Talk:Tristane Banon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Translations of titles

Would it be worthwhile for someone who reads French to translate the titles of her books and include them? Totorotroll (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Maybe her allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn should be put on top, since that is what prompted this entry to begin with? 84.189.10.115 (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a thought but she does have a number of books out in her own right now so I wouldn't support it. FightingMac (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Un chimpanzé en rut

Thanks to the editor who corrected my dreadful French! Confess to punching outside my weight there but I was so struck by the remark that I felt it had to be included. I'm sure it will be long remembered. FightingMac (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor reverted the edit because the source cited was just a blog, which indeed was so. I've restored it with a Google archived reference from AFP which was already in the reflist

Dans l'émission de 2007 animée par Thierry Ardisson, Tristane Banon avait déclaré: "Moi c'est (bip) avec qui ça s'est très mal passé, un chimpanzé en rut".

FightingMac (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What in fact would be the best translation of un chimpanzé en rut? On reflection I've entered 'chimpanzee on heat' as the most pleasing English I can think of, but feel free to amend (I do understand 'on heat' is generally applied to the female of the species but there is a certain irony there?). I just think it's a totally classic remark that deserves the very best English equivalent. FightingMac (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

horny chimp ? Hektor (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

:-) but possibly suggests affection? User cecrophia has edited to "in heat" which I defer to. Thanks. FightingMac (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of sourcing, there is no legitimate encyclopedic interest in mentioning this particular comment, and this is not up to the standards set by WP:BLP, see in particular WP:BLPSTYLE; so this should be removed and I've done so. Cenarium (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. It is a notable comment that has been repeated in all French MSM (in itself remarkable given its long tradition of protecting the privacy of figures in public life) and much outside . At first you deleted because you said that the source (a blog as it happened - I just used the references I found in the French BLP) was inadequate. So I supplied an impeccable AFP source archived by Google and now you say regardless of source it should be removed because of WP:BLPSTYLE. Why didn't you say that originally? Of course there is legitimate encyclopaedic interest in repeating the remark because of the current charges Strauss Kahn faces and the prosecutors' public confirmation that they are interesting themselves in Banon's accusation.

I shan't enter into an edit war with you over this. I edit Wikipedia as a service to the community and not to pursue some personal agenda but I do ask you to reconsider. Why didn't you seek to get a consensus here on the talk page first? FightingMac (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(added) I have now created a subsection for the assault allegation (as in the French BLP) and include this quote: "It finished badly … very violently … I kicked him ... When we were fighting, I mentioned the word 'rape' to make him afraid, but it didn't have any effect. I managed to get out." Perhaps you can let me know here if this is in suitable conformity with WP:BLPSTYLE FightingMac (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Most news articles didn't single out this comment in particular, they quoted various statements by Banon; only a few singled it out for sensationalist purposes. There is no justification to single out this quote, it seems just sensationalist, so in breach of WP:BLPSTYLE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone.".

Do you have a reliable source supporting your claim that the prosecutor referred to the Banon case ? I heard some speculation about that but I didn't hear any RS affirming it, only suggesting it (incidentally, Banon's lawyer recently rebuffed the US prosecutor for failing to follow the presumption of innocence). There is no requirement for achieving consensus prior to reverting material deemed in breach of WP:BLP, quite the opposite actually.

I see that you've added another quote and added a section header, here my concern is more one of undue weight. I think a section on this topic which occupies as much place as the biography section is too much, a few sentences in the biography section is largely enough. Cenarium (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's flat out false that most news articles didn't single out the chimpanzee comment. It was repeated in virtually all that I've seen (in various translations if not French) and by no means only by red tops. The UK's The Daily Telegraph is not normally considered sensationalist but [corrected] 16 May 2011 it ran a staff article entitled Dominique Strauss-Kahn 'acted like chimpanzee on heat', woman claims. Chimpanzee banon strauss-kahn currently brings up 36,900 Google hits, chimpanzé banon strauss kahn returns 194,000 hits.

I am speechless with indignation that a Wikipedia administrator patronises me thus.

