Talk:Valerie Wilson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

novak still calls her by this name as of yesterday. kzz* 21:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armitage

The allegation, that Armitage outed Valerie Wilson (ne Plame) is still a debatable point. Simply because Richard Armitage thinks that he was the person who initially divulged her identity does not mean that he is in fact the person who initially outed Plame to Novack. In fact Novak, despite the fact that Armitage has pointed the finger of guilt at himself, has not agreed that Armitage was his first source of the Wilson/Plame information. Wjbean

Yes, he has. Read here: [1] Unschool 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valerie Wilson, lottery winner

Hi, I left the note below on the discussion page for 216.179.123.145, thinking that you'd see it there. But you must be using a non-static IP, so I guess I should have just left it here. Please read this and respond. Thanks. Unschool 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valerie Wilson

Hello. I must say, I'm a bit puzzled by your persistent efforts to change the entry on Ms. Wilson. Your history seems to be that of a responsible editor, with regular interest in lottery issues. (I thought your edits to Rebecca Paul were well-advised, and I hope you can continue to improve that article, to which I could only devote a limited amount of time.) But with this stuff on Valerie Wilson, I just don't get it. The news was carried on CNN, other US networks, even the BBC! It was a pretty unexpected thing, and worthy of mentioning.

Your choice of words—that is, to break her prize down into the way it will be awarded—misses the point. As both citations indicate, she won a $1,000,000 jackpot. The fact that it is broken up like this is not at all unusual. Whenever—as I'm sure you know, as an apparent lottophile—someone whens a big jackpot, they never get a check for the amount mentioned in the news. If they win even $100,000,000, they're either going to get the total amount broken up over the course of twenty or more years, or (as seems increasingly common), they will get a one-time check for much less (having been reduced both by taxes and by the rules which lower the winnings if not taken as an annuity).

The point is, there is nothing deceitful in referring to Ms. Wilson as a person who won a million-dollar prize twice. Because that's exactly what happened. I am curious as to what your take is on this. Unschool 19:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I live in NY state; I delivered lottery magazines for over 8 1/2 years. Since NY retired "Tax-Free Million" in 2000, there has not been a "true" million-dollar scratch prize offered by the NY Lottery. Tax-Free Million was lump-sum; the check (after withholdings) was for exactly $1 million, so the actual prize was more than $1.5 million.

NO lottery/sweepstakes etc winner should ever be forced to receive annuity payments. Ms Wilson, in both cases, was forced to receive her "million-dollar" prize in 20 annual payments. Since she was already being paid through an annuity; IMO it made no sense for her to play for another annuity. She should be trying her luck on Mega Millions, which has a cash option. For whatever reason, NY allows the cash/annuity choice on Mega Millions, but not on its scratch games.

Annuity-only prizes should be boycotted (including "lifetime" prizes).

BTW the cash value is not "less" than the annuity; the lump sum represents the present-day value of future money (ie inflation). 216.179.123.145 13:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I remain puzzled by your persistance in this matter. Did she win a $1,000,000 jackpot? For as long as I have been playing lotteries (since about 1974 or 1975), it has been commonplace to refer to winning a $1,000,000 prize—even when paid as an annuity—as a "jackpot". Indeed, all three of the citations (MSNBC, CBS, and the BBC) refer to her winnings as exactly that—a $1,000,000 jackpot.

Indeed, it was not until the onset of Lotto games—which I did not encounter until many years later—that anyone ever actually received a check for anything close to $1,000,000, yet many dozens of people, maybe hundreds of people, were regarded as having won a million dollars.

This is obviously very important to you, so I do not want to blow off your concerns, so I'm asking you to explain why we should write this the way one particular anonymous Wikipedia editor wishes it to be written, and not the way every reputable news source—as well as the lotteries themselves—wish it to be written? Unschool 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I made my comments over on Valerie Wilson before seeing your comments here.

So from what I gather here, you simply dislike annuities. A very respectable opinion, I have no problem with that. But when you state, "NO lottery/sweepstakes etc winner should ever be forced to receive annuity payments," I am quite puzzled. No one should be forced to play the lottery, but, once you decide to play, hey—those are the rules. Look, I believe that the slam-dunk has almost ruined professional basketball (and truly would have destroyed it, had the three-point shot not been introduced). But do I have the right to complain after I buy my ticket that the game would be better if they made the slam-dunk illegal? Of course not. That's the game that I paid for, and that's the way it is. Period.

You say that Ms. Wilson should have been playing another game. I say, it's her bloody choice! Who are you and I to tell her that she played the wrong game? I'm guessing she's happy that she played the game she played, and it's pretty arrogant to tell her that she played the wrong game. Oh, I'm quite sure that your analysis of the merits of each game is correct—I'm willing to acknowledge you as an expert on lotteries (oh, and by the way, thanks for that explanation of the reduced size of the cash winnings—I never understood that), but I am not willing to grant you the power to say what I or Ms. Wilson or Mr. Whipple should do.

