Talk:Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Eliot Spitzer, due to size or style considerations.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Criminal justice Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

WikiProject Crime To-do:

	This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

[edit] Miss. Ashley Rae Maika DiPietro & this Article

If you have information pertaining to Miss. DiPietro, pseudonyms Kristen/Ashley Alexandra Dupré, please help form a stub on her that fits Wikipedia's biography stub standards (see comment directly below for a link to the sandbox). (Note: I apologize to everyone here for trying to fix something I evidentially did not know how to do. I have modified this comment to remove meaningless steps and help streamline everything on this discussion page as much as I can now. Please see the history page for original post if needed. My objectives were, in the first place, to move discussions specifically about her off this page so people working on this article could more clearly debate the underlying facts of the prostitution scandal, not her. Thanks to Homologeo and Justmeherenow for helping me with understanding how bio stubs work, etc. etc. (Nicolaususry (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

~~Alternately just click HERE. --Justmeherenow (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)~~ --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propose merge

This should be merged into Eliot Spitzer as soon as it is permitted to do so. (it was mostly a good idea to make an editable page, but you'll effectively lose the revision history in the end) Wnt (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the amount of information here does not really require a new article just yet. --Chris (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. Wait until it's more than a section stub in the main Spitzer article before forking it off into a separate article. --Rividian (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Within the next 1/2 hour, this article will expand exponentially. I think that it should be left alone for now. As of 2:54 PM EST, he was scheduled to speak at 2:15 PM EST, but hasn't yet.--ekozie (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Article has been redirected (but not by me). I urge people to work on the section in Eliot Spitzer then recreate this article should there be more than 2-3 paragraphs of content. --Rividian (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I've applied protection since we already seem to be in an edit war over whether this needs a new article or not. It's going nowhere fast. Let's discuss please. --Chris (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but full protection is an even worse solution... I understand the motivation, but this is a breaking news article that isn't very good yet, it should not be locked in this state. If anything, full protect a redirect. --Rividian (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlock this so I can redirect or AFD. Lawrence § t/e 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't enough information as of yet to warrant an article. There's only one line here and one line at Elliot Spitzer. I suggest redirecting for now. If it's a serious enough matter, then the article can be un-redirected. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I would be fine with this article if there were anything to put into it. The main article doesn't have anything yet. Why not let it develop over there and then create this if necessary? KnightLago (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will change it to a redirect if you're all ok with that, while we discuss. Since that's the position I'd prefer I didn't want to protect it using "my preferred version" since I'm involved. --Chris (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do a protected redirect for now to Eliot_Spitzer#Involvement_in_a_prostitution_ringLawrence § t/e 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Nesodak (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. KnightLago (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Shall I unprotect it since we've agreed to leave it like this while we discuss? --Chris (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave it for now. It will be a good long while before a fork is warranted. Lawrence § t/e 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. KnightLago (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, ping me here or on my talk if anything is needed. --Chris (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no longer any section called "Prostitution scandal". The section is now called "Scandal and resignation". Please update target of redirect. Mike R (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected per request on my talk. --Chris (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot removing Dupré's MySpace link

I provided a link to Dupré's MySpace link. I've seen other articles on public figures with links to their MySpace pages. The BOT apparently thought I was promoting my own MySpace Page (I don't even have one), so I reverted. BOTs are good sometimes, but sometimes they are out of control, like in this situation. 71.175.28.121 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The myspace link doesn't work. Does anybody know whether this really is/was her myspace page? --Catgut (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Times and CNN both confirmed it as her page. It's had over two million hits in the last several hours. http://www.myspace.com/ninavenetta Alexfox29 (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, thx, obviously something went wrong when I tried to check the link's validity. --Catgut (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Ashley DiPietro

Why does the article go into so much detail into Ashley DiPietro's life? This is only one of the prostitutes that the Governor met with, and the information provided about her is not integral to understanding this scandal. Also, why is this section near the top? I would recommend cutting out a good portion of this section, and moving the whole thing down in the flow. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think this is quite like providing background on Monica Lewinski in relation to the Clinton scandal. It is quite relevant to the piece. 147.114.226.175 (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly relevant at all. Lewinsky was personally involved in the developing scandal; she testified, she provided evidence which was used against President Clinton. In this case the identity of the escort is completely irrelevent. The entire scandal took place and was practically over before her name was known. If Gov. Spitzer had denied the matter and she had given evidence against him things would be different, but this did not happen. I suggest this whole section should be deleted. It's inappropriate even to mention her real name. Her professional name was 'Kristen' and that is all that is required.86.145.1.63 (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to use the word whore in polite company. Prostitute has a similar factual meaning and is less pejorative. This better respects NPOV.66.108.168.170 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that she has been subpoenaed and is expected to testify in legal proceedings, and has been granted immunity for her cooperation. There is no doubt more to come on this matter. Dforest (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (The prostitute's name)

(I have redacted her name per BLP concerns. Horologium (talk)) thats her correct legal name... get it right..Rankun (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please source such statements in the future. The NYT piece cleary states that while Dupré is the young lady in question's real surname---meaning preferred, non-courtesan variation on her legal name as chosen for use on MySpace and in trying to get a record deal as an RnB artist etc etc---her actual legal name, through adoption, is DiPietro. Which WP will succinctly note, should she become notable. Which may even have already happened. I'll check Google.--Justmeherenow (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE per my comment directly above. Dupre's song "What We Want" has just now been reviewed by Canada's National Post.--Justmeherenow (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article about her. I removed the unnecessary section and added a single link to the CNN story. That is all we need to have here about here. If she uses this to get her 15 minutes, someone can start a separate article about her. Paisan30 (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not about her, its about the prostitution scandal. And her story is a pertinent part of the story surrounding the scandal. The lack of information on her leaves a huge whole in the story. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In my view there is no need to shorten certain sections prematurely. We can still do that in a later phase when we have a clearer picture of the whole thing. And let's not forget, we still know who Christine Keeler was, or Donna Rice, Cynthia Ore, or Blaze Starr, all of them some way or another connected to the lives and times of prominent politicians. --Catgut (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Those stories are all completely different. In this case there was no denial, and no relationship beyond a brief meeting. All that is required is the escort's working name of 'Kristen'.86.145.1.63 (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

hehe 15 minutes of fame as a prostitute. I dont see how thats something to brag about but meh.. I agree totally that we need to watch this article it is not about her there are 7 + others as well. I just think of elliots poor wife. I also think her links to her myspace page should be removed seems as just a way to get more attention and fame by her. What do you think? Landlord77 (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

