|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eliot Spitzer article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|This article has been mentioned or used by a media organization. The reference is in:|
- 1 Re-phrasing awkward construction
- 2 Wikipedia double standard on prostitution
- 3 Financial crisis 2008
- 4 "Democrats Deny Governor Cover"
- 5 "Media and public appearances" section
- 6 Recent documentaries
- 7 Should the alma mater in the infobox say "Harvard Law School" or "Harvard University"?
- 8 Lead and more
- 9 Apparent anti-Spitzer bias
- 10 Eliot Spitzer: reference no 2
Re-phrasing awkward construction
I think that the following fragment "still debating on whether or not to bring about criminal charges against Spitzer" should be changed to read:
"still debating whether to bring criminal charges against Spitzer"
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:22, 14 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.
- <ref name="2sun072507">Gershman, Jacob. "Democrats Deny Governor Cover" New York Sun (25 July 2007).</ref>
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Lead and more
Hello, adding the $90 million libel suit that just hit Spitzer, I asked myself why the long lead, which even includes the whole bio? If nobody objects, I'll eventually shorten it and edit the early life-section accordingly. Ajnem (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparent anti-Spitzer bias
There really does seem to be a strong bias against Mr Spitzer here. Sorry, but I really can't help but think it's deliberate. Almost the entire article is about scandals and how unpopular he apparently is. It's certainly very sensationalist.
There's definitely a sin of omission going on here. His achievements as a 'corporate sheriff' (or even the fact that he was one) appear to be glossed over. Almost completely ignored. Why?
In addition, there's no talk at all about Spitzer's corporate 'targets' bringing him down through use of these (perceived) scandals. There's certainly a great deal of evidence that there was corporate collusion to bring Spitzer down. Wikipedia has certainly published "conspiracy theories" with a great deal less evidence. Again, why no discussion?
The article seems to revel in discussing (often petty) Spitzer scandals but steadfastly ignores the corporate scandals that Spitzer uncovered.
The truth about Spitzer is that he is/was pretty obviously an arrogant, unpleasant, power-hungry and 'dodgy' person. (And oh boy, have you been labouring this aspect of Spitzer in the article.) But this seems to make him pretty much the norm in American politics. The thing that sets him was his targeting of corrupt corporate America... and his success at doing this.
The overall feel of this article, with it's apparent right-wing 'big business' bias, love of scandals and sleaze is that it could've been written by The News of the World.
I think Wikipedia is brilliant. And I congratulate the people who give up their time and skill to write these articles. I just think that article needs a major re-write in order for it not to be biased/misleading.
Eliot Spitzer: reference no 2
Hi, I'm not sure if this is relevant, but I clicked on the link for this reference - largely because of the entertaining title - and was surprised to see an Ayn Rand "philosophy" web site. I mean yes, it is a source, but it seems a little beneath Wikipedia. I liked her books, but I don't know about using them as the basis for economic philosophy, policy or critiquing a failure like Spitzer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielnicholasrooney (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)