I think you are clearly engaged (though perhaps unintentionally) in a personal campaign to "clean up" the language on lotteries as used in Wikipedia. My friend, that is not your place. Both the prohibitions on POV and OR apply here. You need to keep your personal feelings out of this; your passion for the subject is blinding you to the POV that you are imposing. I ask you to take a step back, and let some of us who (frankly) don't give a damn about the subject offer a small amount of constructive criticism.

I'm not going to revert this minute. I'd like to give you a chance to respond. Talk to you tomorrow. Unschool 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just taking my comments from your anon talk page and placing them here, so that the whole conversation is at one place. Since your IP changes from day to day, it seemed to make the most sense to me. Unschool 15:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have once again edited without responding to the comments that I have made. I believe that I have made some cogent points, and your failure to respond to those points could easily be construed as an indication of bad faith. I have explained why I agree with the rest of the world, you have only stated that you feel that no one should have to take their lottery winnings as an annuity. I'm willing to grant you this point, but your feeling about that issue has nothing to do with the writing of this article.

At this time, I am going to change this language to reflect the language unanimously used in the citations, as well as by lottery officials. If you revert this without rational explanation, I will be forced to regard it as vandalism. Unschool 20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a HUGE difference between winning a lump sum of $1 million, and winning an annuity of $50,000 per year in 20 payments with NO cash option. The Mass and NY lotteries are the most corrupt in the US, forcing many winners to receive annuity payments in lieu of cash. Look at Louise Outing (2004, Mass Lottery) and Wayne Schenk (2007, NY Lottery). 216.179.123.105 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a difference. For example, if the interest rate is 5%, the present value of an annuity that pays $50,000 a year for 20 years will be

For i=10% the PV is $425,678.

The word "jackpot", according to the definition is "the top prize in a game or contest (as a lottery)". So, the question is whether the $1,000,000 "annuity" prize is the top prize in this particular lottery. If yes, we should call it a "jackpot". I don't see what this has to do with corruption. (Your statement in this context qualifies for a POV and should not be dealt with in an disambig page.) This are the rules of the lottery (as far as I can see) which are known ahead of the contest. In any case, this is a disambiguation page, if you want to change anything, go to the respected page, discuss and edit there. I am changing "annuity" to a neutral "prize" for now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ypetrachenko (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

For the record, I am fine with the compromise term "prize", but I am also very confused here. I understand how the value of the prize changes with inflation, etc. But the fact is, if someone receives $50,000 on twenty different occasions, they have been given $1,000,000, before adjusting for inflation. That is, I think that this person clearly has been awarded $1,000,000, even if the dollars that they get during the first year of the twenty years have more value than the dollars they get the last year.

And heck, this isn't as significant as it was back in the 70s. If you two were around during the 70s, then you remember what real inflation was like. Unschool 20:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A lottery/sweepstakes prize (minus any withholdings) is the personal property of the winner, and should not automatically be invested in an annuity or other such vehicle that prevents the winner from total access to "their" rightful money. In 1998, a Federal regulation was signed by the then-US president, allowing, for the first time, winners a 60-day window, after winning, in which to choose lump sum or annuity. However, US lotteries were not obligated to follow. The New York Lottery (where I live) has never given (annuity) scratch winners the 60-day period. Mega Millions players in NY must choose lump sum or 26 annual payments when playing (Texas does the same); the choice is binding. New Jersey, while requiring the choice when playing, allows an annuity winner to "change their mind" and receive a lump sum. 216.179.123.104 14:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm. I'm not sure if this relates to the issue or not, but I want to know more. Explain to me about this "regulation signed by the then-US president". Was it a law, an executive order, or something else? And why were US lotteries "not obligated to follow" it? I'm confused, but curious. Unschool 14:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In 1998, Bill Clinton signed into law something with "Omnibus" in the title. The provision that I'm referring to originated in the casino industry (slot machine winners). I do not know everyhing about it since NY did not go along. I also play in Connecticut (Powerball); its lottery gives Powerball winners the 60-day window. I don't know why it's not fully applied, but I believe NY sued to be allowed not to enforce it. Sorry about the misspelling. I do try to proofread everything. 216.179.123.104 15:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it said "Omnibus" in the title, then it was almost certainly a statute, as opposed to an executive order or an agency regulation. "Omnibus", as you probably know, simply refers to a bill that includes many different provisions—a lot of crap gets put together in one bill (whether they belong together or not).

What has me most puzzled is this notion that "NY didn't go along". The Supremacy Clause (Article 4 of the Constitution, if memory serves) doesn't give states a choice. In other words, federal law supercedes state law. States defying federal legislation or federal court rulings is not an unprecedented thing, but it usually leads to major constitutional crises (such as Eisenhower sending in military force to uphold Brown v. Board of Education in Little Rock). If NY sued, then they may have prevailed, indicating that the provision was deemed unconstitutional, or it could still be tied up in the courts.

So do I understand that your position is that NY is acting in contravention to federal law? If this is the case, then it helps me to understand your frustration. Unschool 02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)