Wikipedia

Talk:David Paterson/Archive 2

< Talk:David Paterson
Latest comment: 15 years ago by 67.163.177.130 in topic Recent info
Archive 1Archive 2

Patterson Had Affair with a State Employee

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At today's press conference, Gov. Patterson acknowledged that he had an affair with a state employee who was not under his supervision at the time. The employee still works for the state and Patterson noted that "we will try to accommodate that employee's wishes." Not a fun day to be that employee!

[1]

Rpatrick955 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Day

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Ok someone changed the fact that he was sworn in on St. Patrick's day to "tradtionally" St. patrick's day. I reverted it because the reasoning stated in the edit summary was that St. Patrick's Day was held on the 14th and 15th because of the religous holiday also this week. This is comlettely untru however the article was reverted back to state "traditionally". It is my opiion that this is incorrect and should read "was sworn in on St. Patrick's Day" not " on what is traditionally St. Patrick's day". does anyone agree??

As I said on your talk page, St. Patrick's Day was moved this year. However, I would suggest just changing it to "March 17", which is probably more encyclopaedic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You would suggest that huh? Funny I jsut said the same thing on your talkpageEMT1871 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Great minds, I suppose. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[out]Seems to me that the fact that it's St. Patrick's Day is really quite irrelevant, traditional or not. Tvoz |talk 05:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The opening line of his inauguration speech dealt with St. Patrick's day, which makes it relevant, and the succession occurred on St. Patrick's day, which makes it encyclopedic. MrPrada (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, doesn't seem too important to me, and the text didn't explain the relevance when I commented here. I don't have strong feelings about it, but the relevance ought to be included if "St Pat's" is mentioned, otherwise it appears to be unnotable trivia. (I missed that line in the speech - although couldn't help but see all the green in the audience...) . Tvoz |talk 07:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tvoz |talk that the St. Pat's day is totally irrelevant, even if Paterson was wearing a green tie. Besides his quote about being Governor of New York, we should summarize what he said in his speech! Yoninah (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Affair

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Paterson discloses extramarital affairs.

Here's a heads up. --Sharkface217 03:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of "I am the governor" quote?

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

There's a large pull quote: "Let me reintroduce myself. I am David Paterson and I am the Governor of New York State!" What's it there for? It has a lot of emotional significance, and may be good-naturedly humorous; it's hard to be sure without watching the speech. But it doesn't seem to further the legit goals of this article by telling you about his possible policies, his biography, or his character.

Perhaps a more politically significant quote, from the same transcript currently cited ([2]):

And so what we are going to do from now on is what we always should have done. We’re going to work together.
With conviction in our brains and compassion in our hearts and love for New York on our sleeves, we will dedicate ourselves to principle but always maintain the ability to listen.

That shows an effort to shift away from Spitzer's confrontational style, which, if he follows up on it, is of some practical importance.

Does anyone want to make a strong argument for keeping the current quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.115.15 (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's out of place. Isaacsf (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I believe the quote should stay, although admittedly I added it. The emphasis was on reintroduce myself. My personal hope is that he ends up as more of a Chester Arthur than a John Tyler, but in any event I think it adds context to the fact that he is has gone from an unknown quantity to a national figure in one week. I think if we can get audio of the quote (I have video, but I do not have a program to seperate the audio) and put it next to the quotation box, it will add further context. MrPrada (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep but only in context. It should be written that he told jokes and humorous lines for half an hour, then interjected this quote, then switched over to a more traditional inauguration speech. Yoninah (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a correction comment: He did not tell "jokes and humorous lines" for half an hour. Listen to the speech again if you must. He did though spend a good amount of time thanking people for coming and general service to NY. And also, the quote "Let me introduce myself: I am David Paterson and I'm the Governor of New York State" was the last thing he uttered of the speech, not in the middle. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

naming of section "Governor of New York"

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I think calling the section "Governorship" is silly, and inconsistant, and atypical English.
Perhaps we should call the other section Lieutenant Governorship? Consider: also

  • Attorney Generalship
  • Supreme Court Judgeship
  • Mayorship

I recommend restoring the section to the title of the position held: "Governor of New York."
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we use "presidency" rather than "President of the United States," along with several other similar designations, including mayoralty (not "mayorship") and "vice presidency." English is a funny language...it's got some strange words. How about "gubernatorial" for a weird one? Nevertheless, "governorship" is the word to describe the term of incumbency in the position of governor. A search for the word in Wikipedia reveals 2122 hits, for what it's worth. (Yes, far fewer than "governor," but context is important.)

Isaacsf (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Yellowdesk - what's the reason for not calling it "Governor of New York"? Tvoz |talk 05:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Although there is no official MoS, nearly all of the other Governors use "Governorship". While that is not a reason to change it to "Governor of New York", I think that is perhaps a phrase better suited for Simple Wikipedia.
According to dictionary.com: gover·nor·ship (gŭv'ər-nər-shĭp') n. 1. The office, term, or jurisdiction of a governor. 2. the duties, term in office, etc., of a governor. Origin: 1635–45; governor + -ship
MrPrada (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the word is incomprehensible, just that it is unnecessarily stilted. Tvoz |talk 07:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Large, unused reference list

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Someone put these here originally to be used to garnish text for the article. I think that there is not much more new information that can be garnered from these, but they may prove useful as additional footnotes for what is already in the text. If they cannot be added in the next week or so, they should be deleted. MrPrada (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to delete, there's no scarcity of electrons or disk space. There's a great deal in these sources that would fill out the bio, not already in the article. There are also two interactive resources, the timeline, and interviews with politicians that have value as external links alone. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"legally" blind?

