Talk:Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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. --brewcrewer (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)