Talk:Eliot Spitzer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Prostitution scandal

Make sure that the text of his resignation statement is posted under the prostitution section. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.7.125 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi the prostitution scandal should be it's own section - it's huge news! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.20.111 (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not much about Spitzer facing impeachment, not as current as should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A648 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

THE ENTRY ABOUT SPITZER NEEDS AN IMMEDIATE UPDATE. AT LEAST POST ABOUT HIS OWN PRESS CONFERENCE AND WHAT HE SAID DIRECTLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.115.176 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should also be mentioned that he was involved in a recent prostitution scandel involving the empress god website, how he is client no. 9. as more comes in, i'll add it if you want. crazyconan —Preceding comment was added at 00:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now the article claims he was linked to a "call boy". That is incorrect. He was linked to a prostitute. I'd change it myself but the article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.220.130 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone think it's funny democrats get caught with low class white girls and republicans get caught with men? Jtdunlop (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The opening to the prostitution portion: "On March 10, 2008, The New York Times reported that Spitzer had previously patronized a high-priced prostitution service called Emperors Club VIP[123] and met for over two hours with a $1,000-an-hour call girl[124] now known to be a New York City singer going by the name Ashley Alexandra Dupré (legal name Ashley Rae Maika DiPietro)" Can we get rid of the phrase "now know to be". It is appropriate for a news article, but certainly not something that may be read even next week (I don't have a user name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.141.244 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Planet Jupiter

What an ass, couldn't happen to a nice person. Not sure why the article mentions planet jupiter. doesn't explain, its under the section detailing the driver's license program. searched the referenced sources for "jupiter," and I could not find it.

perhaps it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.196.159.66 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Monoline insurers

Spitzer is forcing a settlement of a major debate in US economic history -

I don't see any content on this subject.--Shtove (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Religion"

As the article makes clear, Spitzer did not grow up in a religious household. If necessary, "Jewish" can be included as "religious background" or "cultural" / "ethnic" background. But I don't see why religion is a relevant trait for politicians anyway; no one would list a religion in the Wiki page for an athlete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.222.200 (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Hey, if a Muslim kills someone, its a "Muslim Killer." So now that a Jewish man has used a prostitution ring, suddenly everyone wants to cover up the religion? How about some standards here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.93.55 (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC) I think religious identifications are okay as long as they are truthful.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone had put religion back in the infobox. There is absolutely no evidence that he is religious, on the contrary. I have put "Jewish American" as "nationality". I know that's not quite right, we really need an option for "background" or "ethnicity". (FYI I'm not jewish, not religious and would be making the same argument if we were talking about Islam rather than Judaism.) Sam Staton (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This source gives his faith as "Jewish" [1] see also [2]

He's already listed as a Jew, see here. Lawrence § t/e 16:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean religion entry in the infobox.

Hmm, I'm not convinced that your sources, about.com and nndb, are especially reliable. They don't provide any further detailed references. (See WP:RS.) I've no problem with the edits Lawrence Cohen made; I agree that he is included in "American adherents of Judaism, or Americans of ethnic Jewish heritage, including atheists born to Jewish parents." But there's no compelling evidence that he has a religion. In fact, we know that "His family was not particularly religious and Spitzer did not have a bar mitzvah." Sam Staton (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This probably sums it up: (from the NY times) Mr. Spitzer is Jewish, but his parents were not particularly religious and he did not have a bar mitzvah; Ms. Wall Spitzer was raised Southern Baptist. The couple celebrate the holidays of both religions with their three daughters but do not adhere rigorously to either. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! (though I can't view that page now, for some reason). If he celebrates the holidays, he's not atheist, so I've reverted my changes to the infobox, with a note that he's not practicing. Feel free to correct, add more references etc.. Sam Staton (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If he's celebrating Jewish holidays, he's at least involved in Judaism (and thus shouldn't be regarded as completely "not practicing"). This does not necessarily mean he is not an atheist, and he is also evidently involved in his wife's Christianity, so his religiosity is nontraditional (and thus liberal). — Rickyrab | Talk 03:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Nesodak (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

why full protect?

Why the full protect? Semi-protect is enough!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think most of us would agree. Carter | Talk to me 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. There are no edit wars, just vandalism. Whoever did this put the wrong level of protect. This article does need semi-protect though. --Tocino 18:42, 10 march 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. Full Protect is too much. --345th (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

16 minutes from the first edit on the breaking news to the full protect, with semi-protect at 11 minutes... is this a record? Wnt (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now the article claims he was linked to a "call boy". That is incorrect. He was linked to a prostitute. I'd change it myself but the article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.220.130 (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

PBAdvised: Have created new subarticle Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal

That is all. --Justmeherenow (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE... remember that our sister project Wikinews is for breaking stories... See WP:NOT... hold off on updating this page or creating new pages until things are set and finalized and we know for sure what is going on. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NO! There is enough news to put it up on Wikipedia now. It is relevant, it is important, and Wikipedia should be kept current. The information is more than enough to write solid articles. Please stop with the erasing of all of this information on his article and the subarticle. --Mystalic (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of the event is fine here. Lawrence § t/e 19:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, develop the events here and then if things get big enough the other article can be created. It is currently a protected redirect to this article. KnightLago (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The main news needs to be in WikiNews, which is now referenced from here. After things stabilize the encyclopedic details should be put here for posterity. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow u all r fast! It is evening (7pm) here & this info is just breaking. Go wikipedia ! 70.108.92.126 (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Created Emperor's Room as a redirect to here. Why? Because it's something people will be looking for. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If Wikinews is the correct place for information about the Spitzer scandal, then why is there no information on Wikinews about the Spitzer scandal? It's the top story on every news channel, but on Wikipedia's Main Page it is nowhere to be seen. Any right-wing Republican who wanted to find left-wing bias in Wikipedia would not have to look very far. And, before you ask, I am a longtime yellow-dog Democrat. Roger (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikinews article - it's linked directly from this one. It's also on the Current Events portal. Nesodak (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution section removal

Please stop removing it. Lawrence § t/e 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer spoke, he apologized for not upholding the standards of his office and his family. He DID NOT resign at that time. Please update the section with this news - Spitzer has NOT resigned (yet). -nk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.117.249 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NO... Do NOT update anything... do not even mention this yet. Per WP:NOT - "News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". At this point we do not know the details of the inditement, we do not know if he is going to resign... we do not know what the historical significance of this is. WAIT until we know... then add it to the article. Please... a few hours will not kill us. Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT does not reflect the reality of how breaking news is handled on Wikipedia, or how it has been handled here for the nearly four years I've been here. Wikipedia has a well-deserved reputation of being the first source people can go to for up-to-date treatment of breaking stories. Several media articles have been written about this fact. It is futile to try to change it. Mike R (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He loves his prostitutes, doesn't he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.15.28 (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution Ring

The alleged involvement in a prostitution ring is merely an allegation from an unnamed source at best and shall not be reported to Wikipedia as 'verified' as the author wrote until such a claim has been made. Wikipedia shall not be used as a gossip page. Feel free to add this claim once it has been verified. Dryamaka (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer just admitted it on the news. We're fine to report this. Lawrence § t/e 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing the prostitution section, what you are doing is vandalism. KnightLago (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He admitted that he's connected to the ring. It is now public record- stop removing the section.Saxophobia (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE... why the rush? Breaking news should be posted at our sister project, Wikinews... not here. Wait until we know more about this. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He admitted his involvement. We only briefly covered the incident in the article. I don't see what the big deal is here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. People will search for him; we're #1 or #2. That's why it's included. What we have is wholly compliant with our policies.Lawrence § t/e 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Because we don't really know anything... I listened to his statement, he did not actually admit to anything. Link to Wikinews if you must (ie support our sister project)... but please, for this article, wait until we actually know something. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly- this is merely an allegation, admitted or not, and once again, Wikipedia shall not be used as a gossip board until a true and VERIFIED claim is made. Do not post again. Dryamaka (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it an allegation if he ADMITTED he did it?? Lawrence § t/e 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And even if it is an allegation, it's sourced. Therefore, it stays. --clpo13_(talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) He was caught on a federal wiretap and also admitted to the allegation. What more verification do you need? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(ECx8) None, that I can think of. Lawrence § t/e 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Breaking news should be placed in WikiNews. Once again, users should post this type of information on WikiNews. Dryamaka (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this info can go to both. Lawrence § t/e 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NYT is also fairly reliable; they are not a gossip column. --Chris (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the NYT now, [3] Lawrence § t/e 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Stick with a single argument. First, you say it's only an allegation (it's certainly not just that). Then you say Wikipedia shouldn't post breaking news. I get the feeling that you just don't want this reported... --clpo13_(talk) 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer has only admitted his involvement in the ring- not that he will resign. The article stating he would resign, as reported by WNBC has been 'updated' and removed. I will allow this, not the resignation. Dryamaka (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your benevolence. Lawrence § t/e 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the bit about the resignation should not have been added to the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it can be added, it just can't say "he will resign". It has to say what the sources say; that "sources report he may resign". Lawrence § t/e 19:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