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I'm curious: Is there also non-legally blindness, or why is there this strange qualifier? I'd gess it would be enough to mention that Paterson is blind and no need to strengthen (?) that point by pointing out that he also fits the legal definition (within the US, I guess) of blindness... 79.199.106.246 (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the phrase belongs. Legal blindness is, if I recall correctly, defined as having less than 20/200 eye-sight. Patterson has some, but very limited vision in one eye, therefor if you wanted to get specific he couldn't be concerned blind in the absolute technical sense as he has SOME vision, but it is so limited that it would be silly to consider him sighted just because he isn't TOTALLY blind, so we have the term "legally blind" to include those that have a small, but insignificant amount of sight, as well as those that are totally blind in the technical sense. 76.121.222.69 (talk)

What makes him legally blind? Is it possible to be illegally blind?--92.43.66.5 (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a (&^%^*^$R*^ encyclopedia. Use It. 76.17.251.13 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

From a medical dictionary, http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10614
Legal blindness: The criteria used to determine eligibility for government disability benefits and which do not necessarily indicate a person's ability to function.
In the US, the criteria for legal blindness are:
Visual acuity of 20/200 or worse in the better eye with corrective lenses (20/200 means that a person at 20 feet from an eye chart can see what a person with normal vision can see at 200 feet);
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well from the optic atrophy from the injection in his childhood days, his left eye is totally blind I believe, and in that right eye that he can see from, he has somewhere around or less 20/400. He still does what he needs to do on a daily basis though.
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Paterson Executive Chamber

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The start of term dates of some of the public officials listed in the "The Paterson Executive Chamber" box in the "Governorship" section of the main article are wrong. Many of them, such as New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, began their terms at the start of the Spitzer Administration in January 2007. This section should be edited to reflect the dates that these various state officials assumed their positions, not the date that David Paterson became governor! 68.174.27.152 (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just how the templates are used on Wikipedia. I would agree that it makes sense to use the actual date they start, but from the perspective we tend to use it is when the Chief officeholder took over (see John Tyler, Chester Arthur, Millard Fillmore, etc.) MrPrada (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


I can't make a modification to the infobox of the Paterson Executive Chamber. It says the Lieutenant Governorship is vacant. But Senator Joseph Bruno as Temporary Senate President is also now Acting Lieutenant Governor. I'd like to indicate that in the box that Senator Bruno is Lieutenant Governor (Acting). ESCStudent774441 (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

When I created the template I listed Bruno as acting lieutenant Governor, User:Roehl Sybing blanked it so you may wish to ask him why before returning it. MrPrada (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

30th not 29th district

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there a ref for this change? It looks like maybe he was elected to the 29th and possibly through redistricting, it became the 30th. The categories at the bottom of the page have him starting in the 29th and moving to the 30th. Possibly a result of the 2000 census? Isaacsf (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes the references cite the two different numbers. Check them out. (Or at least both districts were cited in the references I put in on Saturday or Sunday, before all the hubbub on inauguration day.-- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I had already checked them out, and I understand there are two different numbers cited - that's the point of my comment. We are listing, in this article, that he represented the 29th district from 1986-2003, and the 30th from 2003-2007. My question is this: a change was made to the section titled "Political Career" to say that he was elected to the 30th district in 1986, which I don't think is the case. Isaacsf (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

discrepancy about being the first legally blind us governor

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

at the top of the article it state "He is the first African American governor of New York, and the first legally blind governor in the United States."

but later in the article, it states "He is the second legally blind governor of any U.S. state (Bob C. Riley served as Governor of Arkansas for 11 days in 1975).[43]"

the first statement cannot be true if the 2nd statement is true. 12.22.132.5 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Jon 18 mar 08

You are correct; he is not the first blind governor. It seems some editors are not familiar WP:OR and WP:VER...I've made the correction. Isaacsf (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What confuses this issue is he is New York's first blind governor, as well as New York's first African-American governor. They're local milestones, not national ones, but they are commonly touted in articles about him and I suppose it's easy to get confused. Rob T Firefly (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
According to Arkansas - Riley (and Joe Purcell) was never Governor, just Lieutenant Governor peforming gubernatorial duties as 'Acting Governor'. If Riley (and Purcell) were Governors? Mike Beebe would be Arkansas 47th Governor. So which is? Governor or not? GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a good question. Someone should answer it. Please ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The New York Times wrote a correction on March 19 to note that Bob Riley was the first blind governor rather than David Paterson. That was what prompted me to include this information within the article. Seleucus (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Riley's picture hangs in the capital, he was an actual governor. http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2008/03/ark_claims_first_blind_governo.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by James1906 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Day one as governor?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I assume no one planning on going on like this, with headings for "Day two as governor", "Day three..." ad nauseam. I guess there's no reason not to wait until more information on his term develops before trimming the fat off such entries, but let's face, it, it's going to happen eventually. In the mean time, maybe people could hesitate to add stuff that we know is just going to be removed later as it is crushed by the weight of history? -R. fiend (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Who knows? Maybe tomorrow he'll resign because of all those affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.42.120 (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The significance of "Day one as governor", at least when I named the heading, was that he was faced with the budget, held the press conference, gave the speech, dealt with the transition, gave an interview with his wife, and still managed to sign five pieces of legislation. It might not be WP:Brilliant Prose but I still think its a significant first day. MrPrada (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

