Talk:Eliot Spitzer

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2

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inappropriate to have the opinion of a single man under his tenure as Attorney General in the article, but the LINK IS NO LONGER VALID.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)

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.

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)

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.[1] 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.[2][3]

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)

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?