By including speculation (even if it attributed), the article will essentially become a news ticker. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree with Nishkid. 'Sources say he might resign' sounds too speculative and gossipy at best.Dryamaka (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

please stop adding rumor. if he resigns at that point we should say he resigned, not "some say he might resign" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.77 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

please remove rumors "There is widespread speculation that Spitzer will resign his office; however, he did not announce that he would do so at the press conference"

I'm very disappointed in the handling by the wiki community on this issue. allowing rumors to stand unchanged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.77 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"At 3 p.m. Fox News reported — inaccurately — that Mr. Spitzer was going to resign and a little later that he had been indicted by prosecutors for the Southern District of New York, but when Mr. Spitzer made brief comments at 3:18 p.m. he did not step down, nor did he did not address any of the specifics of the case."[4] Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article reports that "On March 10, 2008, Spitzer revealed to his aides that he had patronized a "high-class" prostitution club called Emperors Club VIP." But then it goes on to say "...after the Governor's press conference, at which Spitzer neither denied the prostitution allegation nor said anything about resigning." Either he "revealed that he was involved" or he "neither denied the prostitution allegation..." In my opinion, he can't do both. Can someone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.63.229 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a NYT report from unnamed sources that Spitzer revealed **to his aides** that he was involved. There was also a news conference in which Spitzer did not deny any (which one?) prostitution allegation. Why is that so hard to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.228.47.11 (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WHAT DOES "FOX NEWS" HAVE TO DO WITH THE CITATION? WHETHER THERE IS SPECULATION ON RESIGNING IS ONE THING, BUT THAT REUTERS CITATION DOES NOT EVEN MENTION FOX! That section should be REMOVED for the same reason that many here doubted that the entire story of the Governor's involvement with a prostitute and/or escort service? Just because Fox hears something or is merely speculating has nothing to do with this biographical article; moreover, it is not for this article to chastize Fox, as that is for another article entirely. Signed, A CONCERNED CITIZEN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.64.108 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the current version - Fox news hasn't been mentioned for several hours. The current version cites a Reuters report which states a) the Republican minority leader in the NY Assembly is calling for Spitzer's resignation and b) Spitzer made no mention of resigning at his press conference. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Reggie... WHEN I WROTE THE ABOVE COMMENT was a mere few minutes after I read the Fox News stuff, and it wasn't "several hours", because I wasn't even aware of the scandal. Before you comment on my comment, you should have read the version I read. Signed, A CONCERNED CITIZEN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.64.108 (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

is the opinion of Nell Minow, Ken Langone relevant? i think this section should be removed.208.222.71.77 (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

if true why is there "general dislike of Spitzer amongst investment professionals." is it because he persecuted some crime? 68.161.101.247 (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

POOR FOX NEWS... now that the governor will be able to serve out his entire term and is totally vindicated, The Spitz Up In The Air will own the network by his lawsuit. Once again liberals are 100% correct and their man is just the victim of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy by the high-school dropouts at Fox. If you can't see my face right now, I'm being sarcastic. Ask yourself this... WHY ARE MOST STORIES ABOUT LIBERALS AND/OR DEMOCRATS PROVOKE A RESPONSE BY THEM THAT THOSE ARE JUST LIES BY RUSH LIMBAUGH, REPUBLICANS AND FOX NEWS? Keep in mind, if you replace the nouns of Fox News and et al with racially sounding nouns (like blacks), the many complaints from Liberals and/or Democrats sound full of bigotry. So, why isn't their bigotry towards conservatives blasted in the media? Especially, why isn't this bigotry blasted when they add "white guys" and its variants after the word conservatives? Signed, A CONCERNED CITIZEN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.64.108 (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Info in leader

The info keeps on getting removed from the leader. I can't reinsert it, I'm getting close to a 3rr. But I think that it belongs there. It is what he famous for, at this time. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! To ignore such a famous and important part of his (ex) career violates WP:UNDUE. I'm not saying that should be the only part of the leader, it should be mentioned. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're just crystalballing the importance of this event. If he resigns, then it's definitely worth mentioning in the lead. Of course, the rest of the lead would need to be rewritten for balance (info about his tenure as attorney general, governor, prosecutor, etc.). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's screaming headlines all over the place. Its crystalballing to suggest that this event would end up being unimportant. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Please don't spit back the policy pages I use to affirm my argument. They don't apply both ways. Once he resigns, then it's worth mentioning in the lead. For now, it's just another political scandal. Spitzer's had tons of those in his tenure. Why aren't you arguing that they should also be mentioned in the lead? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Its what he's famous for now. If it ends up being a muchadoaboutnothing then it can be removed. Isn't that the point of the edit tab? How can you edit any bio of a living person if you start worrying about the long-term implications of each incident in their lives?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not about what he is famous now. The lead is is supposed to serve as a thorough and concise outline of the entire article. This scandal is not the source of his notability. He had a ~90KB long article before today. Assuming it's not all a bunch a fluff, there must be a number of important things that Spitzer has done in his lifetime (career as a prosecutor, attorney general, governor, etc.). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 20:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to remove something because he's also famous for other things. Add the other things to the lead. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether the current scandal should be mentioned in the lead, it does seem like this article's lead is relatively short compared to others, maybe it could be expanded somewhat. (though the assertion that "things shouldn't be removed" is wrong since ultimately the lead is constrained in size) --Underpants (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NishKid is right; commenting in the lead is entirely premature. Let's err on the side of caution, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. A Train^talk 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The scandal should be at least mentioned in the lead; I think that it is obvious enough, at this point, that this incident is one that will out weight most other things he will be known for....at least for the forseable future. He has admitted it in my judgement. I think we would have put the Lewinski scandal in the lead for Clinton.--Waterwindsail (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the other controversies Spitzer has been involved in, have other high ranking NYS government officials called for his resignation? I am not aware of anything like this, but maybe I am just uninformed.

I am very wary of WP:CRYSTAL and what it has to say about this, but regardless of that I am leaning towards thinking this does merit inclusion in the intro text. It is very hard to envision this going away. I mean, if he got hit by a car and was in a coma, would we leave that out of the intro text per WP:CRYSTAL because "Well, he might wake up, you never know..." heh...