First blind Governor in the USA

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Actually, according to List of Governors of Arkansas - Lieutenant Governor Bob C. Riley was never Governor of Arkansas. But merely the Lt Gov performing the powers & duties (of Governor) as Acting Governor. Therefore, Governor Paterson is indeed the first legally blind Governor in USA history. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a primary resource. However, it does seem that he was not actually sworn in as governor (see [3]). Having said all that, Wikipedia is not intended to report such original research (see WP:OR) and if the folks who are publishing articles on the subject can't agree on it, we don't need to be expressing an opinion on the matter at all. Isaacsf (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The Riley source is unreliable & so both should be removed from this article. Accordingly, Paterson is the 'first' legally blind Governor in USA history. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
There's really very little point in us discussing this...the point is whether or not the assertion meets WP:VER and WP:OR standards or not. If you can find refs that meet that standard, I say we should put it in. (What I've seen so far is that reporters are more interested in "saying" he is first than actually finding out if it is true.) Isaacsf (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
IF Riley & Joe Purcell were Governors of Arkansas (IMHO, they were). Then Mike Beebe should be the 47th Governor, not the 45th. We've some serious inaccuracy problems here. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How about if we just remove the ref to "first" or "second" entirely? Or, as an alternative, something like "It has been variously reported that he is either the first or second legally blind governor of any state in the U.S. Opinion differs as to whether Bob C. Riley's term as acting governor makes him officially first or not." - with references that state it both ways? Isaacsf (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's acceptable, as Arkansas itself seems unclear as to wheither Riley & Purcell were Governors or not. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the State of Arkansas official websites all indicate that Beebe is the 45th governor and that Riley is not officially considered in the line of succession. This would technically make Paterson the first blind governor.

I think the state's official websites qualify as verifiable sources. --Smokytopaz (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

They may be official, verifiable sources, but our bar here is WP:VER and WP:OR. What matters here is not whether or not he is the first anything. Rather, the important thing is what is verifiable. Is Arkansas claiming that Paterson is the first / second / or any numbered blind governor of NY? All Arkansas is claiming is its own governors; even if they say Riley wasn't governor, that is not a verifiable source that Paterson is first, and that is what we need in order to put it in this article.
We should not be editing for the sake of editing. If we find a reliable source that settles the discussion once and for all, we can change then. Otherwise, I move for some version of the text I entered above (starting with "It has been variously reported..."). Isaacsf (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
There's another option. If we can't determine Riley's status (Governor or Acting Governor), then for now, we should omit xxx blind Governor in the USA. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Isaacsf (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has stated plainly in its error and clarification box, "Getting it straight", on Saturday, March 15, 2008, page 2A (Little Rock area editions; northwest editions may vary), that the legally blind Riley was governor of Arkansas for 11 days in 1975, and thus was the nation's first legally blind governor. The editorial statement is in response to an Associated Press wire brief which published the day before, referring to Paterson's potential claim to the distinction as the first blind governor. If there should be additional printed or web references to aid in the search for verifiable sources, I will add them as I see them, and welcome others to do the same. — ArkansasTraveler (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the American Foundation for the Blind had similarly added to the claim of Paterson as the first legally blind governor of any U.S. state in this press release, but also issued a correction of the release indicating its position that Riley was the first legally blind person to serve as governor of a U.S. state. While this statement was also referred to in a New York Times blog, I thought the link direct from the organization would be helpful. — ArkansasTraveler (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This means then, Riley & Purcell were Governors of Arkansas (not just Acting Governors). As a result? Mike Beebe should be the 47th Governor of Arkansas. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually to be exact he's Caribbean-American...

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Article: New NY Govenor is son of Caribbean nationals Date: Wednesday, 12 March 2008 Source: www.cbc.bb - Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)

Link: http://www.cbc.bb/index.pl/article?id=193759

The son of two Caribbean nationals is posed to become the new governor of New York following Wednesday's resignation of Governor Eliot Spitzer.

[ . . . ]

-- Article: Paterson claims Caribbean roots Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2008 Source: www.NationNews.com - Nation Newspaper (Barbados)

Link: http://www.nationnews.com/story/306535835764488.php

[SNIP] THERE WAS no better setting to declare one's Caribbean roots.

With at least two million, including thousands of Bajans waiting to jump up to pulsating West Indian music along Brooklyn's Eastern Parkway, David Alexander Paterson proclaimed his heritage.

[ . . .]

That was back in September.

Paterson is the grandchild of Jamaicans and Grenadians.

Born in Brooklyn, Paterson, 53, tapped into the mood when he told the large crowd "this is a day for everyone, everybody is Caribbean."

