Talk:Eliot Spitzer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fact Tag

Removed fact tag on section "Work as attorney general" with regard to the broad powers of subpoena the NY AG has. As can be seen here http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/TFBConsum.nsf/0/b121300d356fab5e85256b2f006c60e1?OpenDocument a subpoena is almost only ever issued by a judge. For the AG to be able to subpoena people is indeed a power above and beyond most. The law empowering this is cited in the article already. Huadpe 19:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:54th or 58th

This is very confusing about the order of Elliot Spitzer as the 54th or the 58th Governor of New York. On the list of New York Goverenors wikipedia page it lists Malcolm Wilson as its governor from 1973-1974 (Most likely when Nelson Rockefeller taken the VP in the Gerald Ford adminstration.) If Spitzer is the 54th Governor of New York,someone has note this and correct the order of the governors Jbc2k052 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

54th or 58th

Which is it?

• According to the Governor's website, he is the 54th: http://ny.gov/governor/index.html
  Also this page indicates that Pataki was the 53rd: http://ny.gov/governor/nygovs/index.html

Souldrifter 21:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI debate win

I gave Spitzer in the win in this article because it doesn't matter. Bona Fides 19:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. I gave Suozzi the win in the Suozzi article because Suozzi claimed victory. The Albany Times Union said that by appearing on the same plaftorm Suozzi wins. Otter news pundits (incl. Baruch Prof Munzio) said that by not making any gaffes, Spitzer won. Therefore both guys won. This is possible in politics, but not in baseball. Bona Fides

this really needs more about his recent career!

should the second to last bullet have anything added to it, or is "to" the end of the sentence? Tevi 08:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Elector" or "Delegate"?

The people who select a party's nominees at a national convention are called 'delegates'. Those who cast the actual votes that determine the outcome of the presidential election are called 'electors'. In either case, they do not cast 'the' vote but rather 'a' vote; no state has just a single vote in the national conventions or the Electoral College, least of all a huge state like New York. I would fix this if I knew which was meant; for all I know Spitzer was both an elector and a delegate; he would be eligible to be both, as he is not a federal official. Most high-profile office holders, particularly Democrats, are delegates to their party's national conventions.

Regardless of what one thinks of his role in the tobacco settlement (he has only been involved at the very end, so perhaps this goes well unmentioned in the article), his role in the stock market fraud and abuse investigations has been great for every small investor. If he succeeds in becoming governor of New York, it seems to me very highly likely that he will eventually become interested in being the Democratic nominee for President (in fact many suggest that this is his long-term ambition). He has probably done more to advance the transparency of the capitalist process than anyone else in recent decades; ironically, if GWB is successful in getting a majority of the people to see this as an ownership society and themselves as capitalists, he may well have set up an excellent national candidate for the other national party in the relatively-near future. Rlquall 18:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Still want to see the delegate/elector thing hashed out. Is the intent that he was the one to say, "Madame Chairperson, the great state of New York, the Empire State, casts its 223 vote for the next President of the United States, Al Gore," or something to that effect? That would make him the "delegation chair" (or at least the "acting delegation chair"), not the "elector", which is a separate thing at a separate time. Rlquall 02:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I read the article and noticed the same point. Coming here to see whether it had been addressed, I find that it was raised more than a month ago, to no avail. Therefore, I've removed the sentence. Neither convention delegate nor presidential elector is a particularly important position these days, when no real deliberation is called for. Even if we had all the facts, I'd be hard pressed to see why the point(s) would merit inclusion in the article. JamesMLane 23:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Political aspirations"

Should this be retitled "higher aspirations" or "higher political aspirations"? He's already no doubt "political"; he holds an elected statewide office. Rlquall 04:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverting "Criticism of Spitzer"

I've removed the following paragraph by Nobs01 for the second time: "According to USA Today and the Washington Post, a witchhunt brought against brokers in the Mutual Fund industry, which has already cost the industry $3 billion, the only person ever charged was exonerated by a jury on June 10, 2005. [1]"

I removed it because of the following:

• Violates NPOV: Uses blatantly loaded language ("witch-hunt") and slanting the facts (states "cost the industry $3 billion" without noting that this is restitution to mutual fund shareholders).
• Is factually incorrect: Nobs01 states that "the only person ever charged was exonerated by a jury." That is just factually wrong, according to Nobs01's own source (a Washington Post article). That article says the following, and I quote verbatim - "The probe yielded six guilty pleas" This means that not one, but seven brokers were charged with crimes. Six plead guilty right off the bat. One (Sihpol) decided to roll the dice on a trial, and was found not guilty. End of story.