I guess we'll know in a few days, cuz I expect this to move fast.. Per A Train, we'll err on the side of caution, even though I do think it is an error to do so... heh.. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) LOL, I cannot believe that there is still nothing in the lead about Spitzer's prostitution scandal. There is nothing else in the news right now but Spitzer, and readers who come to this article will have to scroll down to the end to get any info. I remember taking part in Virginia Tech massacre as the events unfolded, and that article won plaudits in the main stream media for how up to date it was kept as new information came in. Also see this. How about at least some generally accurate line like: "Spitzer is currently under investigation and political pressure for his involvement in a prostitution-related scandal". kevinp2 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Or: Spitzer is currently under pressure to resign after his alleged involvement in a prostitution-related scandal. NYT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinp2 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Wikinews... put "breaking news" reports there... not here

Folks, this is a BLP... as such we have VERY strict rules about what we can and can not say. Rumors and press speculation should not be included. We have not seen the SDNY's indictment, so we do not know what it alleges Spitzer to have done. This entire thing is drippng with speculation. In the last 15 minutes I have see us say definitively that Spitzer has resigned, that he has admitted to the allegations, etc, etc, etc... all of which have proven to be inaccurate. This is encyclopedia writing at its worst! We are here to write an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Wikinews was created as the proper venue for posting the latest bit of information... we should be holding off a bit, and waiting to see what the end result is. An encyclopedia takes a historical perspective, not an immmediate one. Please review the guidelines and policies that deal with breaking news... all of them frown on the type of "I have the latest report!" writing that had been going on here. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, there is no BLP violation in what you removed, that I just reverted. Please do not do that again without support; it would be a vandalism edit. What exactly is a BLP violation about this content? Be specific and get consensus. Lawrence § t/e 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We can let a day elapse before posting things. there is no benefit to posting things this quickly. Blueboar is right, we are not writing a newspaper here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

'Can' is not 'have to' Arkon (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the speculation could go. However, Spitzer did make a brief public statement apologizing, so removing the whole thing seems like going too far. Granted, he didn't put words to what exactly he was apologizing for. Is that what the concern is? The surrounding context (eg. the evidence in the federal investigation, the public statement beside his wife, both nearly crying) make it seem like they would have clarified if there was a chance the press could mistakenly assume it was about something other than what they were apologizing for. --Underpants (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me revise my comments to clarify what i meant; we can post a basic sentence identifying the basic issue, but that should be it. there is no need for further details right now on any emerging allegations, comments, etc, etc. any emerging news item less than 24 hours old which is about any sort of political scandal, controversy, etc, etc, should not be described here with more than a one to two-sentence summary. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a clear case of undue mention putting a press conference at the very top, holding a press conference is not likely to be news for longer than a few days, the press conference line should be chronological like everything else, with significant historical events in the headline. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthropological motivation Mr.Spitzer was driven by concerning the prostitution scandal

What was the motivation Mr. Spitzer was driven by ? Thrillseeking due to his temperament ? Curiosity of the unexperienced ? Or is his marriage unhappy? Are there some newspaper articles about the causes ?91.39.170.100 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)In the German-speaking countries, where Mr. Spitzer's ancestors came from, "spitzer" means " hornier" ("spitz , spitzer , am spitzesten", see Brothers Grimm's dictionary of the German language). Just as in Goethe's world-famous tragedy "Faust" : "Oft kann man der Leute Wesen aus ihrem Namen lesen." "The character of most men you can recognize in their name". Similarly , the name "Brown" was applied to brown-haired Europeans, e.g. This comment is not intended as a joke nor as a criticism of Mr. Spitzer's actions.91.39.170.100 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Might be going out on a limb here, but......well, "esS—iyE—ehX"?--Justmeherenow (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC

Why did it happen??? Here's one theory..

Why do brilliant men always betray their wives? According to author Desmond Morris, the answer is that they might be over-endowed with one of the human male's most characteristic qualities: the joy of risk-taking.

see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/07/13/baaffairs13.xml

Now who was that lady that former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller was with when he died.... Not a professional one, of course. But also not his wife.

Nothing new where Governors are concerned.

See also

Jimbo Wales.--Ttimespan (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the Mann Act constitutional?

The current revision says he was wiretapped for violating the "Mann Act" against transporting females across state lines for "immoral purposes", a charge that could not have been laid if he were homosexual. Don't the precedents against sodomy laws mean that he no longer can be discriminated against for being heterosexual? Wnt (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, how many months were the Republicans tapping his phone?

I don't think this information is out yet, but if you run across it... thanks! Wnt (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

They weren't tapping his phone, they were tapping the escort's phone. Or are you trying to imply that they knew who they would catch if they went after this particular ring? I have not seen even an iota of speculation along those lines, certainly nothing that belongs here. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at The Smoking Gun documents, it seems as if it was the prostitution outfit whose phones were being wiretapped, not the Governor. He apparently had the bad luck of using a pimp/madam who was under surveillance. Once the sources firm up, the article can probably be worded to show it wasn't his phone that was tapped, but it's probably OK for now.Nesodak (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The initial article I read was ambiguous; this one does not specifically address the issue but says Spitzer was under investigation before the prostitutes and led the FBI to them. Wnt (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, it was the act of prostitution across state lines that violated the Mann act. What would being heterosexual have to do with it? Also, as pointed out above, he hasn't been charged it's the ring that has.--Lord of the Ping (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for this discussion, but too bad. The foregoing doesn't answer the Constitutionality problem. The Constitutioanality of the Mann Act doesn't depend on who the investigatin was aimed at. But in any case the Mannn Act doesn't discriminate against heterosexuals. If a homosexual for some reason decided to transport a female across state lines for "immoral purposes" the law would apply to him as well. It might discriminate against men because only woman can be victim of this crime but then there's a standing problem................

Early Reports say that he won't be charged with anything as of yet (Talk to user Seanwarner86)

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Business POV

The views held by businesses on Mr. Spitzer are not fully covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they should be mentioned until there's more information about the case. Otherwise it's pure speculation. Anyone reading the article can already see that he's investigated businesses and there's been no information as to how this influenced the case.--Lord of the Ping (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please: no minute-by-minute updates

If you want to maintain the article, fine. But please do not add "published reports" that he has scheduled an announcement for a few minutes or even a few hour from now. Let's compromise: let's cut it off at six hours. Predictions in published reports for stuff more than six hours from now...sigh, OK. Anything shorter timeframe than that belongs at Wikinews. Just wait for the facts of lasting value to evolve, then you can all rush in to "be there first". Ugh.--Ttimespan (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there actually a policy that you can point to that prohibits or frowns upon minute-by-minute updates? I agree that speculative and unsourced stuff should be kept out. However, as I pointed out above, the Virginia Tech massacre page was updated hundreds of times as the events unfolded, becoming the go-to page for information. kevinp2 (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be useful to keep the article up to date with the NYT allegations, but these constant insertions of speculation regarding his resignation are getting annoying. Once it happens, then let's put in the article. No crystallballing, please! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 23:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a user that keeps on adding "and Public Disgrace" to the title of the recently added "Prostitution Scandal" section. It is commentary and has been removed twice by other users, Just wanted to bring it up to the attention of Wikipedians here that Wikipedia articles are not for inserting commentary and to give a head up to others to watch out for this kind of stuff.--Jersey Devil (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone should also make note that it wasn't a call boy as mentioned in the wiki entry, it was a call girl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.227.35 (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I admit to having called Governor Spitzer a word that I just learned myself in my edit summaries. Pendejo refers to an idiot, a cuckold, or someone who goes about using his or her position for sexual gain or with sexual implications, depending on the Spanish-speaking country. The main reasons I did that was because a) he was acting like an idiot with this prostitution thing (he allegedly paid thousands of dollars a blow), b) his political career appears to be done and over with, barring a miracle, because of what he did, and c) he should've known better than to become governor on a reputation as a law enforcer, only to become a lawbreaker while in office. That being said, I apologize for calling Mr. Spitzer a pendejo. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've privately exclaimed to friends that Gov. Spitzer is a whoremongering prig and wish to publically express my sincerest apologies.--Justmeherenow (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See also

I added Lieutenant Governor of New York David A. Paterson, which is the appropriate place for this information. Bearian (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

When things calm down, I'll add it back in. Bearian (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Add it back in? I thought you just added it to the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate

The paragraph that mentions troopergate contains numerous grammatical errors: "In the wake of the controversy involving the "troopergate" scandal involving Senator Bruno, Spitzer has been accused of pandering to liberal special interest groups to solidify his base of support "The governor who took office vowing to clean up Albany has lost so much public support that he is reduced to feathering the nest of the unions and other liberals." said Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News."

Client number nine

Anyway, I've redirected variations on "client number nine" to this page Domain of lighting (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dutch version of this lemma

Could not be added, since the article was locked..