[ . . . ]

CaribDigita (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


"Paterson was born in Brooklyn to his parents" - who else would he be born too? 203.3.197.249 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


So know Caribbean-American is a race?Of course he is black you can see this.This is the actual problem of usa ,people confuse race with local origin.Augusto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.99.243 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

"Dinkins" is not a singular noun, but rather a name. Unfortunately, the article for Dinkins has 4 without the trailing "s" and two with it - hardly a decisive margin. A google search on "Dinkins'" vs "Dinkins's" is clearer, with the former far exceeding the latter.

I vote for Dinkins' without the trailing s, as it is more like the spoken way. Would we really say what sounds like "Dinkinses?" That, coupled with the preponderance of google hits, seems to point toward no trailing s.

Thoughts? Isaacsf (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Paterson, an assistant district attorney in Queens for two years, resigned this year to work in City Clerk David N. Dinkins's successful campaign for the Democratic nomination for Manhattan borough president.

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
How about this one from the Washington Post: "Luv Guv Quits, Film at 11". Retrieved 2008-03-19.

As a native who covered David Dinkins' election as the city's first black mayor, I wasn't expecting to see an African American governor here for a long time.

Or this one from the NY Law Journal: "Free: Spitzer Announces Resignation New Governor Has Little Room To Maneuver". Retrieved 2008-03-19.

David Paterson once worked on Mr. Dinkins' campaign for Manhattan borough president in the mid-1980s.

Isaacsf (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • We'll probably have to agree to disagree.
    Bob Jones's car, Bill Jenkins's shoe, Melissa Weiss's glasses. The apostrophe signifies a sigular individual's possession. Then there's the distinguishing case: The Joneses' car, The Jenkins' (plural family members) shoes, The Weisses' lovely garden.
    This is what the real difference involved with the single apostrophe without "s" distinguishes between. For the Dinkins family, it would be Mr. Dinkins's shoes, and the plural (father and mother) Dinkins' children.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right, we'll have to agree to disagree. I would never write either "Bob Jones's car" OR "the Joneses' car." I think those constructs are awkward. I would write them as "Bob Jones' car" and "the Jones' car." ("Bob" and "the" indicate singular and plural here, not the addition of extra syllables.)
I also thought "Governorship" was both proper and consistent with other articles in WP...and that went over like a lead balloon. Ditto leaving out a reference to whether Paterson is the first or second (or tenth) legally blind governor of NY, Arkansas, or Mars... :-)
Be bold. I'm leaving it alone, and nobody else seems to care. (While you're at it, can you clean up David Dinkins so the article is internally consistent?)
Peace! Isaacsf (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming of "Extramarital affairs" section

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I think that "Bear Mountain compact" might be a better section-heading then extramarital affairs. It sounds more NPOV to me, but I'd like to hear what others think before changing it. MrPrada (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally like that the media and everyone jumps on this story like any other story as a velociraptor on fresh meat, looking for anything bad they can find to say on the man as soon as he starts his term. But I guess it doesn't really matter here what I personally think (WP:NPOV). Anyway, I don't even know what Bear Mountain compact is, and even if I did, or rather... I've never even heard this term. He and his wife, unfortunately for them, did have extramarital affairs that they have since resolved between themselves.
I assume the NPOV you are talking about is the word "affair." I can't really think of any interchangeable word for reasonable cause of change. He felt the need to announce it to the public; that's his decision. So Wikipedia editors, I guess, deemed it notable enough (WP:Notability) to include in the article this announcement and story. I do think, however, that as his term progresses, editors should spend much less time and space writing about any and all details of this specific story, or it may seem (and perhaps would be) as just an attempt to undermine or defame him as some scandalous-prone and unfaithful governor (WP:Libel)
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm kind of wondering if maybe this type of information would actually be better suited in the personal details section; it's not really a political issue that's related to his Governorship, is it? I don't work on politician articles much, so I don't know what's commonly done. -/- Warren 06:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Normally I would agree with you, but it seems as though stories are being published that he used state/campaign funds, which affects his governship, so it should stay there for now. Plus, having it up top just seems unbalanced to me. It definitely belongs in the article, don't get me wrong, per WP:N. MrPrada (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
A fair point. On a related subject -- what if we changed the title of "Family and education" to simply, "Biography"? Then we could move the civil disobedience text into that section. We could also open a new section on "Policital positions" so that things like his positions stem cell research, the rights of blind people, and whatever else comes out in the months and years ahead, will have a better home than being shuffled into other sections in a vaguely chronological order. (I'm looking at the Michael Bloomberg as a guide here). Thoughts? -/- Warren 18:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with redoing the "Family and education" section. As it stands now, "Personal" does not seem to be a sufficient heading for the text. I'm not sure if I agree with creating an entire "Political Positions" section, I prefer the chronological layout used in Eliot Spitzer, Mario Cuomo and George Pataki, seems to be the standard for Governors of New York. However, a seperate article on his views (like Political positions of Barack Obama) would be appropriate, as it stands now this bio is approaching the 50k threshold. Family, education and background may also need to be rolled into daughter articles such as Early life of David Paterson, etc. If you would like to take a stab at this (as I did when I chopped up the Spitzer article), by all means, be bold. MrPrada (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