She'll get her record deal, book deal, made-for-TV movie deal, etc. She made good money as a prostitute, now she'll get even better money as a presstitute. Does this mean than she and Love Client Number Nine have to register as sex offenders? What a country... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.149.162 (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If this article isn't about her, why does her full name revert to this page? -134.50.75.65 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Because she is not yet considered notable outside of this story. The only information Wikipedia needs to have on her is contained in this article.

If she becomes famous outside of this scandal, at that time a Wikipedia article about her would be created. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But OTHER CRAP EXISTS! Donna Rice - Gennifer Flowers - Kathleen Willey - enough? -- Y not be working? 16:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

An analogy as far as alleged call girls would be Natalia --- a/k/a Natalie McLennan. From LA Confidential (ironically one of the two escort agencies busted by Spitzer when he was A.G.!!):

The actress Natalie McLennan (born c. 1980 in Montreal) started to work for NY Confidential in 2004 as "Natalia", and was heavily promoted by Itzler on escort review sites where she received several high ratings by satisfied customers. She would reportedly charge up to $2000 per hour, with 45% for her, 45% for the agency and 10% for the booker. Itzler and McLennan eventually got engaged. In addition to the out-call business, the agency also ran a harem-like loft in TriBeCa, subject of the 4-episode reality TV series Inside New York Confidential (2004). The police arrested Itzler and several employees in January 2005.
In the summer of 2005 McLennan talked about her experiences at the agency in a major New York magazine article and on CNN, saying that she enjoyed the work. The police used these public statements against her, and she was arrested in October 2005 for prostitution and money laundering.

--Justmeherenow (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The scandal does not need her name for context; identifying her as "Kristin" is sufficient for the purpose of this article. She is utterly non-notable now; if in the future she becomes notable (through her music, or by becoming tabloid fodder like Divine Brown (sex worker) we can have an article on her and link to this article. Until that time she does not need to be mentioned by name here in Wikipedia. Horologium (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems as if you are using a different standard of notability than everyone else. WP:N only requires signifigant coverege in reliable independent sources. We have many of those, even many exclusively talking about her [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]]. Three of those source even talk specifically about her fame. Additionally, the argument that her name needs to be hidden due to privacy concerns is a moot point. Due to the publicity, she is now the single most searched person on google.com. Her name has broken, there is no more privacy issue since she is a public figure.CraigMonroe (talk)

Agreed. Not only should all variants of her name be in this article, but I would favor someone creating an article on her (would do it myself if I had the time). She's most definitely notable WP:N. --Art Smart (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, she is on the cover of two of New York's five daily papers this morning. At some point the scandal itself makes her notable. Uucp (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This whole debate is typical of what makes Wikipedia maddening. I'm convinced that Wikipedia is primarily a hobby for control freaks and thought cops of various stripes, and only secondarily an online encyclopedia. Not only have the purists blocked a page for Dupre, they're debating whether her name should even be mentioned at all. Meanwhile, her name is in the New York Times and all over the place.

Her name is of course relevant. She is apparently going to testify as a witness in the FBI's case against the Emperor's Club ... and if there is any legal action against Spitzer himself, she will obviously be called to testify there, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.171.156 (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion of Privacy?

I am concerned that we may be invading this young lady's legal right to privacy. I think a link to the CNN story is all that is necessary. If they want to take the legal risk of identifying someone as a "prostitute" and giving out her address, let them take that risk. I don't see any good reason for Wikipedia to assume that potential liabilty. What if their report is wrong? The article isn't about this girl. Naming her and supplying other personal information strikes me as malicious, unnecessary and unprofessional. Cleo123 (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip paper.86.145.1.63 (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per this, she is now a public figure. Mike R (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike is correct that Ms. Dupré has become a public figure. Wikipedia is simply repeating information already in the public press. Even if it was found that CNN violated her right to privacy, as a matter of law, Wikipedia would not be liable because the latter is simply republishing something already made public by another medium. Legal Wiggle (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored the deleted section because I think it is important to have a perspective on the other side of this scandal. People may think it's a glamorous thing to be a high-paid call girl but seeing where she comes from dispels these misperceptions. Mangostar (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section again, as per the concerns cited by Cleo123 and 86.145.1.163. Her name and background are irrelevant, as the article is about Spitzer's misdeeds, not hers. She is not notable, and does not need a section in this (or any other) Wikipedia article. Horologium (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Horologium, Cleo and the anonymous editor. Paisan30 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A scandal can't 'become public'

The article stated "[t]he Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal became public on March 10...." That makes no sense. A scandal results when something becomes public; a matter must first come into the public awareness before it can become a scandal, because a scandal is essentially a reaction to the incident. Per the American Heritage dictionary, a scandal is "a publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society." Ergo, Incident+Publicity=Scandal. I have reworded to remedy this problem. Legal Wiggle (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "Kristen" section

There are a couple of sections above talking about whether to include the "Kristen" section, but I do not see any consensus in those sections, and I see a couple of reverts in the last 20 minutes, which we don't want to see turn into a revert war.