You deemed the chimpanzee remark was in breach of WP:BLPSTYLE. I'm not convinced. I was simply quoting a remark that is impeccably sourced (you can view a video on YouTube of her making the remark). I quoted it 'dispassionately' I believe. Why do you say it 'seems just sensationalist'? I asked you whether the new quote I offer is WP:BLPSTYLE but you duck and move on (yet again) to undue weight. But there's a section in the French BLP. The English section contains 4 sentences in two paragraphs. The French section contains 10 or more sentences in four paragraphs. I point out that the English article is a stub. As contributors fill it out the article is likely to fall into imbalance here and there. There's plenty of material in the French BLP that can still be added to the Biography section but I read relatively little French letters and don't feel competent.

There were indeed RS affirming that the prosecutors were interesting themselves in the Banon allegation (not just implying it) but I didn't note them and it's clear now that Banon's lawyer wants to distance her from the American process. FightingMac (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I made some additions and corrected the date of The Telegraph chimp reference I gave above further to the version I posted on your talk. I shan't post again to your talk page because I don't want to persecute you.

Further here is a UK Daily Mail article which is dated today How France hid the sleazy truth about the rutting chimpanzee, by blonde who claimed Dominique Strauss-Khan tried to rape her. Once again I invite you to reconsider. FightingMac (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take it personally. I'm just giving arguments. Tabloids like the Daily Mail are not a proper source for BLP sensitive material, see WP:BLPSOURCES and this recent discussion concerning the Daily Mail among others. There is just no encyclopedic interest in adding this quote to Banon's bio. If you want, we can ask third opinion at WP:BLPN. Cenarium (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Still disagree Of course I don't 'take it personally' and don't wish to take it to WP:BLPN. There are plenty of 'good' RS which give the remark prominence, such as The Telegraph I quote, which I wish I had seen at the time of writing. I entirely and flat out disagree that the remark is not encyclopaedic (read 'notable') for reasons above and below. I think it quite likely it will eventually be anathologised in collections of quotations or otherwise be granted similar prominence and I hope you will permit editors to restore it to the article in that eventuality, when it should appear in the lede: "Banon is celebrated for a remark ...etc." As for all that elitist phooey about tabloids like the Daily Mail it leaves me cold. The Daily Mail is part of the cultural tradition of Britain and it's simply absurd to blanket dismiss it as an unreliable source. FightingMac (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I see you say 'for BLP sources' regarding The Daily Mail and there I do have to agree. Apologies. FightingMac (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"rutting chimpanzee" is in The Telegraph. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'm not really clear why 'Cenarium' is so set against the article repeating Tristan Banon's en rut observation but he's quite certainly wrong to aver that it hasn't been taken up by the mainstream media. Of course it has and the history of the remark is very curious as we all know. I think he (I'm only saying he conventionally here of course) misjudges its significance in French popular culture, where a certain kind of gallant gentleman has long been tolerated as un chaud lapin ('a busy rabbit' - amusing), but Banon's spontaneous, somewhat loquacious, even light-headed-on-champagne Un chimpanzé en rut introduces an almost post-modern Kuhnian paradigm shift into French culture in the way it perceives gender relations. And one can quite naturally stretch the analogy ... at first it is ignored ... then resisted ... Of course it's very notable indeed for Tristane Banon to have made this observation and she deserves to have her 10 lines in Wiki (which indeed is what the French give her) for it.

In all seriousness I suggest she has accomplished more with a single giggly schoolgirl remark than any numbers of volumes from her intemperately inconsistent critic M. Bernard-Henri Lévy ever shall.

However I'm not going to get into a slightly absurd edit war about it.

Perhaps when the new paradigm is accepted and normality returns we can reintroduce it :-) FightingMac (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] Interested readers might care to look at this I have posted on Cenarium's talk page which represents my formal notice to the Wikipedia administrators regarding balance documenting Tristane Banon in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case. I shall be curious to see what transpires, that is to say whether Cenarium will seek to protect the interests of Banon there with the same nicety as he does Strauss-Kahn's here. FightingMac (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hair colour

The image originally had a caption about her hair colour on the French site where I picked it up and an IP has quite rightly deleted it with the observation 'who cares about hair colour?' Well some gentleman do but riii..ght, perhaps not the most sensible caption for a person likely to become an icon for anti-sexist sentiment in France :-) .

Incidentally I didn't manage to negotiate correctly all the small print stuff transferring this image and there's a warning correspondingly on my talk page that the image may be taken down. I had no luck editing to rectify. Aid from anyone with expertise who can help appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Interlanguage links

Two editors, Off2riorob and John Nevard have been removing interlanguage links. These links, of necessity, are common in translating wikipedia articles (I should know - I've assisted in translating dozens of them) and their use is set out here of which especially notable is this:

If a red link is not appropriate locally for whatever reason, such as because the subject does not appear to be notable, then linking to the other language page may be useful.