His religion is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.58.34 (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, not everyone is affiliated with a certain religion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New daughter articles

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I chopped up a lot of the opinion, minor incidents, potentially POV items, superfluous background info, biographies of relatives etc., into daughter articles, per the work on Eliot Spitzer. This leaves the article at 30k, which should provide ample room to add info about his role as Governor. MrPrada (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Electoral history of David Paterson

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I added the merge tags, I think this article would benefit from the other article's information, and that the existence of the other article by itself is superfluous. Jacotto (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep (no merge), the guy was in the state leg. for 20 years, elected every two years, there's room to grow in the new daughter article Electoral history of David Paterson. And this main article will certainly grow greatly now that he has almost 3 years as governor coming up. - Colfer2 (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep (no merge). I would have to agree, I think the electoral history sections really clutter some of the political biographies, there is precedent with major figures for having it in a daughter article. MrPrada (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I'll remove the tags. Jacotto (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hempstead

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Copy of post at User talk:MrPrada#Hempstead (Paterson):

Hempstead (village), New York is not the same as Town of Hempstead, New York. The former is within the latter; the intros to both articles explain the difference. The "town" of Hempstead in this case functions much like a county would most other places in the country.
The school systems in that area are not county-wide or even town-wide. They are typically individual, relatively small fiefdoms. I grew up in the town, but not village, of Hempstead; my school system had 7 schools: 1 high school, 2 middle, and 4 elementary. Over 20 years later, it is the same.
I have issues with both of those articles in terms of factual accuracy, but the basic geopolitical framework they lay out is correct. The idea that Paterson might be the first disabled student in Hempstead schools is not so far-fetched. I'm not saying it is true, and I'm not saying it isn't...and I saw your note that the cite didn't support it, so it is appropriate to at least ask for a reference. I just thought I'd provide a little background info on why it might actually be true. (Haven't checked for cites, but someone did provide more info, I think.)
Regards -
Isaacsf (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Copied here by - Colfer2 (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So which is it, town or village? -Colfer2 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The schools are in the Village of Hempstead, the smaller unit. Here's its site, but there's very little about the schools. There is enough to confirm there's only one high school in the Village of Hempstead. They do claim to be the largest village in NY, with 60,000 people, for whatever that is worth. Isaacsf (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Regular google is not promising, only reprints of this wikipedia article[6], and the news archive does not find anything to support it either[7]. However I was able to find one recent story from Christian Science Monitor (reprinted in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle) which supports the claim[8], but I'm not sure if the author got their information from Wikipedia as it is uncited. Perhaps someone could place a call into the school? I know it would violate WP:OR, but we could cite it using the Christian science monitor article and and know its accurate by verifying it ourselves. MrPrada (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
On a separate issue, I think we should mention integration in the early life section and expand on it in detail in the early life article. MrPrada (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
My own feeling is that Wikipedia is about accuracy and verifiability rather than about quantity and immediacy. My vote is to remove it if we don't have a cite. I thought one of the refs did say it, but by now...I can't remember. I'll try to check them again later. Isaacsf (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bullet list versus sub-section headings

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

There seems to be a disagreement over formatting of the sub-sections in the Lieutenant Governor of New York section of the article, which contains three sub-sections. Recent edits have posited two possibilities for heading the subsections: bullet list and level 4 (i.e. ====) headings. In an attempt to avoid an edit war, I suggest we resolve this through discussion.

It has been suggested that Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists asserts that a bullet list is preferred. I would like to disagree with that assertion, using the criteria in that section:

  • "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." The article information is already in paragraph form, and reads easily. A bullet is not needed.
  • "All elements in a list should use the same grammatical form and should be consistently either complete sentences or sentence fragments." The three subsections in the list are very different. The first contains one paragraph; the second, two paragraphs; the third, one paragraph.

The bullet list also causes a format irregularity with indentation. If the list is kept, then each paragraph should be similarly indented to the same level as the bullet using the ":" character.

It has also been suggested that these three subsections clutter the ToC. The ToC already has two sub-sections at the same level in the following Governorship section. And the ToC is considered small if compared to several other articles. Further, since the Personal revelations sub-section is the exact same size as two of the bulleted sections, shouldn't it then be a bullet too? And don't those two sub-sections also clutter the ToC?

In the interest of consistency, readability and understanding, I propose that these three bullet sections be changed to level 4 subsections. Comments are appreciated. I will check back in a couple of days, see what the consensus is, and take appropriate action (if needed). Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the WP:MOS supports subheadings for this instead of bullets. It's too bad because the subheading levels below 3 all look the same. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
My assertion of WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists deals more with the existing prose of the Lieutenant Governor of New York section. The text that exists covers three very small portions of Paterson's work as Lieutenant Governor. My concern was that by displaying them in the TOC, it would provide undue weight, making it seem as though voting rights, stem cell research, and the bias lawsuit were somehow major incidents.
If we listed every political position of Paterson, it would clutter the ToC, because he has a long legislative career and has worked hard on certain issues at different times. I believe this would make the ToC confusing if they were listed throughout the chronological subsections. I believe that the first two belong in the Lt. Governor section belong in their a subsection, "political positions", which really should eventually end up in their own article (Political positions of Barack Obama). Of course there isn't enough there to warrant a split at this time.
A new reader might come to the article, see them in the ToC, and assume that these are hallmark issues for Paterson, or that the lawsuit was a defining incident, which is why I believe WP:Article structure would call for a list over subsections at this time. Of course if the consensus is for subheadings, we should go that route. MrPrada (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm also going to have to agree with the list format; having looked over several revisions of the article, the version that seemed most clear to me on the content in question was the 'bullet' format. Jacotto (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Since it's basically even right now, would anyone object to WP:3O? Unless I hear otherwise, I'll put a query up tomorrow. MrPrada (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