Let's do a quick straw poll, but please, don't just vote, give your reasoning too! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Friday March 14th Update: Lots of good comments here, thanks everyone for giving your reasoning along with your opinion. The consensus seems to be drifting towards inclusion, but I'm not going to be o'erasty with a matter as sensitive as WP:BLP and privacy concerns.

The main concern from the "Oppose" camp appears to be less about privacy at this point, and more about whether this info is encyclopedic vs. tabloid trash. I understand the concern, and my proposal would be to just take great care about how much and which info on Dupre is included. For instance, the fact that Dupre's two online songs are suddenly a hot item seems notable to me. On the other hand, random stuff from her MySpace page does not seem all that encyclopedic.

Anyway, I just bring this up because the "Opposes" have made some good points, so even if the consensus swings towards inclusion, let's try to be sensitive to those concerns.

Thanks again everyone for offering great opinions and not getting in a revert war! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support inclusion

Support By the time CNN.com has your name on their front page article, you are a public figure and have no expectation of privacy. The section that has been previously added might be a bit overlong, but I see no reason not to include basic info about who this now-public figure is. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Support With regard to her privacy, since Dupre has an expectation of her actions being covered in the media due to her status as an aspiring pop-RnB artist, she deserves a degree less protection than an entirely non-public person. Additionally, just as WP gives appropriate encyclopedic treatment to the "scarlet women" who have become notable due to other political (generic-) sex scandals---and just as it gives a short treatment of the $1,000-an-hour-plus courtesan "Natalia" in the WP article about NY Confidential (one of the two call girl rings that was quite ironically busted by Attorney General Eliot Spitzer)---so also the absence in this article of a concise encyclopedic treatment of who the prostitute Kristen was, despite its giving increased coverage to the wh-h-ha-----uh-uh-m, courtesan-----would make for a big hole. --Justmeherenow (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Who she is is a legitimate matter of public interest. She has been discussed in major articles in news sources including NY Times (where her mom even commented for the story) and CNN. Our inclusion of this information will have a negligible effect on her privacy since it's been published in numerous sources already. People deserve to hear both sides of the story, including what it's like for people on the other side of the scandal. Mangostar (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. She is now a very public figure, and her story is an integral part of the story surrounding the scandal. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. Her name and details are being mentioned on CNN and other major news outlets. Also WP does not censor; it's now public, relevant knowledge. I do think it would be better to describe her as an escort or courtesan, rather than just prostitute; which conjures up images of streetwalkers. Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Support After carefully considering the matter, and Wikipedia's guidelines: Mentioning her in the article simply means reflecting what has already been widely reported in the media. Referring to her by "Kristen" would seem quite strange to me. There is no censorship in Wikipedia. We cannot and should not change the facts, and we cannot ignore the media coverage. What we shouldn't do is interpret the facts or alter them, but in my view this doesn't seem to have happened. Dupre is not a minor, and she is responsible for her actions. There is no statement available from her that she has been confused with a third person. Instead there is a statement from her parents cited in the NYT that confirms her being somehow connected to this matter. When there's a scandal, or a police investigation, or a crime committed you always have people involved in this who maybe didn't plan or wish to be involved, whether it's a victim, or a suspect, a witness, or an innocent bystander. Notwithstanding these people, their names and certain aspects of their personalities and behavior may become part of the issue in question, and maybe later part of history. Obviously Dupre is kind of a key figure in this matter, and therefore she should be included. Anybody is allowed to meet anybody anywhere, and if you don't want other people to take notice of what you do and whom you meet, you better stay at home, avoid any hotels and hotel rooms, and above all avoid meeting prominent politicians. But if you do so and are an adult, you have to accept all possible consequences. --Catgut (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Support, she is well and truly a public figure at this point. Given the unimpeachable reliability and high profile of the sources providing this information, to exclude this encyclopedic and relevant information would be somewhat silly and accomplish nothing to preserve the woman's privacy. Nesodak (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Support for all reasons cited above, plus the following. Regarding the "notability is not temporary" argument below, this is definitely not temporary. You can count on seeing her in Playboy. Both her songs on Amie Street are great (I bought her 2-song album this morning for a whopping $1.76, although I see the price is now up to $1.96). Both sets of lyrics seem very apropos under the circumstances. I expect a big record deal down the road. Maybe a little too controversial for the Pussycat Dolls for now, but Vanessa Williams was just as controversial at one point long ago. Ashley DuPre's notability is only just beginning. --Art Smart (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. It's absurd to exclude any mention of this woman as she's at the heart of the scandal. To remove her smacks of some sort of twisted political correctness. The New York Times has run a front page profile of the woman. According to a search on Nexis this morning, she's the subject of more than 2,000 news stories alone in the last week in both the national and international media (these are stories about her, not him). To exclude her is just patently silly. Whether or not she sought publicity is irrelevant. Wikipedia used to be on the cutting edge because of its inclusiveness; now it seems to a dominated by a cabal of deletists, which results in the site being both petty and myopic. Siberian Husky (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding my opposition, which in any case is changing as time goes by and more information becomes available. While I believed (note the use of past tense) that she was not notable yesterday, my biggest opposition is sticking a faux-bio of her in this article. If she is notable enough to be identified, write an article on her; shoving it into a single paragraph in an article about a scandal in which she is tangentially involved is not the way to go about it. Yesterday, I would have had no doubt that it would have been speedily deleted, because the scandal was the only thing anyone had written about her. However, subsequent events and coverage have made her (at least marginally) notable, and notability is not temporary. Please do not accuse me of deletionism, political correctness, pettiness, or myopia (only in one eye, thankyouverymuch) for attempting to keep non-notable coatracking out of articles. Horologium (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - Her notability can no longer be questioned. Here are links to articles about her life (not about the scandal) in the New York Times[5], Newsweek[6], and Newsday[7]. If you search Google News you will find too many articles about her to count. Even if you assume she is only notable due to the Spitzer scandal, the criteria for notability does not require that someone be notable for more than one reason. The vast majority of people with articles about them on Wikipedia are less notable than she is. She should have her own Wikipedia article now. Steve913 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Support, "once the toothpaste is out of the tube it is very hard to put back in". The issue of her privacy is a thing of the past, impossible to maintain if she ever wanted it. She not only should be included in this article, she deserves a page of her own. Hopefully, this will be a step toward more openness about prostitution and prostitutes, and hopefully this woman can capitalize on her fame as well as her lack of wrongdoing. I would like to see a role for Wikipedia bringing prostitutes out of the closet and living lives without shame. --KeepItClean (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting causes. We are interested in writing a neutral encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Then let Wikipedia be encyclopedic and devote a page to Ashley. Her notability is rocketing. Her notability is splashed over the country's newspapers[8], but censored by weird scruples in a so-called objective, open encyclopedia? That is a double-standard. --KeepItClean (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    - I'm not even sure the New York Post constitutes a reliable source for most Wikipedia purposes. There isn't a double standard to not be acting like a more or less infamous tabloid. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Support: but I think as the world's most famous hooker she deserves her own page, just like Divine Brown. Plus her songs are charting.JJay (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
support inclusion of section here but not her own article right now. The Newsweek, and NYT coverage are interested in her only due to her role in this matter. The comparison to Divine Brown is also not compelling, we haven't had any movies focus on this person's life yet or anything like that. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose inclusion