[[nl:Eliot L. Spitzer]]

Done --Elliskev 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Scandal section placement

I've removed the scandal section from the Governorship section. This scandal doesn't have anything to do with his Gov'ship. It was replaced without an explanation. I reverted that. Can I get some comments on whether or not there is agreement with one over the other? --Elliskev 13:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several scandals. The loan investigation, which happened when he was running for Attorney General, is underneath that section, as the police surveillance one is under his Governorship. There is no reason for the new scandal to have its own section outside of the Governorship. Its own article, perhaps, but not its own section. Mrprada911 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

??? So are you saying that you think the prostitution scandal is related to his Governorship? --Elliskev 16:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Gay marriage proposal

Does this sound like a misleading subhead to anyone else? I wasn't sure what to expect when I saw it. Imgboi (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. – ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"The investigation was initiated after his bank reported suspicious transactions..."

So is it normal in the United States for your bank to act like an arm of the police and report suspicious (and relatively low dollar amount) transactions to authorities?

Are there any published rules, laws or guidelines as to what exactly constitutes transactional activities that rise to the level of law enforcement investigation?

And why didn't Spitzer know about them, and why didn't he simply conduct these transactions in cash or on a credit card? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.12.91 (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, banks are required to report all transactions of $10,000 or more to the Internal Revenue Service. Nesodak (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Federal law requires a banking institution to file a Suspicious Activity Report when the institution suspects a transaction is linked to a federal crime.

More specifically, the banks are required to report to the IRS any transactions totaling $5,000 or more if the transactions "involve potential money laundering or a violation of the Bank Secrecy Act." The act requires businesses to keep documents that are useful for identifying and investigating money laundering."[5] dposse (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

54th Governor?

Why is CNN referring to Spitzr as New York's 54th Governor? GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer's website says 54th too. "Governor Eliot Spitzer is our State's 54th chief executive and was elected to office in 2006." [6] Maybe has something to do with the governors we count who were only in office for a month, that type of thing. Do they actually get counted as actual "governors" when numbering them? Or that we count George Clinton, DeWitt Clinton, Horatio Seymour, and Al Smith twice (terms were separate), and they only count each as "one"? --198.185.18.207 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem here. Does New York number its Governors via individual or via office tenure. Some states go by the former, others by the latter. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

the NYS website (www.ny.gov) does not list people who have held the office twice, and Wikipedia does. Therefore Gov. Spitizer is officialy the 54th Governor of New York, according to New York State. Wikipedia should probably list him as such, and David Paterson as the 55th governor if Spitzer resigns. If everyone agrees I'll change the info, so comment here.EMT1871 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. New York numbers their Govs & Lt. Govs via individual. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Get changing. --198.185.18.207 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed up the List of Governors of New York article. The two Clintons, Seymour & Smith, were mistakenly counted twice. PS- You gotta help too, anon. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed th einfobox to 54th, to reflect count on NYS websiteEMT1871 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done all the 'other' NY Governor's bios. Now I'm faigued, would somebody fix the NY Lt Governors list & bios? GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

former prosecution of prositution rings

"Spitzer—who, as New York Attorney General, had been named Time's "Crusader of the Year" and had been termed by New York City tabloids "Eliot Ness"[128]—had once prosecuted two prostitution rings.[129"

Sure, this shows his hypocrasy, but is this this really necessary or encyclopedic? is it our place to show how big a hypocrite he is? dposse (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The facts appear to be relevant. As long as they are stated without editorializing, there is no issue. —Nricardo (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant to his past actions, and should be placed in other sections of the article. Mentioning past prosecutions seems very POV in a section that is talking about a present situation. Do you see what i mean? dposse (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP can and should report notable criticisms of scandalous behavior and hypocracy and lay out its underlying facts.

An editor removed this

Spitzer—who, as New York Attorney General, had been named Time's "Crusader of the Year" and had been termed by New York City tabloids "Eliot Ness"—had once prosecuted two accused prostitution rings. Referring to one, an escort service advertising under the names Personal Touch and Day Dreams among others, Spitzer said in a 2004 press release, "This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multi-tiered management structure. It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring, and now its owners and operators will be held accountable."

from the article with the rationale that WP doesn't show hypocracy. This consideration is overplayed here and the editors' argument can be countered by WP guidelines which, while disallowing WP's own editorializing, nonetheless encourage (1) balanced coverage of parties that call someone a hypocrite, etc., in cases when their doing so would be very notable (2) balanced coverage of the details of a politician's words and actions that can be construed as being hypocritical when the issue at hand is very notable. Obviously, if WP wouldn't be allowed to report in a full and balanced manner on scandals, it would become akin to an inhouse P.R. organ somewhere. --Justmeherenow (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Look, i have no problem with the infomation in the article, i have an issue with the infomation in the section about the recent prositution sting. If the media quoted a notable figure stating "This man is a hypocrite because of his past oaths to reform ethics", then we could put that under the "Reaction" section to the Prositution investigation. However, we cannot start giving random facts about the Governor that shows that he's a hypocrite because that would go against WP:NPOV. Understand? dposse (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, well IMO while on the aggregate some hyper-deletionism improves the quality of Wikipedia articles, I think that in cases where material is thought to improve WP but is simply misplaced in the article, its deletion as opposed to its movement elsewhere actually is retrograde, that's all. But that's OK (...and it all probably works out in the end). :^) --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsflash. Police discover escort services a front for prostitution. According to a 2004 press release from the New York Attorney General's office, authorities had come to believe that some, quote, escort services [...] were merely a front for a massive prostitution ring. After lengthy investigations of a Staten Island-based escort agency that advertised under the names Personal Touch and Day Dreams among others, police made the startling discovery that the outcalls agency was only, and I quote, pretending to provide legitimate and legal (outcall) services. I'm sitting here simply flabbergasted. Shocking! --Justmeherenow (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, probably the general sentiment on Wall Street is summed up in this quote from the WSJ's op-ed page: "There's little that's tragic about Mr. Spitzer, unless you consider his victims (which would appear to include his own family)." --Justmeherenow (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Split of Eliot Spitzer#Controversy over use of state police

I think the above section is long enough to split off into its own article...any other thoughts, or suggestions for the title of that article? Nesodak (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split until the Albany County DA's office issues their final report, which is expected sometime this month. I wrote pretty much the entire piece that is there now, its been trimmed down by four or five paragraphs. If you want to start a sandbox page for a new article, as well as a summary to insert in this one, by all means do so and I'd be happy to contribute. We should then also probably do the same for his major cases as attorney general, gubernatorial campaign, and the drivers license issue. Mrprada911 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be split. The article is quite long and this section is a significant portion of it. Isaacsf (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It has to be trimmed. It's disproportionate in size to the rest of the article's issues that are more important. Looking at it hindsight and being able to see the big picture, its too detailed. I state no opinion on the need for a seperate article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

Can someone PLEASE lock Pediaforcer from editing this article? This is vandalism and is bad for the project in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.120.11 (talk • contribs)

Pediaforcer was already blocked by the time you added your comment. Sometimes old versions of the page will show up in the browser's cache. Sorry about that.