That was the rationale for all the interlanguage links I provided: for example the interlanguage link to Michel Taubmann, Dominique Strauss-Kahn's official biographer, who is unlikely to receive an English BLP, but whose interlanguage link was nevertheless removed by Off2riorob without a corresponding redlink.

In the case of Off2riorob, judging from a message on my talk page, his rationale appears to be that he believes other-languages Wikipedias are not reliable sources, probably thinking of this from WP:RS

Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose

but the issue here is not about providing other-language Wikipedias as sources for content in the article but rather about providing a service for the reader. Content abourt Michel Taubmann was cited with references to the news website Atlantico and the newspaper Le Figaro.

In John Nevard's case, he says, in response to another user's query, that in fact he doesn't know of any direct policy against these links, provoking a sharp response from me here, but suggests that external linking policy discourage them. But that is simply not so. What that means are wikis such as Wikiislam, but not foreign language Wikipedias. The relevant section is this #12 What not to link

Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.

Quite plainly other language wikipedias are not envisaged here.

I ask both editors to restore the interlanguage links they have delated before tomorrow evening, failing which I suppose I will have to spend the time restoring them and when I can assure both editors I will not take kindly to their repeating this behaviour.

I have also restored a more significant edit by John Nevard concerning David Koubbi's and Tristane Banon's position on DSK's ongoing prosecution where he 1 misrepresents the source 2 displays a lamentable ignorance of the issues he takes it upon himself to edit. I do hope I shan't have to open yet another section on that. FightingMac (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now restored, at the expense of some time, the interlanguage links that were removed. I ask editors to take any concerns they may have here. I don't know whether it was either of these editors concerned, but I have to say that the editor replacing 'École supérieure de journalisme de Paris' by 'Paris school of journalism' displayed a comical ignorance of French culture. Sorry to be a WP dick pointing that out but it does speak volumes about the quality of hay-raking that was going on here IMHO. FightingMac (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please stop replacing these inline links to external wikis - french wiki or any other wiki are nothing to do with us and people do not expect to be taken to an external website that is not reliable and in another language when the click on inline links - write the article here at this wikipedia. If you want to add them - add them to the external link section and clearly explain what they are, personally I wouldn't add them at all. If I was as interested as you I would create stubs for these people in the correct location - this wiki. Off2riorob (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of interlanguage links is discussed here Help:Interlanguage_links#Purpose and my links are in line with that policy. Are you saying the French wikipedia is not reliable? Not as reliable as the English one? As you continue to remove these I shall elevate the issue. FightingMac (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

De escalation is preferable - as per my comments below - the three I have presented are of no additional value at all. The practice of interwiki linking like that is perhaps a possibility but is far from normal practice. Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

External links

• - biographical article about Banon's mother - Anne Mansouret (socialist politician) (in French) on the French Wikipedia
• - biographical article about Christophe Dubois. (in French) on the French Wikipedia
• - article about the book Sexus Politicus (in French) on the French Wikipedia

- I note - this article about a french journalist is completely uncited. I have also corrected the external as your link was to a disambiguation page. Again the link to the sexus politicus book article, this link is to a single uncited line about what looks like a not notable book and there is already as much content in this BLP about the book as there currently is on the french wikipedia external link making a link to that of no added value at all to the reader of this article even if they can read french. The BLP about her Mother has only a single independent reliable external diff - In my opinion these three do not even qualify as worthwhile reliable external links that are of a sufficiant quality with supported additional content that benefits the reader of this article in any way.Off2riorob (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't understand 'this article about a french journalist is completely uncited'. The banon article? it has 13 refernces presently. You are so wrong about 'Sexus Politicus'. It a best-selling book at the very heart of current concerns in France about the way the media protects the privacy of wealthy and powerful people. 'Sexus Politicus' Grips France. 94,500 on Google. Why do you involve yourself in matters you plainly know nothing about? The article is just a stub. Et alors?

