Contents

Talk:Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal

Crime and Criminal Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofNew York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photographbeincluded in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Why does this talkpage's table of contents not exist?--Justmeherenow (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

thats her correct legal name... get it right..Rankun (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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...

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)[reply]

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

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