I am perfectly willing to let the critics post criticism of Spitzer regarding the Mutual Fund industry investigations/prosecutions go, but not on purely partisan emotional grounds, nor on factually incorrect ones. --Daniel 05:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

:I second the statement of Daniel, though I view criticisms of his as unjust.

--jonasaurus 18:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand how prosecutors work, especially the Eliot Spitzer variety. You don't have to be indicted, charged, or even guilty in order to reach an agreement with a prosecutor and plead guilty. Rather than remove the entire post, which was informative if not written correctly, why didn't you merely rewrite the portion you considered factually incorrect. You could have written, the only case that was brought to trial resulted in a "not guilty" verdict. You see, it costs a lot of money to defend against a Spitzer, and often in business situations the party with the money, for example the business, is not too concerned about a slap on the wrist plea deal, or if a particular employee, perhaps a former employee, accepts a plea deal. Daniel's own words are to characterize the act of refusing a plea bargain as "rolling the dice at trial". Daniel should acknowledge that the risk is for innocent people as well as guilty people, and realize that there are unreimbursed costs even if you are innocent and found not guilty. A rational person who is innocent must plead guilty in certain instances when the costs and penalties are so devised. Have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Not suggesting that potential to abuse the power by a prosecutor by threatening huge penalties and guaranteed legal costs in order to induce plea bargains is needed in this post. But your wholesale deletion of the relevant information by selecting one small and arguably irrelevant point which you declare false seems to violate the NPOV guidelines. Aren't you after accurate information, or just flattering information? --Unregistered User

"Spitzer Watch" blog

I was holding off on this for a while, but I'm beginning to think that Spitzer Watch ought to be tossed out of the external links section. To sum up my reasons:

1. The owner of the Spitzer Watch blog does not make any disclosure of his name (only goes by the nom de plume "Patrick"), his credentials/background, his motives, or backers.

This critique is amusing considering that it comes from someone who puts considerable time and effort in to editing, what could only be called the ultimate amature project. Certainly, wikipedia should not be discredited just because it was/is created by amateurs, so why should this blog?

Wikipedia is an amateur project, based on credible, original, and reliable sources. If the AEI/WSJ writes some scathing attack on Spitzer, I'll link it unfiltered through your blog, thank you very much. --Daniel 08:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This is just an ad-hominem attack. Additionally, because Spitzer Watch is constantly being updated with factually based critiques of Spitzer this should be the perfect link for the "Critics" section of the Spitzer wikipedia entry.

The criticisms on your blog are nothing more than a link to the latest AEI/WSJ Op-Ed and some commentary on the commentary. No original research, and nothing to say that your opinions happen to count any more than the next person with a blog.

As for ad-hominem attacks, you're in no position to lecture, having used your blog to make an irrelevant, and borderline libelous personal attack. --Daniel 08:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the "news-to-rant ratio" Maybe my recollection of what a "rant" is is off, but I would suggest that my favorite way of criticizing Spitzer - simply holding him up to the standards that he sets for others - is not at all ranting because it is based in fact. Additionally, I often feel I should spend more time, not less, doing analysis of news, rather than just providing links to it. Patrick 23:25, October 5

1. Despite the anonymity of Spitzer Watch's owner/author, it's pretty clearly an amateurish blog. The news-to-rant ratio is pretty low. In my opinion, we could probably do a lot better at linking the source materials Spitzer Watch draws from, and not Spitzer Watch itself.

Ahh yes, more scary anonymous editors! Again I will repeat that I don't know who added my site to the entry, but it seems likely that the same person who added it in the first place. I do agree that there should not be more than one link to Spitzer Watch on the wiki entry.

Funny you should say this as you use an anonymous IP rather than your name to put up this whole rant, and just so happened to use it to add a link right before. If you're going to add a link, I'd advise you to have the courage of your convictions and not resort to sock puppetry. --Daniel 08:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

More importantly is the "I've kept..." aspect of this complaint. Wikipedia is a cooperative effort and no one entry should be edited by only one person. At least when Spizer Watch was completely deleted an effort was made to consult with the wiki-community. Tasripin seems to be implying some kind of ownership over the page by this comment: Very un-Wiki! Patrick 23:25, October 5

Whatever that means. Take a look at the history of the article; plenty of others besides me have dutifully looked at your blog, judged it on its merits, and found it wanting. And it seems that minus the link on Wikipedia, not many people are paying attention at all to Spitzer Watch. --Daniel 08:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

1. I've kept Spitzer Watch to one link, in an area on critics. Over the past several weeks, various anonymous IPs have come in to put in extra links (usually when there's an update on the blog). It should raise at least some suspicion that someone's putting links on here simply drive up hits to the site (which doesn't have many, according to its own site stats).
2. Related to points 2 and 3, an anonymous IP decided to put up a link to The Spitzer Report. Comparing the two websites, there's not much material on Spitzer Report that isn't already on Spitzer Watch; the authors of both is Patrick. Having the same reports, with the same author/editor, on two different blogs raises the question of whether Patrick is trying to "corroborate" questionable reports simply by simply repeating them.