'In my opinion' .. you are entitled to your opinion I'm sure. I could only wish you were equally repectful of my opinion, and indeed other editors (I didn't add the external link to Ann Mansouret). FightingMac (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Google smoogle, I ignore such returns. A citation as I am referring to is an independent reliable citation as would qualify to support an articles continued existence here. As for editing articles I know nothing about, I do it all the time, I focus on content and policy and guidelines. Articles are all the better for having users contribute that are uninvolved in the topic. As for , the article is just a stub, "Et alors" (and then) - you are answering your own question - and then there is no added value in linking to it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"As for editing articles I know nothing about, I do it all the time, I focus on content and policy and guidelines". Yes well. your focus on content didn't get you right about Sexus Politicus, a best-selling book in France you said wasn't notable. No doubt content will be added to its French article in time. The point is there's not likely to be an English article about it for a while.

You say you focus on guidelines. But you're not here because you're deleting interlanguage links even although you admit there's no policy against them.

As noted on my talk page, will you please now address 1 why you are deleting these links when you agree they are not against policy 2 when they are not being used as RS as was your original concern 3 why my fresh approach at trhe DSK article as recommended by Help:Interlanguage_links#Purpose was immediately reverted by you without explanantion and a 3R edit-warring warning released instead. I will raise all these when I elevate Monday. FightingMac (talk)

I will continue to discuss and present my opinions in regard to policy in specific situations anywhere and with anyone that requests it - as I suggested perhaps you want to request a third opinion or an RFC. As I have laid out here your external have no added value. I know enough to see this external link you are edit warring to keep in this BLP article is of no added value at all http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexus_Politicus - its a foreign language wiki with a single line and no citations. Why your so upset about it I fail to understand - this is the english wikipedia not a link station to the french wikipedia - write yourself some stubs here rather than inline link to poor quality external articles. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Will you pleae address the concerns I raise. I am not upset (are you doing this perhaps because you imagine it is upsetting me?) But I don't see why these interlanguage links should be deleted like this and I will press the issue. Sexus Politicus is a very notable book in France (a best seller). It has yet to be translated into English and is unlikely to receive an English article for some time. It is therefore a useful service to the reader to provide an inter-language link to the French wiki per Help:Interlanguage_links#Purpose. That so far the article is a single sentence stub is quite irrelevant. That could change, and likely will, at any time.

I have to ask you directly: do you propose to address the three issues I raise or not? FightingMac (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I care less about you being upset or not. As for the issues, I have addressed them - this http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexus_Politicus is unworthy of linking especially as you have been doing, you claim it is normal practice and that you have done it often at articles here but you produce nothing to support your claim. I assert it is not normal practice here at all and as I have presented the three links here, they are of no additional value to the reader of this article and fail WP:EL requirements. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please address the issues at Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case#Interlanguage_links which is the talk page of the article you sent your 3R edit-warring notice from. This is to keep the discussion in one place for resolution purposes. With respect you aren't addressing the issues I raise, just repeating your opinions about the quality of various sources which in the case of Sexus Politicus, a best-selling book you say isn't notable, simply isn't valid. You have alreasy said WP:EL is not relevant because what is at issue here is inline linking. I note that you don't care whether you are upsetting me and shall cite that as I elevate. On my talk page I have left a note agreeing to a RFC as the next step in a resolution process. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

[outdent]

I've asked for a Third opinion here since this seems to be a two editor affair. See what comes of that. FightingMac (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion supports me. I've put a note on the DSK page and on the Banon page announcing my intention to restore these links tomorrow evening unless you contest. I would prefer it you restored them yourself. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Just getting things straight

FM, are you arguing that a source in French, and a source which may have once had the same content as the Salon link I added, but is dead so I can't even tell that, are better references than ones that the majority of people reading this article can understand? Nevard (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I owe you an apology regarding interlanguage links. Indeed it's true that you didn't remove any from this article and I apologise for my somewhat heated remarks. It was based on seeing your edits here and then noting on your talk page that you had removed one in another article.

I also accept your point on the talk page about the Banon allegations being over-cited. I had forgotten the issue at the time, which was that the administrator Cenarium had reverted her celebrated 'chimpanzee in heat' remark. He claimed the remark hadn't been picked up reliable sources and so I provided references that did.

Regarding the issue here it seems to me in the first place that you might have taken your concerns to the Talk page. My translation was a good one of that in the French article, which in turn was a verbatim quote of what Banon's lawyer, David Koubbi, actually said.