From 3O: I just made a bold edit to the page demonstrating another option for presenting the information. If I'm understanding this discussion correctly, there is a concern about cluttering the table of contents, and also a concern about the inappropriate use of bullets. I believe this shows a compromise that may be acceptable. If not, please revert it. Here's the diff. —BradV 21:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

First [fill-in-the-blank]

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I removed a reference to first Caribbean-American because:

  • It was not cited (at least not directly)
  • He was born in Brooklyn
  • Wikipedia is not a trivia list
  • Enough is enough! We went back and forth for quite a while on whether he was the first or second blind governor in the nation, when in point of fact it really is meaningless. The fact we know, and which can be accurately cited, is that he's blind. That's enough, if it's noteworthy at all. Another fact we know is that he was born in Brooklyn. That one or both of his parents was born elsewhere doesn't make him Caribbean-American, and besides, it doesn't matter.

Where do such superlatives stop? Are we going to list him as the first governor of NY born in 1954? Are we going to find out how many governors are the same height as he is, and how many are taller or shorter? His shoe size? Let's be reasonable, and have cites for information that's added. And - just because you read it somewhere else doesn't mean it has to be in Wikipedia too.

Isaacsf (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC) (see WP:NOT)

Well said. Truthanado (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion may be right, but it is an opinion. The 'superlatives' are notable, since they are widely noted. 'Wikipedia is not a depiction of life as it should be, but as it is.' Has anybody stated that as a policy? :) That said, refs showing whether he & his family consider themselves Caribbean- or African-American would be good, and notable vis-a-vis the West Indian parade etc. I guess. I don't know how that Caribbean cat works. What are the criteria? As for Grenadian- and Jamaican-, the press shows it is a big deal in those countries, or at least in Grenada, not sure if that matters. -Colfer2 (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean-American

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

It is insulting to ridicule recognition of his ethnicity as trivia. People that are American-born are still recognized by their ethnicity, viz.:

The Caribbean-American community is a distinct community, as distinct from African-American community. There are these markers:

  • residential concentration in specific neighborhoods of Brooklyn, southern Queens and certain towns of Nassau County.
  • concentration in specific schools
  • intermarriage within the West Indian community
  • maintenance of specific cuisine in restaurants and food stores in said residential concentration neighborhoods.
  • concentration in certain Christian denominations associated with the British West Indian archipelago:
    • Roman Catholicism, a denomination that generally has a more diminished presence in the general African-American community
    • Anglicanism/ Episcopalianism (as distinct from the African-Methodist-Episcopal church of the broader African-American community) Dogru144 (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


'Ridicule' is a strong word. That being a Caribbean-American is a distinction is not in question. Far more important is whether (and, if so, where) it belongs in a Wikipedia article. The questions that apply here are:
  • Does Paterson identify himself that way? Some of the people on the list above consider themselves as members of those ethnic groups and that they are part of what makes them who they are, such as Dukakis and Ferraro. Is that the case with Paterson?
  • Is it something that has been cited reliably, or just blogged somewhere?
  • Is it appropriate for an encyclopedia?
It is important to note that if people from various countries in the Caribbean are excited about having a son of someone native to their country rise to a position of prominence in the US, then it is notable on the page associated with that country (and even then, only if it meets WP:VER). That doesn't make it notable on Paterson's page.
I don't see the fact that he is the first African-American governor of NY as worthy of inclusion in the lead-in either. He does not appear to consider his ethnicity (whether skin color or countries where his parents were born) as defining parts of his career and notability. It does appear, however, that he considers his achievements as a legally-blind person are notable, and that his identification with others in a similar situation is something that is important to him.
However, even though I don't see his skin color as so important, news media seem to think so, and consensus here seems to be in favor of it as well. I'm not sure consensus is on the side of noting that he's Caribbean-American, and then there's the whole bit I raised above about how tall he is, what year he was born...these superlatives really don't add to the article.
Having said all that, I'm not claiming there's no place in the article for noting his Caribbean roots. I most certainly think it doesn't belong in the lead-in, as it is not among the things he is notable for. That is not ridiculing it by any means. Isaacsf (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I really have no opinion as to whether it merits inclusion or not, I would tend to err on the side that this is trivia. However, per the New York Times:

As a result they are emerging as a distinct political group within the larger African-American political spectrum, and politicians, including some West Indians, are courting their votes, with many expected to show up at today's West Indian-American Day Parade in Brooklyn. Political Awareness

"Empowerment of the West Indian in New York is the wave of the future," said David A. Paterson, a State Senator from Harlem who is a candidate for Public Advocate. "It's a community that is now in the initial stage of political awareness."

