Talk:Eliot Spitzer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
---|
[edit] 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inappropriate to have the opinion of a single man under his tenure as Attorney General in the article, but the LINK IS NO LONGER VALID.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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)