For whatever reason, Wikipedia policy says that even the most blatant hateful vandals should be given "fair warning" before they get blocked -- often even if they are adding libelous content to an article about a living person. I personally disagree with this policy and think that Pediaforcer should have been given an indefinite ban the second time he made those recent vandal edits, but hey, that's how it is. He/she's blocked for a week now, so hopefully it won't be a problem. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution section its own page

The prostitution section is getting rather lengthy, and is a significant event, and I think it should be made into it's own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.82 (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE. We shouldn't have an article unless it's absolutely necessary. Will ^(talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is applicable. Please explain. —Nricardo (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Reaction section is inadequate

Democratic Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand is also calling for Spitzer to step aside —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Approval rating in lede

I removed an unsourced statement from the lede (in current tense, no less) discussing Spitzer's approval ratings in November, 2007. Something like that should never appear in the lede, and without sourcing and context was not relevant to the article. Horologium (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

religion

what is meant by "Jewish, but liberal" ?? Kingturtle (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the note on the side? I agree. Liberal doesn't make sense. If it's trying to say he was born Jewish but doesn't observe the religion, liberal isn't really the word. Enigma ^msg! 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I am referring to. Maybe "non-practicing" would be better? Kingturtle (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be a useful citation: "It was not an emotionally indulgent household, or a religious one. (The potential first Jewish President was not bar mitzvahed.)" Well, it says nothing about his religious practices today, but I haven't seen evidence he's become more religious in the intervening years. Biruitorul (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed somewhere else on this page. See Talk:Eliot_Spitzer#Removed "Religion". Apparently he "celebrates holidays". I'm not especially bothered whether it's in the infobox or not. Many newspapers seem keen to point it out. Perhaps explanation in the body is enough. Sam Staton (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

edit summaries. NPOV

Please use edit summaries to tell other editors what edit you have made, and to a limited extend why. But please keep your opinions out of the edit summaries. Kingturtle (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

references in the lead

I think it is ok to have some references in the lead. See Bernie Ward as an example. Kingturtle (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I am not aware of any precedent against references in the intro text. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And in fact, the style guidelines say that intro sections are not exempt from the need to be verifiable and cited. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"resigned" vs. "declared"

The AP article NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigns starts out "Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in disgrace Wednesday...". They then clearly indicate that it is effective Monday. It is desirable to use past tense. How do we write it? Do we say that he "resigned" or merely "announced/declared" today? At the moment, the section reads "On March 12, Spitzer declared his intention to resign, effective March 17, 2008." Does anyone know the mechanics? Is there a letter of resignation delivered and accepted by some other government official or body?--Ttimespan (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to keep in the moment without predicting events, even if they seem like done deals. So we need to say "announced" or "intends". Kingturtle (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am in search of something more reliable than just what it "seems" like. Does any editor involved actually know?--Ttimespan (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is correct to say that he "announced his resignation, effective March 17, 2008". Paisan30 (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ttimespan, I think you misread my reply. I said we need to say "announced" or "intends". As Paisan suggests, "announced" is best. Kingturtle (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Condense

Article goes on in way too much detail on some events. There's a proposal to split the Bruno police section into its own article - I hastily vote Support mostly because it'll condense this article which badly needs condensation. The illegal-immigrant-drivers-license section needs condensing, too. Tempshill (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of sections which need to be subpages. The prostitution section was originally a separate article which was (very hastily) merged into this article, and the appropriate title is currently a protected redirect to this page, which makes it difficult to split. I have a request in to the admin who protected the title to allow the article to be recreated, but he has not responded yet. Horologium (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A simple alternative would be to agree to start an Eliot Switzer sex scandal article (Eliot Spitzer–Emperors Club VIP prostitution scandal or whatever) and should a consensus eventually come around to think the original "prostitution scandal" title better, we could switch the two at that point. --Justmeherenow (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The admin who had protected the subpage has unprotected it, and I have duplicated all of the text of that section at Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal and added a link there. Now, that section needs to be edited back on this article, but I'm not going to start whacking away at it without some sort of discussion. Horologium (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will ;) I went ahead and took a whack at it. I don't think my cut was perfect, but hey, that's why it's a Wiki. So far, I go unreverted... knock on wood ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AG candidate Evan Davis (not Charles Davis)

The former Governor's Counsel who lost the AG race was Evan Davis, not Charles Davis -- PWSA

hah

I like it how it's not controversial or semi-protected tagged. Consensus has been achieved. --Leladax (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

? The article is semi-protected. Horologium (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

oh, now it is:D --Leladax (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it had already been semi-protected for two hours and two minutes when you made your comment; [7] Horologium (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I new some smart guy was going to do that. Well, I guess I wasn't careful. Sosumi. --Leladax (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NY Governor succession box

Why does the box have 2007 – 2008? Spitzer hasn't resigned yet. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links

This page had been setup so that the multitude of external link subsections do not pollute the TOC. The code seems to be gone, and there are far too many edits to figure out where it disappeared(I'll still give it a shot). Barring that, anyone know how to fix it? Mrprada911 (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nevermind, it was just bold-face text. Also, the Spitzer '06 and Spitzer '10 websites link to the same page, there is no need to list them seperately. Mrprada911 (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer's father

It sounds like Bernard Spitzer is notable enough that he should have his own article. He is described as a "real estate mogul". Is there enough publicly available info on him to write one? --rogerd (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, others have thought so too. Only yesterday was such an attempt made, but it was speedy deleted - probably because it was poorly written. Try writing a new one, but make sure you have references and can explain his notability beyond being Eliot's dad. Kingturtle (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Wrongdoing"

The lead includes a reference that Spitzer has "admitted to wrongdoing". Has he? I don't recall him admitting a thing. This is very troubling under WP:BLP and unless there's a source provided could be legally dangerous. Please make sure this is correct and sourced otherwise it must be removed or reworded. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Isaacsf (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

External links mess

When things calm down next week, I'm going to start trimming some of these sites - espcially the critics' -- it could go on for pages! Bearian (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove Anti-Semitic Slur at Beginning of Article

Done Isaacsf (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever requested the removal of anti-Semetic slur - thank you. It happend while I was trying to use my poor computer skills to notify Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.22.29 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Split of Eliot Spitzer#Controversy over use of state police (copy and paste from recently archived)

I think the above section is long enough to split off into its own article...any other thoughts, or suggestions for the title of that article? Nesodak (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split until the Albany County DA's office issues their final report, which is expected sometime this month. I wrote pretty much the entire piece that is there now, its been trimmed down by four or five paragraphs. If you want to start a sandbox page for a new article, as well as a summary to insert in this one, by all means do so and I'd be happy to contribute. We should then also probably do the same for his major cases as attorney general, gubernatorial campaign, and the drivers license issue. Mrprada911 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be split. The article is quite long and this section is a significant portion of it. Isaacsf (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It has to be trimmed. It's disproportionate in size to the rest of the article's issues that are more important. Looking at it hindsight and being able to see the big picture, its too detailed. I state no opinion on the need for a seperate article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the issue is less important. If prosecuted, the offenses here will be far more serious then the prostitution scandal. However, it can probably be summarized here and moved into a different article. Mrprada911 (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse split. I do not believe that it is oversized in and of itself, but the whole article needs editing and subpaging, as was done with the prostitution flailex. This article is super-sized, and needs the Wikipedia equivalent of gastric bypass surgery (or at least some liposuction) to get it down to a manageable size. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I transposed most of what was there to a new article. I wrote 99% of it, so hopefully whats there still makes sense. However, it may have screwed up a couple of refs in other parts which used citations from the surveillance controversy section. If someone else can address that, I'd highly appreciate it. Mrprada911 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Gastric Bypass"

Alright, I've performed the surgery. I trimmed about 60k out of the article, without sacrificing anything(I think, but other editors should check and ensure everything still makes sense). I think the new sizes also alleviate some of the WP:UNDUE concerns. I created an Eliot Spitzer category as well. I'm not sure that "Kristen" should have her own bio, I think that might be a little extreme, but its fair enough to have the Police, Drivers License, AG Cases, Electoral and Prostitution issues on their own pages. Now, if someone can do the external links(I'm not too confident on the policy for what should go and what should stay), I think the article will be back to being manageable.

Again, if someone could go in and fix the broken refs by transposing from the new articles, it'd be appreciated. Mrprada911 (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

New articles

These definitely aren't required. We don't need separate articles on every aspect of Spitzer's life - in fact, there's not really any requirement for any more than the main article and the one on the scandal. They need to be ruthlessly trimmed and merged back into the main article. I will AfD spurious articles shortly. Black Kite 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hangon. The previous article was 110kb in length, and I've managed to trim it down to 40k, within the recommended range, similar to George W. Bush. I don't see how an AfD would be positive for this article. Would you be adverse to seeking a WP:3O before nominating them? Mrprada911 (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming here in response to the request for a third opinion. I am strongly in favor of the general approach of using daughter articles. The guideline states: "The top or survey article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects." (from Wikipedia:Summary style)

This approach is especially useful with politicians. There's a tendency for people to generate a lot of information about particular scandals or controversies; the resulting content, while properly encyclopedic itself, occupies a disproportionate space in the complete article. In heated editing in 2004, I was involved in some of these situations concerning Bush and Kerry. The solution that generally worked was to spin off the detail into a daughter article, leaving behind a summary. For example, there was controversy about each man's service during the Vietnam War, and each of those subjects is now a daughter article.