She is not a public figure, she did not make splashy accusations (like Juanita Broaddrick or Gennifer Flowers) or play a central role in the scandal (unlike Monica Lewinsky), she has not been charged with any crime, nor has she been seeking to capitalize on her sudden unwanted fame. (She took down her MySpace site, for example.) This article does not need any information about her at all to recount the event; it doesn't matter who the woman in the incident was, whether this woman or any of the other women employed by the escort service. If she does achieve some sort of notoriety later, an article can be created (under her name), but it's not relevant here and she is not notable at this time. Horologium (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Her myspace page is definitely still up: http://www.myspace.com/ninavenetta. Mangostar (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It had been taken down, but was restored later in the day. I was aware of its restoration when I made my original statement. Horologium (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Although not charged with the misdemeaner of $1k+/hr prostitution, agreeing to cooperate with the prosecution of putative felons eg the soon-to-be-ex-gov of your state is pretty notable. Heck, when sex is involved, you can become notable without having committed any crime at all. See Hilton, Paris - sex tape?. :^) --Justmeherenow (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton was possibly notable before that tape surfaced (it was released only a week before The Simple Life premiered, which would have established notability), and Hilton's subsequent high profile would have erased any doubts. That is the point I am making here; this one event, in which she played a tangential role, is not enough to establish notability. (AFAIK, there are no articles on the other four people named in the documents, although their roles—especially "Rachelle"—were arguably far more substantial and relevant than this one woman. Spitzer's role in this investigation has less to do with sex and prostitution than it does with money laundering and financial impropriety. Horologium (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia is not a tabloid. WP:NOT. This material simply isn't encyclopedic. Also, "notability is not temporary" per WP:Notability.Cleo123 (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wait several days

Wait till Monday to see where this consensus is. Let more sources develop on her. Lawrence § t/e 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I change my vote to wait---a moment? few days? more? forever?---)till more secondary sources cover her. The AP:

Hustler Publisher Larry Flynt sounded doubtful about his chances, though, suggesting that by the time Dupre starts talking, she may be too big a media phenomenon for a simple magazine spread.
"She is no doubt going to do a book. There will probably be a movie," he said. "I think she is going to have so many offers coming in that it will probably be wishful thinking just to get in the door."

a m New York:

...she's already earned more than a $1 million in less than 24 hours. Joshua Boltuch, an AmieStreet spokesman, said: "The second song she uploaded last night rose in price to the max 98 cents faster than any other song previously" on the site.

--Justmeherenow (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait. There has been a front-page-above-the-fold story about her - not the scandal - in the NYT. If there are a couple more stories, then we have a further problem. Also, in a couple more days, her own attitude is likely to be more clear. If she is not seeking privacy - as initial reports seem to suggest - then our decision is made easier. Relata refero (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait, and more importantly, write a separate article. If she's notable, she deserves a separate article, not a one-paragraph summation in this article. If she's not notable, she doesn't need to be discussed at all (including her name). At this point, I suspect that she is notable now, but the bizarre practice of writing a bio inside another article was thoroughly inappropriate and needs to be stamped out whenever it occurs. Horologium (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is a fairly common practice where people are notable only for one thing. For example, I believe that articles about murders often include one- or two-paragraph bios for murderers and victims, even when neither are notable outside the murder. Mangostar (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correct possesive of IRS

Someone more familiar with gramatical conventions should answer this and edit. Is it correct to say IRS' or IRS's since IRS stands for Internal Revenue Service, which would normally have an 's since it itself doesnt end in an S.--216.56.61.126 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IRS's. I don't think you could ever use just an apostrophe after an initialism. Mangostar (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting punctuation question. The AP style book doesn't address this, but the Gregg Reference Manual backs up Mangostar. It says to always use "'s" after any singular abbreviation. However, you could omit the extra "s" for plural abbreviations, e.g., "the CPAs' meeting." —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Most of the time it's easier to reword and avoid the possessive. In many ways it's inappropriate to assign possession to an action, for example. Instead of The IRS's seizure just say The IRS seizure. In the article, there is no need for a possessive indicator in The IRS Criminal Investigative Division. --Dhartung | Talk 00:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why so scandalous?