As for the idea that having two separate sources will somehow fool people into thinking that that these are independently corroborated, that might be plausible if it wasn't so clear that the sites were linked. Notice this sentence in the post announcing the launch of Spitzer Report:

"The same great Spitzer Watch content with a Drudge Report spin."

Spitzer Report is just another way of accessing Spitzer Watch content and that should be clear to anyone interested in facts. Also reinforcing that fact is that it says "visit our other site: SPITZER REPORT" on each page of Spitzer Watch. Patrick 23:25, October 5

Fine. Theere's still no reason to have a link to Spitzer Report AND Spitzer Watch, since they're the same blog. And since neither happens to provide much besides recycled coverage, insinuation and innuendo, or happens to have a particularly large or devoted following, there's no reason to have either linked. --Daniel 08:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not in a rush, so I'd like to invite folks to comment over the next week or so; I don't want to be hasty and get touch off an edit war. But I'd urge folks to look at the website, I think my criticisms are to the point. --Daniel 07:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. For one thing, the other critics listed say are more prestigious and seem to give more useful information, but more importantly, the Spitzer Watch blog seems to be aimed at people who are already opposed to Spitzer. The WSJ and Bloomberg News articles provide valid critical viewpoints of Spitzer's methods; the blog, on the other hand, seems to be an attack piece aimed at stopping Spitzer by any means necessary. The most recent update, for instance, is a write-up of Spitzer's opponent in the election; while greatly of interest to anyone who opposes Spitzer, that's not very useful information to link to from Spitzer's wikipedia entry. Aquillion 22:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Having given a week's notice and heard no objections, I'm getting rid of the link to the Spitzer Watch blog, and substituting the American Enterprise Institute's AG Watch --Daniel 04:16, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have added (replaced) the Spitzer Watch link for this (DELETED PERSONAL ATTACK - --Daniel 09:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)) reason. I am certainly open to ideas on this, but I can say that they will be responded to more quickly if posted in the comments section where I give my rather lenghty reasoning. Patrick 01:25, August 31 (EST)

I'm frankly honored to be slimed on your website, Patrick. If you're going to engage in character assassination as you are presently doing on your blog, be my guest.

Your attempt to slime me aside - and I will take that matter up - I never took issue with you or Spitzer Watch per se. It's just that a) your blog just recycles what other people write - so we may as well use the original material, b) you barely make any effort to actually disclose who you are on that site. For all anyone knew, prior to your announcing yourself so rudely here, is that you're a paid political consultant from the Weld or Daniels campaign, and c) your blog, according to your own stats get so few visitors a day that you very much look like you're just trolling for hits. --Daniel 08:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

As I am tired of "Daniel" eliminating meaningful discussion and generally disregarding basic wikipedia policies such as "assuming good faith". (Reference Here I have responded to each "charge" one at a time above.

You did so by bringing an irrelevant long-since-dismissed charge against me. I have never once said anything about you personally - partly because you made your name so scarce on the blog. I've commented about the blog, and your actions as the owner of that blog, but I assumed good faith with only a slight suspicion of shadiness. That is, until you acted totally in bad faith by dragging the discussion into gutter and in the safety of your own blog, and then not even bothering to publish a retraction when I took the time here to deal with it. --Daniel 08:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Additionally I should point out that the charge that Spitzer Watch doesn't include any new content (editorial or news wise) is easiliy and quickly proven false after seeing here, here, here and here.

Unfounded insinuation, innuendo, rumor mongering, and baseless opinions makes for great partisan attack ads. It doesn't make "content" however. --Daniel 08:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That being said, Spitzer Watch is re-added to the critics list as it contains far more critical news/commentary then any of the other critics links. -Patrick 01:25, October 5, 2005 11:25 (EST)

No sooner said than a Wikipedian who's half a world away from me managed to see through this whole charade, as he rv'd the link twice. --Daniel 08:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Considered

"Spitzer's use of his family wealth was considered a key part of his electoral success, a fact for which he faced criticism."