So far, that consciousness has been manifested in the election of Mr. Paterson, who is of Grenadian and Jamaican ancestry, to the State Senate in 1985, and the elections of Jamaican-born Una Clarke, to the City Council in 1991 and Nick Perry, also of Jamaican ancestry, to the State Assembly in 1992. It is also evident in this year's City Council race in the 45th District in Flatbush, Brooklyn, with two of the three candidates, Lloyd Henry and Colin Moore, tracing their ancestry to the West Indies.

MrPrada (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
So, if a politician says they favor women's rights, does that make them a woman? Does it mean that they consider women's rights as a defining characteristic of their life, or even of their political career? For the NYT to quote Paterson doing what - by all accounts - he does very well (which is to include all persons in the political process) is not the same as saying he considers himself a West Indian (or anything else). Isaacsf (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I tend to agree with you, which is why I support bullets over subheadings above—however if you go on to read the rest of the article it does make a compelling statement about West Indian heritage and awareness. MrPrada (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If "the Caribbean-American community is a distinct community, as distinct from African-American community" as noted above, then why is he tagged as being both Caribbean-American and African-American? I prefer not to categorize a person with any ethnic label unless there are verifiable sources that the individual uses the category himself. Why not just call him Governor Paterson and ignore ethnicity. From what I have heard in his recent speeches, he might prefer it that way. Truthanado (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
He can be from both, i.e. mother/father. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I listed this discussion at WP:3O. MrPrada (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

As per reliable sources, notability, and the subject himself, it is appropriate that Patterson is linked in the African American governors, Caribbean-Americans, Grenadian-Americans and Jamaican American politicians categories. From a neutral point of view, there is nothing inherently trivial about any of them. — Athaenara ✉ 14:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: obviously, my observation is specifically about the categories. Is there still a dispute about whether the article gives undue weight to any ethnic or cultural factors? — Athaenara ✉ 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the question. There have been several edits and reverts about whether or not he is the first Caribbean-American governor, and whether or not it belongs in the lead-in. (My own opinion is that it does not.) I agree it could be mentioned in the text, but not the lead-in, and I also agree that inclusion in the categories is appropriate. Isaacsf (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No harm is done whether it is in the introduction, in later paragraphs, or in both. It's good not to edit war about such things :-) — Athaenara ✉ 19:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Inaugural quote

Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

This quote has been removed (and reverted) at least twice. Let's develop some consensus on whether it belongs or not.

It seems to me that if that's how he chose to open his governorship, and in the absence of anything more to say at the moment, it's a reasonable quote to include. While I agree it's probably not much to hang a legacy on, he's only been in office for two weeks, so, it seems ok for now. Isaacsf (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks kind of ridculous. A quote by him isn't required in his Wikipedia article. Let's be a patient with his legacy, it doens't have to be done right away. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The quote was the most memorable part of the speech. I think it should stay, if we can find a sound clip. MrPrada (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on being patient with his legacy. But it is properly cited and another editor took the time to do so. Even though I agree it isn't a "legacy" type of quote, is that a reason to take it out? Isaacsf (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep would be my vote. But we should rewrite the "First Day" section to explain that Spitzer's resignation was sudden, and Paterson took over after a tumultuous six (or whatever) days of uncertainty at the top of state gov't, in the midst of a leg. session, state budget crisis (or whatever). I think the quote is fine, but the list of attendees is way too long, if needed at all. Mayor of Buffalo? How about Yonkers & Rochester? -Colfer2 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...mayors of Yonkers and Rochester...were they there? ;-) Isaacsf (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Not only was the Democratic mayor of Rochester, Robert Duffy, there, the Republican Monroe County Executive, Maggie Brooks, was also there; Rochester is in Monroe County. I don't think that's worth mentioning, nor is the laundry list of attendees worth mentioning. I wouldn't object to anyone cleaning that up. Truthanado (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently you couldn't tell I had my tongue firmly planted in my cheek with that question. :-) Isaacsf (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Buffalo is a major city, almost as big as St. Louis or Cincinatti, which is the reason I threw him in there. Plus, he is one of Paterson's closest friends/allies. MrPrada (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, the quote looks truly ridiculous. After becoming governor, he announces that he is now the governor. No useful information is shared in the quote, and including it makes it appear as if we, the editors, are laughing along with a sort of lame, and actually not even memorable, joke. A lot of people read these pages, so let's not immortalize this as anything even remotely close to an important utterance. Adlerschloß (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I found the quote to be forceful, powerful, and profoundly historic. I still believe it would be augmented by the audio. MrPrada (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain that line of thinking? I can't relate to this viewpoint at all. Or is my sarcasm detector just not working today? Adlerschloß (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean when you say sarcasm detector. In any case, I think it was a historic moment for Paterson to redefine himself. He also self-references it quite a bit. Just today:
Mr. Burkhardt: “So what’s been your biggest surprise so far as governor?”
Mr. Paterson: “The biggest surprise is that I am governor!”[9]
I think if you saw the original speech, you'd agree it was a powerful moment. MrPrada (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Executive Chamber of David Paterson