As a non-american, I think the point about what exactly is scandalous is not made explicitly enough. Is the scandal that this man is a high-powered politician having morally-shady sexual relations, or that he broke the Mann act by arranging to meet with a prostitute in another state? I think this point needs to be explained more clearly. Alexstj (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The way it is presented my first impression was that he was somehow involved in runnig the brothel! The man just had a quickie for god's sake! Why crucify him? It should be stated very prominently that prostitution is illegal in the states. This encyclopedia is not read by Americans alone.Xenovatis (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick attempt at some context: It's complicated; prostitution is illegal in most places in the United States, but it can vary by State, county, and even by city. It's legal in some places, including some that would surprise you. It would be helpful to say what the law is in NY and in DC, since those are the specific locations involved. The Mann Act is a technicality: it's a Federal law, while laws against prostitution are ordinarily State or local. The FBI and Federal courts need this justification to have jurisdiction over the affair. But it's irrelevant to the scandal. The scandal is as major as it is because of Spitzer's political history. He made his name as an aggressive crusader against organized crime, including prostitution rings. It's only partly about sexual morality, and partly about ending a history of corruption and organized crime. --Reuben (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes a good deal of sense, perhaps some of what you say there should be included in this article? Cheers Alexstj (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a useful source: [9] --Reuben (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that.Xenovatis (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I finally got around to adding that tidbit. It's difficult to give an overall sense of why this is so significant without venturing into original research. --Reuben (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So did he break any law? The undersigned Brit is still perplexed. Maproom (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Federal laws: possibly the Mann Act and several financial laws [10]. These are important because they justify the involvement of Federal law enforcement agencies and would be tried in Federal court. DC laws against customers of prostitution [11]. (There are laws against prostitution almost everywhere in the US, but the point is that they are state & local laws rather than uniform Federal laws). Maybe NY laws too because he made the arrangements there? --Reuben (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the fact that he may have broken various laws doesn't mean that he'll actually be prosecuted for any or all of them (the Mann act appears to have been designed for selective prosecution). And the reasons why this was such a scandal are only loosely connected with violations of the law. --Reuben (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexstj posed a good question and I'll give my perspective. Yes, Eliot Spitzer clearly broke laws, a number of them. No, the significance is not that Spitzer was having sex, or that he paid for a prostitute which is illegal but not significant. The coverage by the media is dumbed down for at least the reason that the U.S. public tends to be more titillated by the prurient aspects, the taboo nature of the acts, and the hypocrasy. There might be another reason why the media is spinning thing incorrectly but I won't get into that here. The Mann Act is a U.S. Federal Law which gives the government jurisdiction and has more serious consequences than most state laws for prostitution for a client or a pimp. As is covered here, there have been a large number of successful African American men who have been incarcerated under the Mann Act http://whitemalesneverlie.blogspot.com/ including one of the originators of Rock And Roll: Chuck Berry and one of the early black men to deny whites the boxing championship title: Jack Johnson. The publicized transcript excerpts of Spitzer's wire taped phone calls provides an open and shut violation of the Mann Act . There are several counts of Spitzer recorded while arranging to have a prostitute cross state lines to DC and to Florida. Once a criminal act crosses state lines Federal jurisdiction comes into play, same with kidnapping, drug smuggling, counterfeiting products, software piracy, etc. But another family of laws which Spitzer violated is under the category of money laundering. Basically, if you arrange monetary transactions in order to hide their purpose by breaking down payments under the publicly known $10,000 reporting limit, it is a crime punishable by very serious offenses. People might say "Is it far to make one criminal act subject to multiple laws" but law has nothing to do with fair or that somehow an underlying crime would limit the severity of other aspects of a crime.

Why is it significant? three elements:. It is important that you remember that the Hypocrisy of Spitzer's conduct is merely a coincidence, and a distraction. First, Spitzer was knowingly dealing with organized crime . Spitzer did not get caught soliciting a woman at a hotel bar, or trying to get a prostitute on Craigslist, or the mens room, or at a party, and thus Spitzer he was dealing with an organization as he was sending the money to shell companies, he was not just paying the hookers directly. A prostitution ring undoubtedly fits within the description of organized crime and Eliot Spitzer knew this because he oversaw, as the most senior law enforcement officer of NY State, the prosecution of prostitution rings under laws including racketeering and money laundering organized crime laws. Organized crime families are vast, sometimes tightly integrated sometime loosely affiliated, but their associated rings have many separate business focuses. The Prostitution Ring is merely one wing of a family of undisclosed size. Also remember that the vast majority of organized crime is done by people in business suits, not like on the Sopranos TV and Godfather movies.

The second element is that he did these acts including when he was the State Attorney General, when Spitzer's was under a sworn oath to uphold the law, meaning he had to prosecute the people he was doing business with. Not only did Spitzer fail to prosecute and thus protect his associates, Spitzer chose to prosecute certain competitors of his associates. Spitzer used the power of the people to put some competing Prostitution Rings out of business. Thirdly, Spitzer was a compromised public official which at least one organized crime family could control. There is no escaping the obvious that Spitzer was protecting this wing of a certain organized crime family. What other fingers where attached to the crime family which had such serious dirt on Spitzer? We don't know yet, but we know that at least Spitzer was one Law Enforcement and Executive Office official who was compromised.

It boggles the mind to think that the media, which gets into conspiracy theories over almost any topic, has not spent more time on this obvious intrusion of organized crime into the prosecutors office. While a prosecutor, Spitzer was renowned and at time vilified for prosecuting so many businesses far and wide, arguably outside of his jurisdiction, under laws many claimed were archaic. What was Spitzer doing? Trying to draw attention away from his crimes? Perhaps, but more likely Spitzer was prosecuting competing business interests to the crime families to which he was affiliated. The truth is we will never know the full extent of Spitzer's associates infiltration of Law inforcement unless a Federal Special Prosecutor gets appointed. We have already seen numerous instances of DOJ U.S. Attorneys getting fired or resigning mid investigation. That is my opinion as to why things are so significant in these early revelations of Spitzer's prostitution ring association.