I reworded this sentence somewhat, but I still don't like it. Considered by who? Criticism from who? We should either say straight-out that his family wealth was part of his electoral success, and note who criticized him of it; or should indicate who "considered" it. Note that I'm not really questioning the claims here (which I don't know much about), and I'm sure sources can be found; I just don't like how it sounds right now. It seems to run afoul of Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms. I changed the first sentence in the following paragraph (removing "has been viewed as", since the article seems to show that he has stepped it up) for the same reason. Aquillion 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Speaking candidly, as an editor who happens to be a registered Democrat in New York, I try to take extra care that the article doesn't appear too pro-Spitzer or dismissive of the claims against him. This does seem to get me into trouble with "weasel words" whenever I deal with New York politics articles, but mainly it's from trying to deal with poorly substantiated claims without reflexively dismissing them outright, as with the claim about money from Spitzer's family financing his campaigns being criticized. The prior edits give nothing on who actually took umbrage at this. --Daniel 06:43, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

"Reportedly"

"During the 2004 Presidential election, Spitzer was reportedly a top choice to be attorney general in a possible John Kerry adminstration."

"Reportedly" in whose eyes? Is there a reference that can back this up?--RattBoy 02:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Spyware

The article should mention his campaign against spyware companies... I would write a section myself, but i don't know quite enough about it... --Wulf 05:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Campaign for Governor of New York

Does anyone else here agree that the "Campaign for Governor of New York" section is too long here, particularly given that there already is a separate article called New York gubernatorial election, 2006? I'd like to see someone take a whack at it here, cutting most of it, and moving any info that is not already in the New York gubernatorial election, 2006 article there. Thoughts? -- Sholom 19:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

nnpov/Unsourced

The ability of the Attorney General's office to obtain and publicize embarrassing or incriminating internal documents carries with it the possibility that a defendant's reputation may be damaged, although this may be little different from the power of any prosecutor. This has been demonstrated in Spitzer's investigations of public corporations, in which the issuance of subpoenas have been enough to drive down stock prices of the corporation in question. Spitzer investigations have led corporations facing civil action to choose to settle, and suspects in criminal investigations to seek plea bargains. Supporters have hailed Spitzer's prosecutions of white collar crimes, crimes that threaten investor confidence: critics maintain that Spitzer engages in legal blackmail that damages the economy, while benefiting his political ambitions. Others have held that Spitzer's active pursuit of white collar crime reflects an efficient use of his powers to diminish the well hidden and often well protected illegal activities of corporations and their executives.

I took this out. Completely unsourced and I think its not a npov paragraph. Doesnt really matter. There are no citations, its gone. Disagreement?

--Good call.--Rich 22:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Eliot_Spitzer#Securities "Global Securities" I've removed this bit: Although the settlment is large, and generated a lot of press interest, it actually pales in comparison to the revenues earned by the companies for their misdeads and could be described as nothing more than a "slap on the wrist." For example, the largest payout by Citibank, amounted to around one quarter of one years annual profits at the firm.

"Slap on the wrist" is very NNPOV. There is no source for the fine, the fine amount, or how it relates to CitiBank's "annual profits." Not to mention it is another of CitiGroup's subsidiaries Smith Barney *not* CitiBank which was fined. Kazens 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Too wide on browser

Help... can someone edit the article and talk page to prevent the oiutput from being too wide? Bona Fides 14:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What browser & OS are you using? Is the problem only with this particular article? --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is worse on the Talk Page Bona Fides 14:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did a fix on the Talk page - any better? --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Bona Fides 17:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Prosecutors

Spitzer was an Assistant District Attorney, making the District Attorney category applicable (which is NOT the case with all prosecutors, as many are not District Attorneys) but as Attorney General he is a prosecutor also, making the Prosecutors category applicable outside of his service as an Assistant District Attorney. To exclude him from that broader category would be a disservice to readers. 20:59, 6 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.120.195 (talk • contribs) .

For some reason, someone keeps trying to pare down the Prosecutors category. Spitzer belongs in it, regardless of whether or not he also belongs in the District Attorneys category, because he has served (including at the present time) as a prosecutor by means of a position other than one as a District Attorney. I am therefore returning the Prosecutor category to this article. If whoever switches it out has a good reason for doing so, share it. Otherwise, cut it out.

I removed this NNPOV bit from the article

Some people believe that Spitzer is widely perceived as a vindictive bully who even mainstream pundits fear would tear the state political arena apart. Joseph Dobrian, writing in Serf City (www.SerfCity.US), wrote a widely-read commentary titled "We Don't Need a Bully in Albany", which featured a cartoon of a Spitzer campaign button proclaiming, "Give Me Your Lunch Money". - Other people believe that Spitzer is a man of character and principle, and has proven that he isn't afraid to take on Big Business.

