This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New York v. Strauss-Kahn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
We have New York v. Strauss-Kahn. Was this a case brought by the City of New York or the State of New York? The title shouldn't just say New York, given that New York, on its own, can mean the County of New York (Manhattan), New York City or New York State. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The correct name of the case is People v. Strauss-Khan. In New York, all criminal cases are brought in the name of the People. The full name of the case is The People of the State of New York v. Dominique Strauss-Khan. To call a case NY v. XYZ is unheard of and totally not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.43.58 ( talk) 07:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Can someone change the page title to "People v. Strauss-Kahn", "People of the State of New York v. Strauss-Kahn", or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.142 ( talk) 23:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
This recent addition - its of no value at all imo. Its says nothing at all, gives no additional detail to the reader. When we have seen whatever we can add that then. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
It might clear up the confusion if we had a verifiable timeline of the events on the day in question.
Here is a very well-reported new piece from the New York Review of Books that walks the reader moment-by-moment through the day in question. If nobody has time to incorporate new information from this into the article, I may eventually try to do it myself. http://media.nybooks.com/strauss.html Sue Gardner ( talk) 15:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey all,
Has there been previous discussion on this article's title? It strikes me that "New York v. Strauss-Kahn" is terribly non-descriptive. Anyone done any work to see if a common name can be established? NickCT ( talk) 13:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
(These are remarks moved from Light show's (ex Wikiwatcher1) Talk Page):
I see you have reversed a number of my recent edits here. I haven't looked in details at them, but it appears you object to my use of quotations in citations.
I don't know of any Wikipedia policy that discourages their use. Now that fly-by citations have been incorporated in Wikipedia, I should have thought them especially useful.
What is your objection please? Unless I can see a convincing rationale I propose to reintroduce them.
Elissa Rubria Honoria ( talk) 20:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New York v. Strauss-Kahn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
We have New York v. Strauss-Kahn. Was this a case brought by the City of New York or the State of New York? The title shouldn't just say New York, given that New York, on its own, can mean the County of New York (Manhattan), New York City or New York State. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The correct name of the case is People v. Strauss-Khan. In New York, all criminal cases are brought in the name of the People. The full name of the case is The People of the State of New York v. Dominique Strauss-Khan. To call a case NY v. XYZ is unheard of and totally not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.43.58 ( talk) 07:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Can someone change the page title to "People v. Strauss-Kahn", "People of the State of New York v. Strauss-Kahn", or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.142 ( talk) 23:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
This recent addition - its of no value at all imo. Its says nothing at all, gives no additional detail to the reader. When we have seen whatever we can add that then. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
It might clear up the confusion if we had a verifiable timeline of the events on the day in question.
Here is a very well-reported new piece from the New York Review of Books that walks the reader moment-by-moment through the day in question. If nobody has time to incorporate new information from this into the article, I may eventually try to do it myself. http://media.nybooks.com/strauss.html Sue Gardner ( talk) 15:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey all,
Has there been previous discussion on this article's title? It strikes me that "New York v. Strauss-Kahn" is terribly non-descriptive. Anyone done any work to see if a common name can be established? NickCT ( talk) 13:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
(These are remarks moved from Light show's (ex Wikiwatcher1) Talk Page):
I see you have reversed a number of my recent edits here. I haven't looked in details at them, but it appears you object to my use of quotations in citations.
I don't know of any Wikipedia policy that discourages their use. Now that fly-by citations have been incorporated in Wikipedia, I should have thought them especially useful.
What is your objection please? Unless I can see a convincing rationale I propose to reintroduce them.
Elissa Rubria Honoria ( talk) 20:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)