Here is some speculation as to areas in which a Special Prosecutor could shed light on Spitzer's conduct. Look at the Eliot Spitzer attack against Sony, a serious effort in a purported Payola scandal, a type of organized crime which has affected the U.S. music business for decades in one form or another. The prosecutions from days old showed how U.S. song copyright holders (those who get the money when a song is played on the radio, these revenues dwarf record/CD sales) used payments of cocaine, prostitutes, and cash to bribe the people who set up the radio play song lists. That was real crime involving huge money that the general public never really saw, perfect for organized crime which is done in business suits. But we had a major change in the music business, Sony bought its way into a huge U.S. music catalog. What were Sony's crimes? Giving away concert tickets to radio stations. In my opinion, the real story here was that the Japanese company Sony was not related to Spitzer's crime family, and Spitzer attacked them because it helped his domestic crime family with continuing interests in U.S. music catalog not owned by Sony. Just imagine the affect of 6 months during which all the radio station executives in the U.S. went out of their way to reduce their airing of the Sony catalog. That may have put 10s or 100s of millions of extra revenue into those pockets that year. More speculation: How is it that Spitzer's dad immigrates to the country as an adult, and then all of a sudden he is worth $500 million and is sending his three children to the most elite private schools? Could be that he's a genious, and every U.S. citizen entreprenuer in the real estate business was comparatively stupid - just one explanation. Another hypothesis is that the Spitzer family has dealt with organized crime for more than one generation. If you have connections with a prostitution ring, you can send a hooker out after a guy who is on a neighborhood zoning committee. Suddenly you get the cheap land you bought changed so you can build a taller building on it. How do you turn an honest zoning official? The better approach is organized crime sends a hooker to seduce guy, then you film the ecounter like in The Firm (a book about lawyers engaged in organized crime, by the way). Then the zoning official can decide if Spitzer's project gets approved, or if his marriage ends. Tough call. Just speculation, but does the apple fall far from the tree? Speculation is speculation. There is certainly a lot more smoke here than there was in either the Scooter Libby or the Bill Clinton / Kenneth Starr investigations. But maybe that is the problem, that the corruption is too widespread and too deep for the controlled media and controlled politicians to let a Special Prosecutor get appointed to go after such serious crimes. Knowsetfree (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is citing Myspace legal?

As a non-american, I am wondering if it is legal in the states to cite and publish text from pages like myspace without gaining the rights form the author first. An excerpt from the Terms of Use from Myspace: After posting your Content to the MySpace Services, you continue to retain all ownership rights in such content, and you continue to have the right to use your Content in any way you choose Does this not mean that all text and graphics within myspace are copyrighted such that any newspaper or tv-channel needs to gain the rights to publish these things first? If so, i think it would be relevant to include the fact in the article that NY-Times, CNN, ... illegaly used pictures and text from the private myspace-site. 88.68.192.115 (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use. Daniel (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 88.68.192.115's question as to whether the news media illegally used content from MySpace, Daniel's citation of Wikipedia's Fair Use policy is correct. The U.S. news media are allowed a bit of discretion under "fair use", as long as the borrowed content is truly necessary to tell the news story and as long as they cite the source. On the other hand, if the news media disseminate private content that then deprives the content owner of future revenue, that is not allowed and the content owner can sue for damages. Ashley DuPre was not making money directly from her MySpace page, so the borrowed content wouldn't cause her any damages. On the contrary, the news notoriety is a huge godsend for her. She will make millions on this scandal. I'm guessing that her very low profile right now is to plan the playing of her cards to perfection. There's tremendous pent-up demand right now for photos of her, and she wants to cash in on it herself, not let the paparazzi cash in on her instead. --Art Smart (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the informations. I'm not sure, but afaik here in germany, both text and pictures are copyrighted and therefore anyone publishing it, does it illegally. Anyways, wouldn't be the first case of media-companies not regarding copyrights and as you said already, the girl is famous now and will probably earn millions... 84.59.222.207 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that even in Germany it is illegal to cite or quote from copyrighted work. This is a misunderstanding of copyright. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, what i said so far is only partwise true. Quotations from copyrighted works are under certain circumstances legal, but it depends. I guess there is something like fair use concerning text quotations. But as for pictures, it gets really complicated. I still think, under german law, she'll be probaly sucessfull sueing some media-companies. But as a read today on yahoo (http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080316/twl-spitzer-call-girl-1be00ca.html), her lawyer actually stated, that they might go into court against some commercial sites, publishing her myspace pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.95.187 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot

Is the website screenshot clearly linked to the 'Kristen' relevant to this story? Because I note the screenshot says "24" when reliable sources say "22". It is quite possible that there are other 'Kristens' employed by the same agency. Relata refero (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is original research. --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kristen in the screen shot was *not* the Kristin in the scandal. The New York Post originally published the erroneous screen shot before another paper (the New York Times) found out the identity of the correct woman. I have removed the screen shot. Uucp (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please reference this?