Thanks. I wrote the second part of that yesterday to counter the point that I thought was biased.

And This: Spitzer is ignoring debate challenges from the third party candidates, such as the Libertarian Party's John Clifton (www.ElectClifton.org) Unsourced, negative towards living person, pushing candidate, advertising Any objections?

Sig added Jasper23 00:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning: Deletion Without Identification Or Comment

Someone deleted a factual statement regarding Mr. Spitzer's focus on prosecuting firms other than fellow law firms but there is no discussion entry. I'm not saying it was done by political operatives or other attorneys, but Wikipedia is supposed to be better than that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.132.227 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 November 2006

Please sign your posts.

If you're referring to this edit, you're mistaken. My description of the edit clearly says "does anyone recognize "bankruptcymisconduct.com" as a reliable source?" Your edit, which preceded my reversion, used what is clearly an agenda-driven bloggish website—the sort of source which Wikipedia is supposed to be better than.--RattBoy 01:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Anons keep inserting the "bankruptcymisconduct.com" bit of anti-Spitzer fluff. They need a far more credible source if they wish to be taken seriously. In the latest instance, anon 70.21.199.252 characterized two stories about Hevesi as being evidence of "criticism…for his consistent refusals to take action against those whose interests are aligned with his own such as fellow politicians and fellow lawyers." Ignoring the fact that politicians would generally jump at the chance to prosecute "fellow politicans" and "fellow lawyers" if they were opponents (and thus there'd be no rational "conflict of interest" to assert), the Bloomberg and Newsday links do not contain criticism of Spitzer's actions with respect to Hevesi—so I reverted the disingenuous edit.--RattBoy 02:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

RattBoy above mistates as he recharacterizes the original edit, good attempt at a strawman. The edit was not about "politicians prosecuting", which by the way, Politicians are not authorized to prosecute lawyers. The edit was clearly an entry about Eliot Spitzer's reign as Attorney General. An attorney general is supposed to prosecute, and an AG is not supposed to base his decision to investigate or prosecute on whether the target is a fellow lawyer, or same party politician. Will Rattboy now tell us it is also a "fact" that lawyers jump at the chance to prosecute fellow lawyers? Besides his straw man argument, Rattboy disingenuously takes one small point in the larger edit, and looks to only two of the large number of references for proof of his thesis. Rattboy then concludes that since the particular point of the edit was not proven by the particular references which he read he should delete the entire post. Could the original post have been written better? Absolutely. Isn't that what other editors should be doing? Unfornately, the wiki page continues to imply that there is no criticism of Spitzer reign as AG based upon his controversial record of selective investigation and prosecution - and instead reads like campaign literature, and Wikipedia is supposed to be better than. At least Rattboy deserves praise for his steadfast efforts at deleting posts which might impugn the legal profession.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.199.252 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 November 2006

What on earth are you talking about?

You posted three links. One was to an agenda-driven blog (filtered through Yahoo); neither of the other two supports what you wrote.

There is content in this article which is critical of Spitzer. Most likely, there will be more. That is not a problem. Posting of unverifiable content, in order to promote an anti-Spitzer agenda, is a problem. Such editing will be reverted in accordance with the NPOV policy.--RattBoy 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Working Families Party

"advantage?"

Daughters

Any idea as to their birth years? Or must we keep updating their ages for the rest of their lives? Biruitorul 06:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Does anyone know why the picture shows Spitzer in the Press Room of the State Department? Did he work for the State Department? I skimmed the article and didn't see anything. Can't get get a better pic? --Daysleeper47 16:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Republican Trump?

Although he was courted by the GOP, and can be seen as right of centre, I think his $20,000 donation to the DCCC in the elction season discounts him from being described as a 'Republican businessmen', as he has traditionalzly split his support among the two paties. The term suggests that he made a big exception and endorsed Spitzer- not true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.143.162.166 (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Fake "Threat"

I removed the section calling Spitzer's referring to himself as a "steamroller" a threat. The idea that a suggestion of political power and popular support, stated in relative private -- though I would maintain it could have been part of his inaugural address, with obvious rewording -- is worth describing as a threat is ludicrous. This is so oft-used a phraseology as to be a cliche, but the presentation as it existed suggested an author who thought Spitzer intended to physically crush his opponents. Czrisher 15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Antarctic Liberation Front

Anon 216.227.63.123 inserted a bunch of text about the "Antarctic Liberation Front", with a link to a blog as its only source. This bit of Princeton trivia is amusing in its way, but I don't think it's notable—certainly not worthy of two paragraphs in this sort of article. I reverted it with extreme prejudice.--HughGRex 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

HughGRex: what are you on Spitzer's pay role? The text is significant in that his tactics as a young man foreshadowed those of his professional career. The link was not just "a blog." It was an article written by a Princeton classmate in response to a New Yorker article. I'll repost it when I get the chance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.63.123 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 21 March 2007

So, you begin with a personal attack, questioning my motivation? That's not exactly the Dale Carnegie way.