I don't actually agree that *quoting*, rather than merely referencing, an English language source would be preferrable when there is no issue, as is the case here (all my translations are impeccable :-)) with the quality of translation from the French wiki, but in this case there is a further difficulty in that, in fact, most of the English language sources I have seen do a bad job of the translation and that because fundamentally they misunderstand the dilemma Banon and her lawyer faces. It is not all that they do not 'want' or 'refuse' to help the prosecution (supposing Banon's allegations have foundation then of course she would want to 'help' ...) but that they do not want to involve themselves in an adversarial judicial procedure which the French in general are highly suspicious of, why indeed they have no extradition treaty with the US, and that's stating the case at a bare minimum. Hence the use of the relatively unusual word instrumentalisé (implying 'manipulated').

The one source I did find acceptable was the Associated Press report you mention, which indeed is now dead (but I Waybacked it as I do all my web citations, nevertheless it takes some months for a Wayback archive to be created: what I'll do directly after writing these notes is replace it with a Yahoo mirror). In there one finds the tranlation 'manipulated' as well as this

"It is absolutely out of the question in the Tristane Banon case that a movement on our part could have as consequence the conviction of Dominique Strauss-Kahn in the United States," Koubbi added

which is a slightly mechanical translation of the same passage I translated in the article.

It happens that I have to part company with this article, or at least with this theme in the article, a conflict of interest probably now arising. Over the weekend I propose to restore the interlanguage links that were deleted and do any other minor editing that might need be and then I shall leave it to the tender mercies of other editors (indeed I was never the originating editor here and I certainly didn't mean to claim ownership). I do ask you to consider the above however. Regarding your (I assume it was you) adding Anne Mansouret's remarks, I did consider that myself and then thought not to because administrator Cenarium was grunting undue weight noises off-stage. The only thing I do suggest, and as I have edited, is that scrupulous care is taken with NPOV.

I contributed much of the content in the DSK affair article and I was scrupulously careful not to raise the Banon issue there as I mention in one of my very many remarks in the Talk page of that article (because she has never been directly indicated as a subject of interest by the prosecution).

I only ask that Banon is treated with the same courtesy here and I do ask in particular that editors avoid the suggestion she doesn't 'want' to help the US prosecution. That is not what the original French sources actually say.

I'm sorry I was quite so heated in my remarks to you and do sincerely apologise. I was frankly disconcerted by the interlanguage links business. I've been involved in translating quite a few Wikipedia articles, some of them substantial projects, and hadn't come across that particular issue before. FightingMac (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now done with the editing I propose to do on this page, at least in connection with Banon's DSK allegations. Please don't delete Banon's lawyer's name, David Koubbi. Is that supposed to be an official secret or something? I've also added an "Expand French" template to further address your concerns here. By all means go rake hay while the sun shines but do please note (addressing other editors here) that taking down those interlanguage links again without proper justification will certainly result in my elevating the issue. FightingMac (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And on reflection I've replaced my translation of David Koubbi with that of the AP source addressing your concern and in line with what I understand of WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR as well as the template. FightingMac (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sexus Politicus

According to the article, this is a 2006 book. Yet TB only made public her allegations in 2007. I believe allegations have dogged DSK for several years but I don't know if those allegations have been specific. If the 2006 book did make specific allegations of DSK attempting to rape TB then this should be clarified in the article and put in to context. If the allegations didn't mention TB by name but it referred to a case which appears to be the TB case then how this is known should be mentioned. Did the authors later confirm they were referring to the TB? Are the details similar enough that some people speculate it's referring to the TB case? Are the details so similar including specific about it being an author who interviewed him for example that it's largely undisputed? If it's the later then this would again raise the question whether there was public discussion or knowledge of the TB case before her revelations in 2007. On the other hand, if the 2006 book raised allegations but they are largely non specific and it's not clear it's referring to the TB case then I would question the merits of including it in this article (may belong in other articles like the DSK article), particularly with the suggestion the book discussed the allegations as the article currently says. Whatever, the article needs clarification since it's inherently confusing to suddenly bring up a 2006 book when the rest of the article talks about how the allegations were only made public in 2007. BTW the ref is in French so it's difficult for me to check what it's saying myself. Nil Einne (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nil. Fair points but I think Cenarium, our resident administrator,would quickly cluck undue weight. It's multiple RS sourced that Sexus Politicus references Banon and so, regardless any of your issues above, WP:VERIFY is satisfied

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

(Apologies if teaching granny to roast chestnuts there).