"WP is not censored"? (...except that it IS apparently censored for taste as far as otherwise absolutely completely germain images are concerned!) --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) The article is not solely about Dupre, it's also about Spitzer and Emperors Club VIP escorts---and on those grounds alone the image very specifically illustrates the scandal at hand. (2) As a side note, photo shoots producing acceptable ad shots aren't cheap and it's well known among experienced clients of escort services that the photographic models in ads only reasonbly resemble the escort sent. In any case, the point of fact is that a particular girl whom Emperors Club VIP sent to Spitzer as "Kristen" (whether she is the only one, as is likely, or there could be others) is Dupre---who also happens to be exactly 5 foot 5 and 105 pounds, etc. (And as far as the age thing goes, escorts are invariably advertised as being in their early twenties even if they're really in their late thirties. Also, a select few agencies have a notice that says the girls pictured are actually always the escort---which they do because of the common industry practice otherwise.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

While it pains me to say it (because that picture is totally hot), I'm not really sure it adds anything to the article. Throw in the questions regarding identity, and I'd be inclined to leave it out. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

At the very least it implies its the same woman, which we can't do given the indications that it isn't. I'm removing it. Relata refero (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently but some kind of "Wikipedia legend" that the photographed model isn't Dupre. (Oy! Three folks come on to the talk page and parrot talk questioning the models' identity without providing any source whatsoever for the same---sloppy, sloppy, sloppy!) --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is your SOURCE for the pic's not being Dupre, please. Thankyou. (And, otherwise, don't revert it again. Oh, and as for the source for including it: Even if it was just a freehand line-drawing merely sillouetting an impression of a nekid woman resembling the agency's 5ft-5 105-pounds blahblahblah model campanion Kristen, it still is sourced on its image page as Emperors Club VIP's own ad they used for her. ((And, really, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes in any case to figure out that for the sake of model-companion anonymity they took a shot of Dupre and fotoshopped an all-blurried-up head onto her.)))--Justmeherenow (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the photo again, as it does not add significantly to the article, and several editors have already expressed misgivings about its use. For those who are keeping score, I am the third separate editor to remove this photo, with one editor who keeps re-adding it. Please obtain consensus before adding it again, as you are in danger of violating 3RR. Horologium (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the blurring that obscures the model's eyes and breasts part of the original? What's the direct source for the Wikipedia copy of the screenshot? Postdlf (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The version with blurred nips is the only one extant, as far as I know. (Eg see here. And, um, off topic: although it's useful for the article and is perfectly illustrative of the scandal, for my own erotic aestheticism the shot isn't so much my cup of tea. Yet re most of the other shots of Dupre......mmmmm I just think she's great!) Ahem, back to (more-) on-topic: news reports mention the Emperors' ads' having had their escorts' faces blurred but I don't recall their specifically saying anything about nipples. But, I speculate, since sometimes such shots can be pretty identifying, maybe they.....? <shrugs shoulders> --Justmeherenow (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm less interested in the significance of the image for the article; as a matter of informational accuracy, I just think that we should indicate, at the very least on the image description page, that the blurring was in the image as distributed by source X, if that's the case. If it was blurred just for upload to Wikipedia, I would object to that, but that should also be noted regardless. Postdlf (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll go to the image's page and note that the ad, which is everywhere, was originally republished on Page Six (eg see here). (Page Six doesn't seem to mention that they'd pixeled out the breasts, though, so I'll just leave it at that. Oh and incidentally---although no source seems to say the blurred shot definatively IS Dupre, I haven't been able to find whatever the source is that editors here say question its authenticity. Could one of them help me? Or if the Delecionistas who argue this based their belief on something they misread something, would they at least admit the same)? Thanks. --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is or isn't Dupre, it's offered as the actual ad that Emperor Club VIP used to represent Dupre to Spitzer and the whoring public at-large, correct? So it's a question of what it is authentic of. Postdlf (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. (And though I would venture the guess that the image is exactly as it was originally in the agency's advertisemtnt, I've still referenced on the image's talkpage the fact of the NYPost's having republished it, just in case the Post had done any pixelating. )--Justmeherenow (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the ad is a totally falsum made up after the story broke. It doesn`t look at all like the other ads that was actually at the Emperors Club site. The other ads were much more sophisticated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.80.82 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Although they seem comparable to my eye, please do find a source that questions the ad's authenticity, in agreement with your original research, and we can then consider this argument in relation to the current sea of news sources that take the ad as being what it claims. --Justmeherenow (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Note. Vandal editors simply kept deleting the image without discussion, so I finally gave up. --Justmeherenow (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling three long-time and productive editors "vandals" is inappropriate and rude. A fourth editor, who is also an admin, removed another of your pictures from this page because it (again) lacked a fair-use rationale. As to your assertion that there was no discussion, it was discussed, in this thread. When three separate editors revert your edits, citing the same concern, you ought to consider whether your edits contribute as much to the article as you believe. Horologium (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dupre a/k/a Kristen a/k/a Victoria ad infinitum and the Spitzer-busted NY Confidential agency

So it turns out she also worked for Jason Itzler, whom Attorney General Spitzer put in Rikers for 17 months for pimping $1k+-an-hour call girls. MyFox NY:

Itzler, speaking Friday on Good Day NY, said Dupre -- then 19 years old and known as "Victoria"-- worked for him. Itzler said he met Dupre at the Gansevoort Hotel where she was a cocktail waitress.
"When I met her I thought she was a gorgeous young woman. I didn't want to hire her for NY Confidential. I wanted to date her," said Itzler.
[...]"she is going to be huge..." He said she is beautiful and will likely become a celebrity for her singing ability as well as her looks.

These adult entertainment mogul types know WTF they're talking about here about Ashley's potential. Eg, as for Dupre's book deal, get a load of this OLD quote from here (which is probably just the tip of the iceberg!):

Jason Itzler, the publicity whore who owned the New York Confidential escort service called the New York Post from Rikers Island, where he is doing time for money-laundering and prostitution charges.
Jason said that Charlie hired two of his hottest girls to dress up like cheerleaders and do a lesbian act. Sheen shelled out more than $20,000 for Cheryl, a blond ballerina and Juilliard grad, and Victoria, a dark-haired former Hotel Gansevoort hostess, for romps at trendy 60 Thompson in SoHo. "They loved Charlie. They said he was a great guy, a great lover and had a big dick. One time, he had them dress up like cheerleaders and they chanted, 'Charlie, Charlie, he's our man! If he can't do it, nobody can!'"