The link's title is "Dynamist Blog," so it most certainly is a blog. Except in very limited cases, blogs are not used as reliable sources in Wikipedia.

Your description of the ALF incident is very POV. One example: "Even in his formative years, Spitzer was expert in using his office to generate publicity, in this case frequent mentions in the student newspaper that finally drove several students over the edge." That kind of tone is unacceptable in Wikipedia.

Even if you excised the POV tone and found a reliable source, you'd have a hard time convincing other editors that the incident merited the kind of attention that you gave it. Please don't start a revert war over this. I don't think you'll win, and you'll just waste your and others' time.--HughGRex 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"That's not the Dale Carnegie Way" -- You, sir, are a tool. A former Princeton USG Chairman yourself?

Biography / personal life

This article needs a short Bio section. Where and when did he go to high school? College? (Yeah, I know it was Princeton–see above–but when?) Law school? When did he marry? What are his daughters' and parents' names? How long was he in private practice, with whom, doing what???--HughGRex 10:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag on Campaign for Governor of New York section

This section has been tagged since 17 Dec 2006 (this edit) by Kevinrbing, who at the time posted a cryptic question on the Talk Page {this edit). The question appears irrelevant to the section in question–if not irrelevant then, it is now–and thus I'm removing the tag. If anyone believes that the tag should be restored, please discuss your criticism of the section here.--HughGRex 10:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

election results

I haven't looked at all of the election results but the 2006 general election results are clearly incorrect. chances are they were taken from the initial news reports which cited unofficial tallies of the votes. the certified election results are available at the NYS board of elections website at www.elections.state.ny.us. there are also no citations, but this has already been noted.

That section also notes that Faso ran on the conservative line in addition to the republican but does not note that spritzer ran on three lines himself (Working Families, Independence and Democratic).

It should be noted by the updater (for purposes of accurately tallying the votes cast, not necessarily noted in the article itself) that NYS allows "cross endorsing" so the votes you receive on each party line are added together.

This is my first attempt to update a wiki page and am worried that I'll mess things up. That is why I didn't make the changes myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Santoshalper (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

NY Post Quotes

I don't know what the policy normally is for newspaper quotes, but using two NY Post quotes in the Governor-- Reform section of the article would seem to lend an imbalanced perspective, especially considering the hard (some say inappropriate) right-leaning slant of that publication. Thoughts? 165.98.213.134 01:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Callie

Eliot Spitzer

Hi there. I remove the sentence "To those familiar with history behind Spitzer's meteoric rise to power, the controversy and the e-mails that shed light on it during the investigation will appear particularly ironic (and embarassing for the Spitzer administration) since he had used e-mails against his famous Wall Street targets." from the Eliot Spitzer article because it wasn't cited, and I'm not really familiar with it so the context is unclear as how it relates to controversy. If you could explain it in further detail for novice readers and cite it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! MrPrada 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Police Surveillance Controversy

I'm not sure why this section was tagged. The only comment that was posted was "Make it NPOV". Any suggestions would be appreciated. MrPrada 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If there was no explanation for the Tag on talkm I dont think you are under any obligation to keep it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Travel/Police

What's up there is not NPOV and also looks very similar to (verbatim copy actually) what's in Bruno's page. Two recommendations: 1. Move it to a separate article and reference from parties involved. 2. Make it NPOV unsigned comment was added by 132.236.247.63 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC).

What suggestions do you have for making it NPOV? The only lines that strike me off the top of my head are 'scathing report', although nearly all of the 25 sources refer to it as a scathing report... I believe it is a word-for-word copy of the Bruno article, with some minor changes, however, moving it to a separate article would be inappropriate. It could get expanded coverage over on wikinews however. MrPrada 01:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I would have to agree that it's not NPOV here. We could even look at it line by line.