(added subsequently) But I did check the French sources more carefully and indeed (as you suggested) Banon isn't named explicitly although it's accepted that it was she who they were describing with

"La mère de la jeune femme, membre du Parti socialiste, est une amie de Laurent Fabius, alors candidat déclaré, lui aussi. Le premier secrétaire, François Hollande, qui la connait également, préfère soutenir la jeune femme sans l'influencer. Il passe des coups de fil de réconfort. Finalement, l'affaire se règle à l'amiable." ("The mother of the young woman, a member of the Socialist Party, is a friend of Laurent Fabius, then up for election too. The first secretary, François Hollande, who also knows about it, prefers to support the young woman without influencing her. He gives her comforting phone calls. Finally, the matter is settled amicably.")

I've edited accordingly and cited Henry Samuel's 4 July Daily Telegraph piece which explicitly names Sexus Politicus as referring to Banon. Thank you for pointing out the problem there. Really grateful. FightingMac (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding French source that is to be expected, though no doubt English sources will emerge soon enough and I'll provide one when I see one. Have you tried Google translate? It's good enough at least to get a bare comprehension of what is being discussed. I read French quite easily but I confess to using Google translate to begin with to skim what I need, even in my best languages. Anyway here's an off-the-cuff translation of the relevant passgage for you from the Le Figaro source.

You were indeed the first essentially to reveal the Tristan Banon case, the name of the young journalist and writer Dominique Strauss-Kahn allegedly sexually assaulted in 2002. Yet you wrote, "in the corridors of power, everyone knew." How do you explain this silence?

Today everyone seems to have suddenly just noticed that Strauss-Kahn had, in his relationship with women, attitudes that were more properly penal in nature and that his need for sexual conquest likewise not just motivated merely by the heady aphrodisiac lust for power. But in 2002, his political friends, his entourage, knew the problematic relationship that DSK had with women. Indeed, both Laurent Fabius and François Hollande, in turn, made sure this girl, whose mother, a socialist politician, they knew, did not file a claim for attempted rape and saw to it that everything was settled amicably and quietly. But the press also knew and said nothing.

I don't want to go beyond the remit of a talk page but if you find this hard to understand then you should try and read up the sources on the way the privacy of the rich and powerful was protected in France. Banon speaks of a conspiracy of omerta, the Sicilian mafioso word for 'code of silence'. You also need to understand that Banon herself is part of the privileged elite that DSK comes from. She is the goddaughter of DSK's second wife and a best friend of the same daughter DSK was lunching with in New York, visiting in fact to meet her boyfriend, on the day the New York incident blew up. I'm inclined to believe it's something of a similar nature to the paedophile scandals that have lately rocked the Roman Catholic church. Everyone 'knew' there as well.

Of course the extraordinary thing, to our Anglo-Saxon way of thinking, about Sexus Politicus is that it was itself entirely ignored when it was firts published. It didn't get its best-selling status until after the DSK business in New York blew up.

(added) not entirely ignored, it did attract interest, but it certainly didn't achieve its best-selling status until the DSK affair blew up. FightingMac (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I should add of course that when I assert 'everyone knew', I mean everyone knew the allegations, not whether they were true or not, and we must be careful to maintain a NPOV view on that.

Hope this helps. I'll add an English source as soon as I find one. FightingMac (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

POV intro

Librairiefrancaise (talk) added a POV template for the intro (lede) but didn't open a section on the Talk page to explain concerns.

Please address any concerns here. FightingMac (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, FightingMac - Please first accept my apologize for my bad using of the talk feature, I should indeed have opened a section, excuse me again. I was actually wondering if a kind of warning shouldn't be added to this page about Tristane Banon, given the ongoing events and the context where news change all the time. Since she has now decided to engage an action against DSK, may be the presentation of the facts is gonna be very difficult to handle with neutrality. I should have just given this point of view, learning, will do better... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.239.135 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Librarie,

I undertand your concern about neutrailty but I don't think there any POV isues in the article at present. There is a template which warns that ongoing events might change rapidly, don't know what it is, but I don't feel that's needed at present either, nor likely for a while given the magisterial progress of French justice. But by all means add that if you sense it's needed. FightingMac (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, FightingMac - Thank you for your kind answer. I agree with you about the current situation. Thank you anyway because that was a good opportunity for me to learn how talk works ;-) And sorry for the perturbation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Librairiefrancaise (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Librarie. FightingMac (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegation 'Main article' fork