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I built a daughter article similar to Executive Chamber of Eliot Spitzer, my reasoning for leaving the secretaries etc. blank is described on the talk page. Also, a [recent communique from the Governor's office does not list any staff or contact information for those positions. I've also begun work on staff bios (Charles O'Byrne, Jon R. Cohen, James Yates) if anyone would like to collaborate, there is more then enough work to go around. MrPrada (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Further reasoning for keeping most of the vacancies as TBD at [10]. "Several top officials in the Spitzer administration, some of whom were connected to political scandals that crippled the governor’s agenda, are calling it quits, an official familiar with the internal moves said Wednesday. William Howard, Spitzer’s former public security adviser who was accused of helping orchestrate a plot to discredit Senate Republican leader Joseph Bruno, has announced his resignation. The other officials include: Lloyd Constantine, senior adviser; Rich Baum, the high-level adviser job titled secretary to the governor; Marlene Turner, Spitzer’s chief of staff; Peter Pope, policy adviser; Marty Mack, director of intergovernmental affairs; counsel David Nocenti; and Christine Anderson, Spitzer’s press secretary." MrPrada (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct. WP:NOT#NEWS, but Wikinews is. — Athaenara ✉ 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New lead photo by Shankbone

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

There are five photos to choose from at Commons:Category:David Paterson. --David Shankbone 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The one on the article now is the best, I think. Nicely done. Ford MF (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Isaacsf (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the original one from the outdoor speech, which is now used further down the page. But I guess the new one is slightly more current. Of the new batch, the one without the Amex logo, #5, would be my preference. -Colfer2 (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent info

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone think recent health news should be added to this article? I find it particularly fascinating, but perhaps it is not an important? --Davemarshall04 (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to add a reference to Paterson's already-famous phrase, "Miracle on the Hudson." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.177.130 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I was wondering if it would be appropriate for someone to add an external link to the ZotFish page for David Paterson?. I believe it's of genuine interest to readers, but I want to make sure I follow Wikipedia policy and not post it myself -- more info on the site can be found at Mashable. - Zotman (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not seeing it myself. Rebecca (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The site violates WP:ELNO, and does not enhance the article. It should not be added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

First time two black governors serving concurrently?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As a result of his ascension to governorship, two black governors are serving concurrently for the first time in more than 100 years.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make it the first time in history two African-American US governors are serving concurrently? I can't really see that happening back in 1900. Bradkoch2007 (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the associated Wiki entry, Deval Patrick's, it is the first time in history. According to CNN[1], there have only been four black governors in history. So I'd say the entry you cited is incorrect. Unfortunately, I can't find any article that says it's the first time we've had two black governors at the same time, so that would be "original research". Of course, I could make the argument that so was the original statement. JeffHCross (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The entire thing was completely off topic; I removed it. This isn't an article about Deval Patrick. Skoojal (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean-American and other genealogical matters

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As shown above on this page, the uniqueness of Paterson's Caribbean heritage has long and appropriately been in this article - in the introduction and reflected in the categories. Consensus was that it should be included - it is notable and there's no reason for the edit that removed it twice from the intro claiming that his heritage is covered elsewhere. In fact, information is frequently covered in intro as well as in the body of articles, so that argument doesn't even make sense. Also, I don't see the need for the separate section on his genealogical genetics - I incorporated that information into the early life/background section, but am not convinced that it's notable enough for inclusion, and I'd like some other opinions on that. But the fact that he is the first Caribbean-American governor certainly should remain. Tvoz/talk 23:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Capital punishment

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

John Doe 1346 added: "If he becomes the democrat nominee on 2010, David Paterson would be criticized on its opposition to the capital punishmnet by the republican nominee following the example of Tim Kaine and of Michael Dukakis. [2]" To me, that seems like pure speculation, and the cited source is the Willie Horton ad. That doesn't support the claim. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Addition/Deletions from List of The Paterson Executive Chamber InfoBox

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't Mr. O'Byrne's name be deleted from the list of The Paterson Executive Chamber InfoBox since he officially resigned as Secretary to the Governor on October 24th and his replacement if there is one added. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you see mistakes, be bold and fix them yourself (they're literally everywhere, so you can't count on anybody else, seriously). The page to edit is Template:David Paterson cabinet infobox. Executive Chamber of David Paterson may also need updating. Goodbye Rosie. I'm taking my time, but I don't know where. — CharlotteWebb 23:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

SNL

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Lol SNL called him "Comically unprepared for office", and he responded to this. Any need to add that to the article? Thrawn562 (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

They also implied that he "loves cocaine" in the skit. There's no mention of cocaine in this article. Did David Paterson actually use cocaine, or was that just a racist joke on SNL's part? I'd guess the latter, but it's not like there aren't any prominent politicians who have histories of drug usage; on the contrary, there are quite a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.155.80 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Patterson admitted to using cocaine in the 1970's. Here's the New York Times article.[11]--Cube lurker (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
For the record no opinion on if it's notable enough to be in the article text.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you should add it.PonileExpress (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/10/paterson.bio/
  2. ^ [12]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Paterson/Archive_2&oldid=1136652483"