Police Surveillance Controversy

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

On July 23, 2007, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office admonished the Spitzer administration for ordering the State Police to keep special records of Senate majority leader Joseph L. Bruno's whereabouts when he traveled with police escorts in New York City.[27] -- True, verified, neutral.

At the direction of top officials of the Spitzer administration, the New York State Police created documents meant to cause political damage to Bruno.[28] -- True, verified, neutral (uses the same words as the report itself).

The governor's staff had stated they were responding to a Freedom of Information request from the Albany Times-Union in late June.[27][29] - True

On May 23, Spitzer's Communications Director Darren Dopp wrote Rich Baum, a senior Spitzer adviser, that "records exist going way back"[30] about Bruno's use of state aircraft, and that "Also, I think there is a new and different way to proceed re media. Will explain tomorrow."[29] - True

Dopp later wrote another e-mail to Baum after a story ran in the Albany Times-Union about a federal grand jury investigation of Bruno's investments in thoroughbred racing horses, and wrote: "Think travel story would fit nicely in the mix."[30][29] - True

The first Freedom of Information Act request about Bruno's travel was filed by the Times Union on June 27, nearly a month after.[31] - True, might need clarification

A scathing 57-page report issued by the Attorney General's office concluded that Spitzer aides engaged in creating media coverage concerning Senator Bruno's travel before any Freedom of Information Law request was made.[32] - True, delete the word scathing

The investigation looked into both Bruno's travel and the senate leader's allegation that Spitzer used State Police to spy on him.[33] - True, good use of "senate leader's allegation"

Cuomo concluded that "These e-mails show that persons in the governor's office did not merely produce records under a FOIL request, but were instead engaged in planning and producing media coverage concerning Senator Bruno's travel on state aircraft before any FOIL request was made."[30][34] - True, cites AG's remarks

It noted that the Times-Union's initial FOIL request didn't even ask for the records involving Bruno that the paper was later given by aides to Spitzer.[35] - True, again, how could this be any more neutral

It also suggests that the governor's staff lied when they tried to explain what they had done and forced the State Police to go far beyond their normal procedures in documenting Mr. Bruno’s whereabouts.[36] - Perhaps suggests/implied is NPOV, but according the numerous sources cited, it's correct. It could easily say "The report says that the governor's staff lied" and still be accurate and NPOV.

The Times-Union's requests sought documents on use of state aircraft by seven officials, including Spitzer, Bruno and Lieutenant Governor David A. Paterson, yet Spitzer’s office released only Bruno’s itinerary.[37] - True

The Spitzer administration and the State Police provided far more details about Bruno than about other officials to the Times-Union, including records to reply to a request under the state’s Freedom of Information laws, though no such request had even been made.[38] - True, impartial

The report noted that the state acted outside the laws in what it released, such as documents that resembled official state travel records, “which they were not" according to Ellen Nachtigall Biben, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, who contributed to the report.[37] - True, again, direct quote

The report stated that the Times-Union request came after the story about Bruno’s travels was published, and was “not consistent” with Spitzer administration claims that all it did was respond to a FOIL request.[39] - Again, this is what the report states. It is similar to the line above which remarks that they were not representing themselves truthfully. Not sure if can get any more fair.

No other officials were subject to the same scrutiny as Bruno, and in some cases, the reports created by State Police were pieced together long after the trips, based on the sometimes on the memory of the police escorts involved.[40] - This is what is inside the report. Cannot get more NPOV.

The report cleared Bruno of any misuse of the state's air fleet, which had been alleged.[41][42][43][28] - True, although it did state that the regulations should be changed.

Spitzer also used the state aircraft during the first six months of his term as governor for political purposes, including a stop in Rochester to attend an event for the Monroe County Democratic Committee on a day in which he had a number of stops related to public business.[40] - True, in the report

The report criticized Spitzer's office for using State Police resources to gather information about Bruno's travel and releasing the information to the media.[42] - True

New York Republican State Committee Chairman Joseph Mondello claimed that "Today’s explosive report by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo validates the frightening charges that Governor Spitzer’s administration abused the New York State Police and New York’s F.O.I.L. laws in an attempt to set up Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno"[27] and that "This disturbing abuse of power by a Governor is unprecedented."[27] - This is a quote by an enemy of the Governor. Perhaps it could be balanced by something from one of his allies, but according to the sources, no one seems to be standing up for what occured.