The trouble with Black Kite's suggestion that the Spitzer daughter articles "be ruthlessly trimmed" is that considerable information would be lost. That outcome is specifically disapproved by the guideline:

The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long articles would cause problems. So we must move information out of articles periodically. This information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information.

Of course, these articles should be trimmed of any assertions that aren't properly neutral, need citation, etc. JamesMLane t c 02:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Connection to loansharking bailout

I think it is imperative that some mention be given to the matters that Greg Palast detailed, I think, only today, wherein the connection between Spitzer's leading a coalition of all the attorney generals of all the states to protest the federal government's blocking their using their own state laws to curb the activities of loansharking companies which were not only protected, but actually bailed out in a move without historical precedent. If the article fails to mention this, then this will be a matter of bias against the victims of these loansharking institutions, and the states that seek to protect their citizens. (65.65.156.86 (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

The point is controversial enough that it shouldn't be stated as a fact, but Palast is a prominent analyst so it can be stated as his opinion (i.e. properly attributed to him, and with fair coverage of any opposing viewpoint). JamesMLane t c 08:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are his SAT & LSAT scores important?

Why is this info included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.150.14 (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Because people might actually be interested. Although not perfect, standardized test scores are one measure of intelligence, or least knowledge. --Nricardo (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job we don't do this for Albert Einstein. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Let's not jump the gun, folks."

Today's not March 17? Is my calendar wrong?

I've heard from a few people that he's resigning at noon, but 'could theoretically rescind that'. I know...we're not a crystal ball...but does anyone seriously believe that he's rescinding his resignation in the next half hour? One (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See Larry Craig for someone who rescinded their resignation the day before they were supposed to resign. Plus, Spitzer is still acting as Governor. Paterson will be sworn in at 1pm.
:::

Governor Designate Paterson is scheduled to be sworn-in as New York's 55th Governor at 1:00 P.M.

So no, your calendar is not wrong, but the resignation is not until 12 noon. The new Governor takes office at 1 pm eastern. Mrprada911 (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I know full well about Larry Craig. The difference is that he didn't rescind his resignation on August 31 at 11:59 A.M. One (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Today is March 17, but that's not the point. The point is that Spitzer is still governor. It doesn't matter what we "seriously believe." What matters is what is. Isaacsf (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC) (Thanks for the support above, folks.)

Alright. I don't have any more time at the moment to debate about "what is", so I guess all I can say is not to mark him as a past governor at 12:59:59 PM. ;) One (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC) (Thanks for the snide comment above, folk.)

No disrespect intended. Sorry if I offended. Isaacsf (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Resignation has taken effect

OK, if anybody know how? They may make the changes to this article. Spitzer is no longer Governor of New York; Paterson is Governor. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Paterson has not been sworn in yet. Mrprada911 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Does not matter. Gubernatorial succession (under the State Constitution) is automatic. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, however, changing the article before 12 noon EST was improper, as that is when the resignation took effect. Mrprada911 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

But, it's past Noon EST (now). GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Article info + Scrutinizing Wall Street

The article on Eliot Spitzer mentioned his wife Silda Wall Spitzer and Children for Children, the non-profit organization she founded. I am not sure it's relevant to mention the non-profit organization since this is a bio about Eliot Spitzer himself?

Also, the article seems to be missing details of Eliot Spitzer's scrutiny over Wall Street. Maybe some one who is familiar with the subject should write something about it...since some people saw the Wall Street clean up as one of his major stepping stones in enabling him to become governor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.27.224 (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Resignation

Why isn't the resignation mentioned in the entry's intro? Do you folks have a pr contract with Spitzer? SLY111 (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)SLY111

Change the text as you see fit :) Kingturtle (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Lines that need to be removed

In January 2005, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce described Spitzer's approach as "the most egregious and unacceptable form of intimidation we've seen in this country in modern times".[21]

This needs to be removed as it is not only inappropriate to have the opinion of a single man under his tenure as Attorney General in the article, but the LINK IS NO LONGER VALID. You moderators, I swear to god, you just can't accept anything to be touched on Wikipedia anymore.

While the state did pass a budget on schedule in 2007, the ultimate results fell short of what many reformers hoped Spitzer would achieve. The New York Post opined, "Spitzer promised reform, and delivered something completely different" and termed the budget itself "bitterly disappointing."[31]

This also needs to be removed. Obviously you moderators allow bias like this to stand for such a long period of time without doing anything, and when someone like me comes along you first ban me and then tell me to talk about it in the talk session. You people have 0 responsibility. As to why it needs to be removed, it is complete and total bias. Why does the opinion of the New york post matter, and why are they considered part of the "reformers"? Many, like the New York times, actually supported Spitzers budget, so it is absolutely preposterous that this be allowed to stand. Nemalp (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)DARKJAWS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemalp (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Then the answer is to balance the argument by citing contrary opinions, with reliable sources. As it happens, the NYT is regarded as a reliable source. But deleting things you disagree with is not on. Admins are responsible for ensuring that policy is followed by editors, not for going through articles checking for content and bias. You were told to stop deleting material, but didn't and as a result your University IP is now blocked for a year, which takes into account the past vandalism from that IP address. You then returned and continued the same course of action to evade that block. That too, is not on. Now you're on your third account but at least you've come to the right place and I'm sure other editors will take your comments on board.

--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that Wikipedia would rather open pandoras box, allowing every single reliable sources' opinion(from editorialists) to be included. Do you realize the stupidity of such a policy? "He said this..but she said that..." I can understand if it was about someone murdering someone else, but this is an conversation about the governors budget. Best all opinions be kept out and only facts and huge controversies be admitted.Nemalp (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer's policies, like those of any politician, are sometimes met with criticism. It's appropriate to include representative examples of such criticisms as long as they are not given undue weight. In this case, both Spitzer's actions as AG and his budgets were met with controversy, as documented by reliable sources, and the debate is certainly germane to his term as governor. The NYP is a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines and as a major newspaper in New York City its editorials are likely to qualify as notable. The quote from a major official regarding his opinion of Spitzer's behavior as AG is not only notable in itself, but it is representative of many such critiques. Putting every major criticism would give critics undue weight, but not including it at all is also incorrect. So we exercise editorial judgment and highlight the most notable and representative.

I understand your strong feelings on this, but an encyclopedia is not the forum for a political battle. Wellspring (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

Anyone want to write about this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7GcoLqfhHg&feature=related

Stevenwagner (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since that article is by Spitzer, is a primary source. We'd need to find something that mentions his views in a second or third-party context. MrPrada (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"What was NOT reported was that Governor Spitzer was in Washington DC to testify before congress on the same companies that were going to be bailed out later that year. What was not reported was that there are close to 5 million SARs generated each year - the only ones you heard about involved Eliot Spitzer." Not sure what this refers to, but article should not have statements based on what can NOT be verified through other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.251.132 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove illogical comment

I don't want to delete an illogical comment with discussion with other editors. This is the problem remark in the "Scandal and resignation" section:

Spitzer first drew the attention of federal investigators when his bank reported suspicious money transfers, which initially led investigators to believe that Spitzer may have been hiding bribe proceeds.

