The article is dominated by two schools of thought. One is that the word 'sodomised' absolutely must at all cost be included in the details of the charge http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=429317630 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=429476231
. Wikipedians particularly like the fact that you can link this word to other vile articles.
The other, almost entirely opposed, is that the charges are a complete frame-up and illustrate the penal and excessive nature of the US judicial system http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=429574691
Obviously there is no middle ground of any kind between these two polar opinions.
There is another division between those who want all these important facts in the introduction to the article, and those who don't.
The talk page is entertaining. At least Strauss-Kahn presumably is unable to read any of this right now.This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 17th May 2011, 4:42pm