Why was the so-called main article forked without any discussion whatsoever on the Talk page? Why was the almost all of the content of the 'sexual assault allegation' section removed, likewise without discussion? FightingMac (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I decided to be bold, see WP:BEBOLD. Discussion at the article referring to DSK's other assault case was confused, one person argued that RS's were casting doubt on Banon's allegations, which in my view was an argument for forking, not against. If for better or worse an article is forked in this way it's perfectly normal to condense the section in the original aricle. The issue is in danger of unbalancing the article. However there is now a deletion discussion where people can have their say? PatGallacher (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My comment about your use of WP:BEBOLD at the delete page follows

• "Just do it! (with civility, of course!)"

But I don't really think you were civil. Why didn't you discuss on the Talk page first before blanking so much content?. That wasn't very civil. Why did you discuss in DSK (where you got not support) and not Banon? At any rate we're in the 'discuss' phase of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Please don't blank content from Banon again like this (whatever the fortune of your article). Thank you.

FightingMac (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I think Tristane Banon's article should be deleted: I don't see any sign of clear notability for her. The fact that she is accusing Dominique of rape puts her into wp:Oneevent territory. Divide et Impera (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a point of view that was expressed right at the beginning and I do think that was a fair point that might have been arguable up until now. It's true that she's a published author but on the other hand so are about 30 million other French and the other half planning to be :-). But surely events have taken over following the decision to file against DSK. WP:Oneevent observes this

• If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources

and I do think that pretty well covers it now. I point out the article is first and foremost a transltion of the French one. FightingMac (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

New translation?

Hi! This article has been translated from the French Wikipedia. But the content of the French article changed, and some informations are now false. For example : Tristane Banon didn't say she was rapted by DSK some years ago. She said sexual assault. Now, she's alleging rape attemption. And newspapers wrote it was an rape attemption... (see also : Discussion for Tristane Banon (french), then 2.5 "Neutralité de l'article") It also seems she never won awards It's true she's Anne Mansouret's daughter, and her father is Gabriel Banon (Friend of George Pomipidou, not socialist). Her step-family is not socialist. Neither her step-sister Anne-Laure Banon, nor her step-brother Bruno (see fr:Gabriel Banon. Anne-Laure Banon's husband is French deputy Pierre Lellouche, from UMP. My English is not very good, and I can't translate the Franch article into English, but this article need a new translation.--Sorcierbob (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sorcierbob. The section title refers neutrally to 'allegation' without specifying their nature. Actually Banon has always made it clear that she regarded the assault as an attempted rape. In her original chat-show revelation she says she mentioned the word 'rape'. More to the point the sources cited use the words 'attempted rape' and WP:VERIFY holds. It will be up to the investigating magistrate if the incident qualifies as an an attempted rape. Meanwhile the article notes that's what Banon complains of. Details of her mother and father are included in the article, other relatives would seem not to be notable and their political leanings still less so. The article is both a translation and expansion fo the French one. I shall look to see what's changed momentarily but I don't there are any issues with NPOV at the moment. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

addition of tangent content

Addition of he said she said stuff and one lawyer met another lawyer is tangential to this biography of a persons life story. Such additions start to beg the recreation of an article that was already deleted. Please stick to detail about this persons life story - the fact that her mother had sex with someone does not belong here , neither does the fact that her lawyers mets someone else's lawyer - merging the two allegations as if they are connected should not be done in this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, I do agree on the whole. I was just assuming good faith of the original contributor and making a copy-edit of the content. But, yes, I would rather prefer to see 'newsy' stuff kept out. If that proves to be the consensus here I'll be happy to start deleting such material but generally speaking I'm only prepared to delete content unless I'm sure it's BLP contentious. Perhaps I should have been firmer about the Anne Mansouret stuff at least. FightingMac (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries - if content is added here ask yourself - is is specifically about Tristan Banon, is it something she has done that is notable, if the answer is not clearly yes then it does not belong in this BLP- not news about someone involved tangentially about this living person but about this person - her mother claims she had sex with someone - that belongs somewhere else - it has nothing to do with this person. Off2riorob (talk)

Yes, accepted. That sounds sensible. There's a fair bit of stuff coming out right now which I don't really want to see going in and that's a very useful guideline. Thanks. FightingMac (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)