This remark is utterly absurd. Clearly reported in the news was that the scandal originated because Spitzer had financial transactions with his bank deemed necessary of investigation under money laundering laws. Also clearly reported is that the payments were being made from Spitzer. That is not a bribe. Eliot Spitzer was making the payment, not receiving it. If there was something illegal about the payments related to his role as a public official then payments made by him could be blackmail or extortion. It is just useless information that I'm sure can not be backed up by a reliable source. Someone is spinning things Knowsetfree (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding he is Jewish

Hi this is to inform people editing this article to keep a lookout for the person who keeps putting Jewish as his ethnicity. ALL the sources the guy put made no reference to him being a Jew whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercury888 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The NGA page says, right at the top: "Religion: Jewish". That's a good source. I've reverted your change. Best, Gwernol 17:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's funny, whenever someone who is Jewish does something unsavory, their "Jewishness" is often mysteriously removed. I wonder why this is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.231.171 (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it happened to the Dylan Klebold article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.225.219 (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Source 7 about grandparents being Jewish

Hi i went through source number 7 where it says his grandparents were jewish immigrants and it didnt say anything about him being a jew or his grandparents. I even done a ctrl-f just to make sur ei didnt miss it. Can someone fix this source up? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercury888 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

oh and this is the URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/nyregion/12spitzer.html incase the source numbers changes. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercury888 (talk • contribs)

This is the article that states that 1) His father's family is Jewish and 2) that his grandparents were immigrants from Austria. Its a fine source. Gwernol 18:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't Governor Spitzer ever been arrested and charged with prostitution?

They arrest and charge the little guys "desperate" for sex... just curious as to why hasn't the Governor evern been arrested nor charged? oe is it forthcoming? Worldedixor (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

None of those charged were charged with soliciting a prostitute. The feds usually have bigger ideas then solicitation, a relatively minor crime. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Former" politician

We've had a few edits about whether or not Spitzer is a "former" politician. A recent edit summary states that he said he was retiring from public life. I have no opinion one way or the other, but can someone find a reference that says that? His resignation letter doesn't say it (probably wouldn't anyway). Otherwise, we'll wind up reverting back and forth needlessly.  Frank  |  talk  10:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"as I leave public life.....and I will try once again outside of politics..........".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputing unncessary rv

Anyone who lives in the US knows that if you are caught commiting the "crime" of prostitution with sufficient evidence similar to Elliott Spitzer's, you will be charged with the crime of prostitution. This is not a POV... this is factual and is the LAW. If you are convicted of the charge of prostitution where prostitution is illegal, you will have a criminal record. This is not a POV... Anyone who Agrees (including myself) or Disagrees, please vote as such. Please do not rv until a resplution is made. Thank you. Worldedixor (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Agree... (Never EVER remove my vote!) Worldedixor (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree as stated below. This is potentially contentious information about a living person and is unsourced. As such it must not be reinserted unless reliable sources that say he is not being prosecuted because of who he is are provided so that the information can be verified. You are interpreting the sources to support your opinion. It does not belong, I have removed it and it should not be reinserted until the policies are complied with. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Agree... Soliciting more votes... Thanks Worldedixor (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

He's Jewish

Quit removing it, reference #3 clearly states this. You have to take the good members of the tribe with the bad, sorry.

It already covers this in other sections of the article. Not to mention the way it is phrased is completely breaks up the section.

Why not cite that Spitzer was shafted by the establishment and his own party after the scandal? Funny how scandals affect the good politicians like Spitzer the most while others like Newt Gingrich are in the hunt for President and are allowed to harass journalists for asking them questions about their ethics. Great quote from the '09 documentary narrated by Matt Damon, "Inside Job," it is about the '08 financial crisis. "FEDERAL PROSECUTORS WERE PERFECTLY HAPPY TO USE ELIOT SPITZER'S PERSONAL VICES TO FORCE HIM TO RESIGN IN 2008.THEY HAVE NOT DISPLAYED A SIMILAR ENTHUSIASM WITH REGARD TO WALL STREET." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.43.160.22 (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Biased commentary in the "Post-resignation developments" section

With regard to the statement:

In November 2008, prosecutors in charge of the case, who, like other prosecutors, would typically charge regular folks with crimes related to "prostitution" and plague them with criminal records for the rest of their lives [88] [89], announced that Spitzer would not face criminal charges for his involvement in the sex ring citing they found no evidence of misuse of public funds and therefore pressing charges would not serve the public interest.

The italicized section is commentary, not fact. On top of the poor wording "typically charge regular folks", the statement is not backed up by the citations provided. The first citation, numbered "88", cites a case from 28 years ago involving a justice of the law. This brief citation indicates that the justice was in a position to rule on prostitution cases creating a conflict of interest, which differentiates this case from Spitzer's situation. Considering how dated the citation is as well as the poor topical/logical correlation to the topic at hand, it does not back up the author's statement.

The second citation, numbered "89", is an article about the fate of the operators of the prostitution ring used by Spitzer, who were charged. There is certainly precedence for charging operators of prostitution rings, not the customers who solicit their services. This citation should be struck because it also fails to back up the author's comment.

I would recommend rephrasing this paragraph with the following wording:

In November 2008, prosecutors in charge of the case announced that Spitzer would not face criminal charges for his involvement in the sex ring citing they found no evidence of misuse of public funds and therefore pressing charges would not serve the public interest. Bbdc (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. The critical point you are missing totally here is that Spitzer committed the crime of paying prostitutes money for sex. It is all fine and dandy that the prosecutors found no evidence of misuse of public funds, but they had plenty of evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Spitzer committed the crime of paying prostitutes money for sex. Other prosecutors who have one of the many pieces of evidence against a regular John would charge him with a crime and fry his ass... There is OBVIOUSLY two sets of rules here... and President Obama wants such double standard ended... so that no one is above the law. Did you finally get my point? Worldedixor (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I understood the point the first time. However, the issue, which you don't seem to understand, is that the citations do not back up the statement made in the article. You have still not explained, beyond your own personal feelings on the matter, how those citations serve to illustrate the opinion posted in this article. There my be two sets of rules at work in these kinds of cases, but that is not "OBVIOUS", nor is it supported by the citations. If you cannot find adequate citations for the statement in question, it should be removed or rephrased. Also, the issue of the poor wording remains, particularly the use of the phrase "regular folks" and the word "plague". Bbdc (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the information. It has nothing to do with Spitzer. It is a supposition based on a couple of unrelated cases what a prosecutor would have done if someone else would have been involved. It is an editor's own syntheses of the sources. Neither sources said anything about the Spitzer case. A new name 2008 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Changing your name does not make you two persons. Please do not remove my edits until the votes decide so. If you do not like the choice of my words, propose alternative words and I will accommodate a reasonable request. Worldedixor (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not the same person as Bbdc. This information is completely inappropriate for this article. You are saying that the prosecutors are giving special treatment to Spitzer. There are a couple of problems with that:

1. The sources provided do not say that, and your comments here on this page say that you believe this to be true. This is syntheses of the data.
2. Saying that the prosecutors are giving special treatment to Spitzer is potentially negative information against a living person(s), the prosecutors. It is unsourced and that violates the policy on biographies of living persons.

The burden is on you to show that the material belongs with reliable sources that say that the prosecutors are giving special treatment to Spitzer. Unless you can find a reliable source that says that Spitzer was not prosecuted because of who he is, the information does not belong.

Please do not reinsert the information into the article without complying with the appropriate policies. Continuing to add contentious material about living persons without reliable sources can lead to blocking for disruption. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure you understand why I removed this information, below is a quote from the policy on Biographies of living persons:

We must get the article right.[8] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[9][10]

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who commits the edit; this is especially true for edits regarding living persons.