More Page Six:

Itzler also said [Charlie] Sheen would play X-rated movie director, guiding Cheryl, 20, and Victoria [Dupre], 19, into steamy lesbian scenes.
"Charlie says the story is 100 percent bogus. [Itzler] is just trying to save his ass," Sheen's publicist, Stan Rosenfield, fumed to Page Six.

--Justmeherenow (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A note about Kristen

As of yet, she is claiming to not be a public figure. See [12]. We may want to keep this in mind as a relevant argument against writing a separate article about her for now. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly whether we have an article is based on WP:BLP and other policies. Public figure is a term of art, not something one can choose for themselves; we have many articles about people who fall well short of the public figure standard. When we source and attribute statements to reliable sources under our policies (whether we have an article or not, it doesn't matter) we should not have defamation exposure. In any case, what her lawyer is talking about there is the right of publicity, something of a different animal. We don't have a gallery of her nude photo shoot on Commons. (At least not last time I checked.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, she is a public figure. See CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, NY TImes, LA Times, etc. for examples. Her choice has nothing to do with it. I agree with Dhartung.CraigMonroe (talk)

BLP and BLP1E are pretty vague about when we should actually have an article. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP where I discuss this and also discuss how we may wish to take into account whether or not a person is a public figure and whether or not that person is a willing public figure (incidentally, IANAL but it looks to me like her lawyer has a very weak case because she is clearly at minimum a limited public figure and these photos were arguably published in the context of news coverage).

[edit] Pictures used on this page

The two images from the Emperors Club VIP article currently only have fair use rationale for that article, not this one. To stop them from being deleted, they should either have separate rationales written up for each of them or be removed from this page. Random 89 23:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Justmeherenow (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did North Fork Bank's have a motive for retaliation against Spitzer?

Should anything from the below (from a 13 March Harpers piece) receive mention, if it doesn't already?

Spitzer, as a law enforcement officer, had challenged practices of North Fork Bank and had considerably embarrassed the bank and its management. This raises the obvious concern that retaliation, and not prudent oversight, was the motive behind the bank’s decision to report Spitzer to federal authorities.

--Justmeherenow (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's larger than this. Spitzer published an article on February 13 in the Washington Post detailing his accusations of predatory lending practices by the banks behind the mortgage lending meltdown. According to BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast, although federal prosecutors knew about his activities as the client of a prostitution ring for months, they went public the day before the mortgage lending bailout was announced because they wanted to make sure he would be in no position to comment. Listen to the interview with Palast I did with co-host Bill Baue on Corporate Watchdog Radio. I'd like to post it as an external link and request feedback whether to do that on this page or the regular page for Eliot Spitzer.--Francesca Rheannon (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Absurd media spin is being repeated - Warrant singed by a Judge required for wiretap of anyone, not just a Governor

There are a few points being reported here, some of which are echoes of unreliable sources in the media. I don't want to start editing without getting other people on the same page. The first problem is the report that Spitzer was being investigated because they thought he was receiving a bribe. The payments in question were being made from Spitzer's account, so there is no way there could be a bribe. The next point is that the article is blurring the distinction of when the investigation became a Prostitution Ring investigation.

A standard referral was made due to banking transactions mandated under Federal Law.
A wire tap of Spitzer's phone was authorized by some Federal Judge having to sign a specific warrant authorizing such against a State Governor and former State District Attorney and former U.S. Attorney.
While listening to the wire taps, the investigators learned that Spitzer was dealing with a Prostitution Ring.

What has been clearly reported is that the investigation was not of the Prostitution Ring leading to Spitzer, but an investigation of Spitzer initiated from "suspicious" financial transactions, which subsequently lead to the Prostitution Ring.

It is irresponsible for us to repeat unreliable sources in a Wiki article just because some in the media do so. Most other comments about the Spitzer scandal come from unnamed sources and are absurd on their face. Clearly, there is information and evidence related to Spitzer which the prosecutors and investigators have not yet revealed to us. How do we know? There is no way that any Judge is going to sign a warrant authorizing the wire-tap of a Governors phone because of some number of wire transfers, particularly a Governor who makes millions of dollars per year on his investments and is part of a small family reportedly worth some $500 Million dollars. Even lower class yuppies (sorry - don't know the marketing terms for manhattan families making only $250K worth $2 Million) routinely make wire transfers to pay for art, accountants, investments, antiques purchases, psychotherapy, Au Pairs, vacations, boat mechanics, and so on. But we are talking someone well known to be super rich. We are also talking about someone who would be the likely target of false accusations, and no judge would risk his own neck by authorizing a fishing expedition without creditable evidence that Spitzer was engaged in some kind of criminal enterprise, or an extortion scheme against him. You need real evidence first. It might be true that they didn't know Spitzer was using a Prostitution Ring, but the public hasn't been told the truth about the evidence which was presented to the Judge which resulted in the wiretap order. People are innocent until proven guilty. If it was merely a question of tax violation or money laundering violation, the IRS and or FBI calls Spitzer to prove what the transfers were for. They don't get to listen to every private phone call. The Feds have to jump through enormous hoops just to listen to the phone calls of "regular" organized crime. We'll see when the rest of the true Spitzer story comes out. No doubt Spitzer is cutting the best deal for himself prior to his divulging whatever he knows regarding the original evidence which had to be presented to the judge. Sure, this is speculation at this point. But IMHO we should remove the speculation which is spinning the public's mind as to the origination of the investigation and later Prostitution Ring revelations. Knowsetfree (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)