Talk:David Paterson

Archives Archive 1

Patterson Had Affair with a State Employee

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

[1]

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

Squeezing in Time to Govern Between Squeezing Other Women

After it became apparent that Eliot Spitzer could barely find the time to try to hand out driver's licenses to illegal immigrants between expensive call girls, now we learn that Paterson has had multiple affairs as well. Given the basic facts of an affair, it inevitably cuts into the time with which one can do his/her actual job. So, for the ordinary taxpayers funding the lives of these bozos, the critical question becomes: Can Paterson squeeze in time for his new job in between squeezing women who are not his wife?

St. Patrick's Day

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

As I said on your talk page, St. Patrick's Day was moved this year. However, I would suggest just changing it to "March 17", which is probably more encyclopaedic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You would suggest that huh? Funny I jsut said the same thing on your talkpageEMT1871 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Great minds, I suppose. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The opening line of his inauguration speech dealt with St. Patrick's day, which makes it relevant, and the succession occurred on St. Patrick's day, which makes it encyclopedic. Mrprada911 (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, doesn't seem too important to me, and the text didn't explain the relevance when I commented here. I don't have strong feelings about it, but the relevance ought to be included if "St Pat's" is mentioned, otherwise it appears to be unnotable trivia. (I missed that line in the speech - although couldn't help but see all the green in the audience...) . Tvoz |talk 07:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz |talk that the St. Pat's day is totally irrelevant, even if Paterson was wearing a green tie. Besides his quote about being Governor of New York, we should summarize what he said in his speech! Yoninah (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Affair

Paterson discloses extramarital affairs.

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

Relevance of "I am the governor" quote?

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

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

And so what we are going to do from now on is what we always should have done. We’re going to work together.

With conviction in our brains and compassion in our hearts and love for New York on our sleeves, we will dedicate ourselves to principle but always maintain the ability to listen.

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

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

I agree it's out of place. Isaacsf (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I believe the quote should stay, although admittedly I added it. The emphasis was on reintroduce myself. My personal hope is that he ends up as more of a Chester Arthur than a John Tyler, but in any event I think it adds context to the fact that he is has gone from an unknown quantity to a national figure in one week. I think if we can get audio of the quote (I have video, but I do not have a program to seperate the audio) and put it next to the quotation box, it will add further context. Mrprada911 (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep but only in context. It should be written that he told jokes and humorous lines for half an hour, then interjected this quote, then switched over to a more traditional inauguration speech. Yoninah (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

naming of section "Governor of New York"

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

• Attorney Generalship
  
• Supreme Court Judgeship
  
• Mayorship
  

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

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

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

Have to agree with Yellowdesk - what's the reason for not calling it "Governor of New York"? Tvoz |talk 05:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Although there is no official MoS, nearly all of the other Governors use "Governorship". While that is not a reason to change it to "Governor of New York", I think that is perhaps a phrase better suited for Simple Wikipedia.

According to dictionary.com: gover·nor·ship (gŭv'ər-nər-shĭp') n. 1. The office, term, or jurisdiction of a governor. 2. the duties, term in office, etc., of a governor. Origin: 1635–45; governor + -ship

Mrprada911 (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the word is incomprehensible, just that it is unnecessarily stilted. Tvoz |talk 07:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Large, unused reference list

Someone put these here originally to be used to garnish text for the article. I think that there is not much more new information that can be garnered from these, but they may prove useful as additional footnotes for what is already in the text. If they cannot be added in the next week or so, they should be deleted. Mrprada911 (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

"legally" blind?

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

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

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

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

The Paterson Executive Chamber

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

30th not 29th district

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

Yes the references cite the two different numbers. Check them out. (Or at least both districts were cited in the references I put in on Saturday or Sunday, before all the hubbub on inauguration day.-- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I had already checked them out, and I understand there are two different numbers cited - that's the point of my comment. We are listing, in this article, that he represented the 29th district from 1986-2003, and the 30th from 2003-2007. My question is this: a change was made to the section titled "Political Career" to say that he was elected to the 30th district in 1986, which I don't think is the case. Isaacsf (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

discrepancy about being the first legally blind us governor

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

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

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

You are correct; he is not the first blind governor. It seems some editors are not familiar WP:OR and WP:VER...I've made the correction. Isaacsf (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What confuses this issue is he is New York's first blind governor, as well as New York's first African-American governor. They're local milestones, not national ones, but they are commonly touted in articles about him and I suppose it's easy to get confused. Rob T Firefly (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Arkansas - Riley (and Joe Purcell) was never Governor, just Lieutenant Governor peforming gubernatorial duties as 'Acting Governor'. If Riley (and Purcell) were Governors? Mike Beebe would be Arkansas 47th Governor. So which is? Governor or not? GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Day one as governor?

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

First blind Governor in the USA

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

Wikipedia is not a primary resource. However, it does seem that he was not actually sworn in as governor (see [3]). Having said all that, Wikipedia is not intended to report such original research (see WP:OR) and if the folks who are publishing articles on the subject can't agree on it, we don't need to be expressing an opinion on the matter at all. Isaacsf (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Riley source is unreliable & so both should be removed from this article. Accordingly, Paterson is the 'first' legally blind Governor in USA history. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There's really very little point in us discussing this...the point is whether or not the assertion meets WP:VER and WP:OR standards or not. If you can find refs that meet that standard, I say we should put it in. (What I've seen so far is that reporters are more interested in "saying" he is first than actually finding out if it is true.) Isaacsf (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

IF Riley & Joe Purcell were Governors of Arkansas (IMHO, they were). Then Mike Beebe should be the 47th Governor, not the 45th. We've some serious inaccuracy problems here. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

That's acceptable, as Arkansas itself seems unclear as to wheither Riley & Purcell were Governors or not. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the State of Arkansas official websites all indicate that Beebe is the 45th governor and that Riley is not officially considered in the line of succession. This would technically make Paterson the first blind governor.

• [[4]]
• [[5]]

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

They may be official, verifiable sources, but our bar here is WP:VER and WP:OR. What matters here is not whether or not he is the first anything. Rather, the important thing is what is verifiable. Is Arkansas claiming that Paterson is the first / second / or any numbered blind governor of NY? All Arkansas is claiming is its own governors; even if they say Riley wasn't governor, that is not a verifiable source that Paterson is first, and that is what we need in order to put it in this article.

We should not be editing for the sake of editing. If we find a reliable source that settles the discussion once and for all, we can change then. Otherwise, I move for some version of the text I entered above (starting with "It has been variously reported..."). Isaacsf (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There's another option. If we can't determine Riley's status (Governor or Acting Governor), then for now, we should omit xxx blind Governor in the USA. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Isaacsf (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[ . . . ]

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

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

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

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

[ . . .]

That was back in September.

Paterson is the grandchild of Jamaicans and Grenadians.

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

[ . . . ]

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

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

So know Caribbean-American is a race?Of course he is black you can see this.This is the actual problem of usa ,people confuse race with local origin.Augusto