If you have any questions, let me know. A new name 2008 (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have questions. 1. Are you an Admin? If so, please let me know so I may add a complaint to your record since you have reverted my edits 3 times ignoring my request for votes and then threatened ME with banning! 2. Do you live in the U.S.? 3. If you do not, please back off and read this http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070718222151AA53swb and http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/feb/09/bonita-undercover-operation-nets-7-arrests-solicit/ 4. If you do, it is not a secret that police arrest and prosecutors charge "johns" with solicitation of prostitution when they have much less than the overwhelming evidence with wiretaps like they have on Spitzer. This does not need sourcing!!!!. I added 2 sources for the sake of non-Americans. 5. Yes, I DO believe that Spitzer was treated with a different set of rules than the rest of us Americans. The lame excuse that the prosecutors gave for not prosecuting him is preposterous. 6. Do you believe that Spitzer was NOT given preferential treatment by prosecutors considering the evidence? 7. Do you STILL think I am BIASED or am I just stating facts from our life in the U.S.? 8. Do you not believe that Spitzer was a "John" and has paid money to have sex with prostitutes as the evidence clearly shows? 9. Do you not believe that by not arresting him and charging hom with solicitation, that the prosecutors gave Spitzer a special treatment? 10. Contentious? me or Spitzer? Answer me... Worldedixor (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

1. No I am not an admin and I did not threaten to ban you, what I did was explain that not complying with applicable wikipedia policies can lead to blocking for disruption. I did that in hopes of coming to an amicable agreement without anyone getting blocked. I apologize for not being clear on what my intentions were when I made that statement. I did not ignore your request for a vote, I have been discussing it since I first came here and wikipedia is not a democracy. I have reverted you 3 times, because the information does not comply with the policy on Biographies of living persons and so that this article continues to comply with the policy, I will continue to remove the information until it is properly sourced or other editors come in and explain why I am wrong.
2. I do live in the US.
3. Those two sites have nothing to do with Spitzer. Those sites are not any better in showing that Spitzer got preferential treatment than what was previously in the article.
4. No it is not a secret that police routinely charge people that are caught soliciting prostitutes, but it is also not a secret that people who are charged are later not prosecuted for solicitation.
5. That is your personal opinion, but unless reliable sources also hold that opinion, personal opinions do not belong in wikipedia articles, much less a biography of a living person. If you can find reliable sources that he got preferential treatment then we can work it in.
6. Yes he probably did get preferential treatment, but as I said above, that is a personal opinion and does not belong unless a reliable source says it.
7. I never said you were biased, you are stating your opinion, but your opinion does not belong in the article without reliable sources also saying it.
8. Yes I believe he was solicitating a prostitute for prostitution, but my opinion means nothing in this article. What makes a difference is what reliable sources say and so far I have seen nothing from you or from my own research that has reliable sources saying he got preferential treatment, so it does not belong.
9. Yes I believe he got preferential treatment, now find reliable sources that say it and it can go in.
10. I never said you were contentious, infact I have not commented on your intentions or you at all. What I have said all along is the information is contentious and according to the policy on Biographies of living persons the information does not belong unless supported by reliable sources so that it can be verified.

Here are a few options that I have seen used on how to resolve this.

1. The two of us come to an agreement. (right now that does not seem promising)
2. This has already been listed at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard and I am the only one who came along from that. We can go back there and try to ask for more opinions.
3. We can ask for a third opinion

So how do you want to proceed? A new name 2008 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me just butt in here and say that the statement as Worldedixor put it isn't likely to fly no matter what source he has. If, on the other hand, he can find a notable, reliable person expressing the opinion that Spitzer received preferential treatment (which I would think one would be able to find), then we could include a sentence stating something like "X has expressed the opinion that by not being charged, Spitzer received preferential on account of his political connections" or something. The fact is, no one can say for sure what action would have been taken if it had been someone else rather than Spitzer, so it can really only be expressed as a person's viewpoint. -R. fiend (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

From R. Fiend's profile "I am R. Fiend -- From Sept. 2005 until Jan. 2008 I was an admin here. I resigned to spend more time being an asshole.". Congratulations... You and that character have one thing in common!... "A new name 2008" your antagonistic approach clinging to Wikipedia bureauracy rather than do what is right and point out a Social Injustice is sorry to say the least. I will not write on your talk page with negative remarks but I do not think you should ever be approved as an Admin... You live to argue and you spend way too much time on Wikepedia... I have a real life... Worldedixor (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to take a step back and breathe. I'm not threatening you with a ban, but this type of behaviour usually does have a tendency of you ending up with being blocked. WP:CIVIL WP:OWN and WP:RS, all apply as much to you as to anyone else. And publicly and loudly ignore those guidelines/policies is the easy way to getting yourself blocked. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you should be blocked for changing your name and coming back and posting under still a differnt name as if we are not going to notice. Just LEAVE ME ALONE... You are obviously a very argumentative person and VERY possessive of this Article... I ALREADY backed off... Why do you KEEP harassing me and badgering me?... just GO AWAY... don't talk to me and never antagonize me any more...Worldedixor (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who you are talking to, but I only post under one username and only wanted to try to address your concerns with this article. Will not contact you directly anymore unless needed. I am not sure how I harassed you. A new name 2008 (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To "A New Name 2008"; thank you for handling the issue with this article. Worldedixor, both "A new name 2008" and I agree with your feeling that Spitzer may have gotten a break that others may not necessarily get. However, Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, and this type of opinionated argument does not belong here, especially without sources. Anyone reading this string would see that you brought an excess of emotion into the discussion. In hindsight, you should have directly addressed the issue I raised initially, of the citations not being supportive for the argument. The rules are simple. If it is opinion or belief, it doesn't belong here if you can't back it up with legitimate sources. Yahoo questions don't count, and that citation wasn't even relevant to begin with, because it described statues, not related cases. Also, as "A New Name 2008" pointed out, the other citation wasn't relevant, because while johns are frequently charged, they are rarely prosecuted. At the end of the day, it is worth understanding that Sptizer has been publicly embarrassed to a greater degree than any john in history, so his punishment has already probably been worse that that received by an average citizen. Just yesterday, on the one-year anniversary of the incident, newspapers across the country reminded us of his downfall. What average john would be subjected to that kind of treatment? Bbdc (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia double standard on prostitution

The Wikipedia article on David Vitter buries his prostitution scandal in the sixth paragraph. By contrast, the Wikipedia article on Eliot Spitzer includes this info in the first paragraph. Why the Wikipedia double-standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.120.41 (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Take it up on the Vitter article then .froth. (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Financial crisis 2008

This guy's views on the financial crisis are extremely important and deserve a section of their own. As it stands I can't find any link in the text that leads me to relevant material.--Shtove (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Democrats Deny Governor Cover"

In context of

Some Assembly Democrats were alienated over the incident, and questioned Spitzer's refusal of extending patronage to party members seeking local political appointments.

i rem'd

<ref name="2sun072507">Gershman, Jacob. "Democrats Deny Governor Cover" New York Sun (25 July 2007).</ref>

bcz the ref does not relate to that.
--Jerzy•t 07:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Media and public appearances" section

It seems to me that most of this section comprises an indiscriminate collection of information - it's not immediately clear that we really need to have a blow-by-blow listing of every miscellaneous media appearance. With reference to the current version of the page, I'd say the first three paragraphs of the section may be worth keeping, but as for the rest of the section, it would be enough to say something along the lines of: "Spitzer made a number of appearances in the media, including on The Colbert Report, Real Time with Bill Maher and Campbell Brown." And maybe a brief comment about his having done some public speaking engagements. Any thoughts? Cyril Washbrook (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Should the alma mater in the infobox say "Harvard Law School" or "Harvard University"?

I would like to think that the infobox would detail the general university, and upon further reading of the article, the specific college of that university would be stated. If a person studied business at Cornell University, should their alma mater in their infobox be "Cornell University" or "Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management"? I'd like to know other peoples' thoughts on this. :) Grenadetoenails (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Great question, but this is the wrong article page for that discussion because that's a problem apparently unique to certain business schools, which tend to separate out the name of the parent institution when they take on a significant founder's or donor's name. Thus, the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, etc. Spitzer didn't go to business school so that's not an issue for his infobox. Law schools in the U.S. tend to incorporate the donor's name between the name of the parent institution and the words "School of Law" or "Law School," so we have the USC Gould School of Law and UNLV Boyd School of Law. The article as it stands is fine.--Coolcaesar (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent documentaries

I saw some recent documentary film trailers featuring Spitzer, but don't see them listed here (and don't remember their names). Are they notable enough to add under the "Post-resignation developments" section? GoingBatty (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean "Inside Job" and yes, that should be included. 221.216.165.40 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Israel didn t exist in 1890 it s a nonsense , it was called Palestine by everyone , even by Theodor Herzl .It s big historical mistake and i wonder why no one has corrected it . --Discodisco (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)