allowed to edit this article. Benefac (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that your tag-team editor list didn't include the editor who contributed many times more than most others. Should we assume that his edits were among the neutral ones you approve of? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The section on "Support and Opposition" should include (brace yourself) reliably sourced support and opposition. It should include Tristane Banon's accusation, and (as Wikiwatcher1 unintentionally suggests) it should include Anne Mansouret's description of her encounter with DSK: "consensual but clearly brutal sex," and she "describes DSK as a predator who isn't looking to please but to take, and behaves like an obscene boor."[1][2][3] Benefac (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

About time that I replied too, I think you should be very careful when accusing others of tag-teaming, all the while encouraging other editors to "gang up" on the perceived tag-team. As Andy points out below, this can be construed as a personal attack and is totally without foundation. For the record, I have edited the article 5 times in the space of two months (yes there were over a 1000 edits to go through), although I may have contributed more on the talkpage.

As pointed out in a similar discussion on the BLPN board or somewhere, maybe the people you cite are a bunch of like-minded editors who have taken an interest in the article, watch it and interpret WP policy concerning BLPs in roughly the same way. As this is a high-profile affair, with every twist and turn, new editors show up wishing to add that latest titbit to the article and need to be pointed to NOTNEWS, NPOV, RECENTISM, BLP, BLPN, BLP1E, UNDUE and so on. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@Wikiwatcher: I'm not sure who you are referring to, above. About 1/4 of the edits seemed to come from FightingMac, who above opposes including Banon in the Opposition section. Roughly 1/5 of the edits were from you (Wikiwatcher, who started this article) and ErrantX, each, with more recent ones from OfftorioRob. The others weigh in more on the Talk page than in edits. The overall effort seems to be one of protecting the reputation of DSK, not protecting the reputation of Diallo, Banon, Mansouret, Nagy, etc. Benefac (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been a month and the "Support and Opposition" section continues to read like whitewash PR for DSK, and ignores and insults the reputation of the women who have accused him. This article is not a bio of DSK. It touches on many different facets as raised by RS. Benefac (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Strauss-Kahn's PR agents? They are absolutely on this page. What a joke, 'building an encyclopedia' under such conditions.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Three months later, and the 'article' still reads like a whitewash. The article has been narrowed down to the very narrow legal case, rather than the much broader issues which made it of interest to so many WP readers. The ongoing civil suit is not mentioned in the introduction, which is phrased entirely in the past tense (as if the whole thing were finished). Having narrowed it down and redirected to this single legal case, despite the attempts of many editors to keep the article broader, now the tag-team can insist that mention of the prostitution-ring that DSK allegedly participated in is irrelevant (both here and on the article about him), even though it is widely reported in reliable sources.[4][5][6] etc. This article is an example of Wikipedia failing to accurately depict biographies of living people. Benefac (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not a PR agent for DSK, I have never met him, and I am not French. In my opinion, this article should be deleted because it is not encylopedic. DSK's relations with women may or may not be an appropriate topic to include in the article about him. But I don't think that a complaint which was judged to be unfounded deserves a separate article in Wikipedia. You use the term "whitewash", but all the charges were dropped for lack of evidence, so I don't know what there is to "wash". The criminal case is indeed finished, so the article should use the past tense for that. If you think the article should be broader, then you should propose to rename it "Allegations regarding DSK's sexual life" or whatever. But (1) I don't see why that deserves a Wikipedia article and (2) much of the material would border on defamation until an actual court case against DSK succeeds. You are correct that reliable sources report various allegations about DSK's sexual life, but so far there hasn't been any proof that the allegations are correct, and DSK denies them. Many people might believe the allegations, but that is quite different from having a reliable source to the effect that they are true.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you're saying that any court case in the history of the legal court system that ended in a not guilty result cannot be encyclopedic because there weren't charges given out? That's not how notability works or what encyclopedias do. Silverseren^C 14:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that, in this particular case, given that the charges were dismissed by the prosecutor due to lack of evidence, and the case never went to trial, it would be sufficient to have a one-paragraph summary in biography page of DSK. For this particular case, a separate article is, in my view, not justified.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This case had world attention and impact. Regardless of the outcome, it is now fully a part of court history and is notable and independent because of that. Silverseren^C 16:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. OK. I've proposed deletion several times before, and it has always been rejected. But I haven't seen any evidence of hordes of DSK supporters chiming in on the issue, so I really wonder why anybody thinks that DSK's PR agents are active on this article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

References

DSK TimeLine

(Morning) DSK alerted via text msgs that his IMF BlackBerry allegidly hacked by unknown operatives.

10:07 DSK calls his Wife in Paris on his IMF BlackBerry.

12:05 Key records show that Sofitel room service employee Syed Haque enters room 2806.

12:06 Key records show that hotel maid Nafissatou Diallo entered room 2806 at this time.

12:06-12:13 DNA evidence show sexual encounter took place between Diallo and Strauss-Kahn.

12:13 DSK speaks to daughter Camille on his BlackBerry for forty seconds.

12:26 PM Diallo enters room 2820, another VIP suite on the same floor.

12:28 DSK checks out of Hotel Sofital and goes to "early lunch" with daughter Camille and her boyfriend.

12:** Hotel maid Nafissatou Diallo reports alleged sexual assault.

12:42 Diallo and head of housekeeping Renata Markozani reenter room 2806, the presidential suite.

12:52 Diallo and head of housekeeping Renata Markozani arrive at hotel’s security office on the ground floor.

12:51 BlackBerry GPS circuitry disabled according to the records of the BlackBerry company.

12:54 DSK arrives at McCormick & Schmick’s restaurant on Sixth Avenue

1:03 John Sheehan of Accor Group's security, gets a call from Sofitel and goes to the hotel. On the way dials Accor the parent company of the Sofitel.

1:28 Sheehan, still on the way to the hotel, sent a text message to Brian Yearwood, Hotel chief engineer.

1:30 Sheehan also sends another text msg to unidentified recipient.

1:31 Adrian Branch, hotel security chief, places a 911 call to the police.

1:32 Hotel chief engineer Brian Yearwood and unidentified man do a high-five dance for 3-minutes near the security office.

2:04 Brian Yearwood, unidentified man and hotel manager Florian Schutz arrive at service door leading to 45th Street.

2:05 Police arrive and escort Diallo to a room across from the security office.

2:15 DSK exits restaurant and goes to airport, discovers IMF BlackBerry is missing

2:16 DSK calls daughter Camille and asks her to search for missing phone in restaurant.

2:28 Daughter Camille sends DSK text message saying she couldn't find missing IMF BlackBerry.

2:30 Nafissatou Diallo shown photo of DSK by hotel’s security people.

3:01 DSK approaching airport, phones his missing BlackBerry.

3:29 DSK calls hotel saying he has left his phone behind.

3:38 police take Diallo to St. Luke’s Hospital, where they formally interview her.

3:42 DSK calls back and a hotel employee in the presence of police detective John Mongiello informs DSK that the phone has been found. DSK says he's at JFK airport for a 4:26 flight to Paris.

4:45 DSK removed from plane and taken into custody.

Microphage (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

References