The tactics involved have raised questions among some pundits about the tactics Spitzer used as Attorney General.[44] This sentence could probably go, although it links to a reliable source (Forbes)

The findings of the report were endorsed by Mr. Spitzer’s own Inspector General, Kristine Hamann.[27][42][43][33] - True, I think this is the main quote that invalidates NPOV

Spitzer responded at a July 23rd press conference that "As governor, I am accountable for what goes on in the executive branch and I accept responsibility for the actions of my office"[27] and that his administration had "grossly mishandled"[27] the situation.[43] - Gross mishandling confirms much of what I wrote above

The Governor issued an apology to Senator Bruno and stated that "I apologized to Senator Bruno and I did so personally this morning."[27] - True

He added "In addition, I apologized to the men and women of the State Police, and to acting Superintendent Preston Felton personally for allowing this esteemed institution to be drawn into this matter."[27] - True

Felton said he didn't realize he was part of a political scheme, and claimed in a written statement that "I have never, in my 26-year career with the state police, knowingly undertaken any such action and never would,"[33] and that "To the extent that circumstances previously not known to me have now given rise to that appearance, I am particularly saddened."[33] -- True

Spitzer subsequently anounced that he would indefinitely suspend his communications director, Darren Dopp, and reassign another top official.[45] -- True, although I also read it was a 30-day suspension

When questioned about his promise to bring a new dawn of ethical responsibility to state politics, Spitzer responded by saying "I will not tolerate this behavior,"[27], "ethics and accountability must and will remain rigorous in my administration,"[28] and that "I have always stated that I want ethics and integrity to be the hallmarks of my administration. That is why I requested that the State Inspector General review the allegations with respect to my office, and that is why we have fully cooperated with both inquiries."[41] -- True

As of July 2007, Cuomo's office was considering recommending disciplinary action against the Governor's office.[46] -- True

Republican State Senator Dean Skelos asked, "Did the governor know?" and stated that the report "leaves many questions open in terms of how far up the chain of command were the acts of — at least the acts of Dopp and Howard — known?".[36] -- True, this belongs here as it is verified by a Democrat below

Mr. Skelos added that he believed it would be "totally appropriate" for the Senate Committee on Investigations and Government Operations, which has subpoena power and of which Skelos is a member, to review the matter.[36] -- This is the opinion of the Senator. It does not say "It would be totally appropriate that...", it says, "A Senate Investigator believes it would be totally appropriate that..." Very fair.

Skelos called the matter "the makings of a real conspiracy here", and was echoed by Assemblyman Keith Wright, a Harlem Democrat who said the findings of the report sound "very Nixonian."[36] -- Again, this is their opinion, it could be balanced by someone else, but the Governor's own remarks seems to be confirming them

Douglas Muzzio, a Baruch College political scientist, commented that "The Watergate analogy is inescapable."[47] This seems to be a fair explination of the earlier remarks although it might help to indicate if Mr. Muzzio is a supporter or detractor of Spitzer(from the article it comes from, he appears to be a supporter)

Skelos notes Cuomo's investigators never questioned Spitzer or a top aide mentioned in the report, Secretary to the Governor Rich Baum, who received e-mails related to the plot.[48] -- He does note this, and the report confirms they did not question the aides

Cuomo spokesman Jeffrey Lerner said Spitzer's counsel provided the e-mails and that Baum and Dopp refused requests to be interviewed, opting instead to provide sworn written statements.[49] -- There were articles in the NY Times and Daily News stating that their refusal to answer questions could pose legal problems, so I think this should stay

He added that speaking to Spitzer would be unnecessary because there was little evidence of criminal or improper activity.[50] - Probably the best evidence of the NPOV

Dopp and Baum are considered Mr. Spitzer’s closest advisers, and no action was taken against Mr. Baum.[51] - According to several of the sources, true

The Chairman of the State Senate Committee on Investigations stated he would contact Attorney General Cuomo to obtain any documents, e-mail messages, and testimony under oath collected by the Attorney General's investigators.[52] - He does state this according to the verified source

Numerous prominent New York Democrats distanced themselves from Spitzer, refusing to come to his defense, including five members of New York's Democratic congressional delegation, Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, the chairman of the Queens Democratic Party, Rep. Joseph Crowley, Rep. Charles Rangel, and mayor candidate Representative Rep. Anthony Weiner.[25] - This is the only sentence I believe should probably go, but it helps to explain why there is no balance to the comments above--because no one is defending the actions of his staff. Also, it is clearly sourced and verified.

I'd have to say remove the tag, and the word scathing--there is no evidence of NPOV in my mind.67.87.229.89 01:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Eliot Spitzer/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

this article about Spitzer needs serious revision! There is one sentence about "he liking sex group" at the beginning paragraph that it should NOT be here. I didn't keep reading after this. Please revise!!!

Last edited at 15:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)