Jump to content

Talk:David Paterson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Vandalism Watch

With the possibility that Governor Eliot Spitzer will resign today or in the coming days, this article should be watched for vandalism and semi-protected if necessary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Too short

Considering that this guy is going to become the 59th Govenor of New York in about 4 hours, and the first African American to hold that office to boot, it seems to me that this article needs to be GREATLY expanded. As a New Yorker I need to know a lot more about this guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.126.146 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is not a certainty, although it seems likely. In any case, if you can find more information about him, feel free to add it. J.delanoygabsadds 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section Needed

I think there needs to be a section that points out the distortions he used to have on his official biography, even though the distortions aren't repeated here. For example, he wasn't born in Harlem, didn't pass the bar, and wasn't an Assistant District Attorney, but he didn't correct the record until it was caught by others. 52.129.8.49 (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've been working on this section to try and be as specific as possible, but I'm starting to come to the conclusion that it doesn't belong in the article. First of all, the article isn't really critical of him, although it does point out that his early entries in the New York Red Book contained the errors you mention (although according to the source, he is allowed to use the title "Assistant District Attorney.") even though he didn't pass the bar. But according to the article, the errors had been corrected fifteen years earlier. I haven't found any evidence that there was any controversy at the time. His stand on embryonic stem cell research could justify a "controvery" section, but I'm not sure that the Observer article really does. SixFourThree (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
I see that another poster agreed with me, since it has since been deleted. If anyone thinks that this article qualifies, please discuss it here first before re-adding, so we can avoid an edit war. SixFourThree (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
Not passing the bar exam, also from the Observer article, is still in the Early Life and Education section. I made both passages NPOV after they were added yeterday, but I could agree about deleting the one that is gone. Colfer2 (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That seems appropriate, since his not passing the bar reveals more about the subject and his career (tying it into his later efforts to change the way the bar is administered to disabled persons). That warrants keeping. SixFourThree (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Blind vs black

Is it just me, or should it be more notable that he is blind than black? Has the U.S. had any blind politicians at this level before? —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What does this even mean? He's blind and black. Both these points are mentioned.86.145.1.63 (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, but you can change it if you want. J.delanoygabsadds 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He may become the 'first' blind Governor in US history (see Eliot Spitzer, for more details). GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is, or has been, another blind Lieutenant Governor? What about blind Governors, or U.S. Senators? —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I considered it more amazing to find out that he was blind rather than black. I'm still trying to understand why the media seems to be making a much bigger deal out of the fact that he is black, and not much mention of him being blind. I actually found out he was blind from this article, I suspected it strongly when I saw him speak for the first time today and had to check on here (I haven't seen it mentioned in media yet - although I'm sure it was). I'm not sure whether he is the first blind Lieutenant Governor, but I'm sure there haven't been many, so it could still be noteworthy if he was the second or third. PoeticXcontribs 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
He isn't the first blind gov. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/first-legally-blind-governor-not-quite/index.html?ex=1206158400&en=dd16aa40cab621d3&ei=5123&partner=BREITBART

19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

NY Lieutenant Governor

Does anyone know who becomes Lieutenant Governor if the governor resigns? Or is the position left vacant instead? Seleucus (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the position is left 'vacant'. Which was the case in past gubernatorial deaths & resignations. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the New York Constitution says this:

In case of vacancy in the office of lieutenant-governor alone, or if the lieutenant-governor shall be impeached, absent from the state or otherwise unable to discharge the duties of office, the temporary president of the senate shall perform all the duties of lieutenant-governor during such vacancy or inability.

So does that mean that Joe Bruno (Republican Senate Majority Leader) performs the lieutenant-governor duties? Including casting tie-breaking Senate votes? So would he have two Senate votes? Seleucus (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As Acting Lieutenant Governor? I'm assuming he'd have just one vote (the tie-breaking vote). GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
See also, this page on succession in New York State: [1] Dogru144 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The official NYS website says that Patterson is NY's 74th Lt. Governor, whereas the article says that he is the 69th. What's the deal? 68.236.253.60 (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC) walrus

Yes, Bruno would get the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. This is actually very significant, as the balance is currently 32-30, with the Democrats looking to pick up one seat this fall which would have given them a 31-31 tie and thus control of the chamber, as Paterson would be the tiebreaking vote. Now, because Bruno will be filling that role, a one-seat pickup won't give the Dems control. Worth a bit more investigation is what the clause in the NY constitution saying that "the LG shall assume the role of Gov when the Gov is out of state" really means. I'm curious as to how far that power extends to Bruno. 160.39.212.68 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
From what I have read of the NY Constitution, it seems that, unlike the U.S. President, Paterson cannot appoint a Lieutenant Governor - Joseph Bruno will automatically fill that roll. Paterson will therefore have an opponent as Lt.Gov. for over 3 years/ 75% of his term. The 'out of state' part could be significant - in the past, the Lt.Gov.s of some states have used the opposing party's Governor's absence from the state to start doing things that the Governor would object too. - 130.102.0.178 (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That's right. According to Article IV, Section 6, Clause 2, the NY Lt. Governor can only be elected at a gubernatorial election. The office of Lt. Governor will remain vacant until January 1, 2011. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough reverting

OK, I am getting sick of reverting this article. Lets try to get to a consensus.


Should this article contain a statement about the possible succession of Paterson to the governorship?

Support

  1. Absolutely Support Why should anyone oppose the succession of Paterson to the governorship? I fully support Paterson, it's a great day for people with disabilities. xeryus (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    <sigh> Nobody is supporting or opposing his succession to governor. This poll was about whether, a couple days ago when it was not clear if Spitzer was going to resign, whether it was appropriate to mention in the Wikipedia article about Paterson whether he was likely to become the first blind governor. The point is now pretty much moot, as nobody seems to disagree that it should be included. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we have some misunderstandings while we two both agree on the same point. As I already stated my view, I don't see anything that would cause negativity if we mention that he is blind, or positivity if we ignore that he will be the first blind governor in the USA. xeryus (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you still don't understand. Nobody is worried about "negativity if we mention that he is blind" or anything touchy-feely like that. The concern was that two days ago, it was not certain whether Spitzer would be resigning, and according to various Wikipedia policies (WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE) we need to be very careful about putting speculation in an article about a living person about something that might happen. The concern was not "negativity," it was that, should Spitzer have refused to resign, Wikipedia's credibility could be damaged by talking about something as if it were a sure thing, when actually it wasn't.
Even still, many people (as you can see here) felt that even two days ago, it was still relevant to include that in the article. Now, it is a moot point. Everybody agrees it should be included in the article. This straw poll is now obsolete, because everybody agrees that the likely succession should be discussed. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Support The statement is relevant, neutral, and correct. Many people will be visiting this article, and we should mention that he would be the first African-American Governor in New York and the first blind governor in the US. J.delanoygabsadds 20:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support There is a very real chance that Governor Spitzer resigns, and the article should note this possibility, for the same reason it notes that Paterson was rumored to be a possible successor to Clinton. None of these things are certain, but they are very possible that they do occur. Seleucus (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support It is a notable enough possibility for a news story specifically on the topic. —MJBurrage(T•C) 21:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely Support - Spitzer is expected to resign. That means Paterson could be taking over any day now. Enigma msg! 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Absolutely Support - Spitzer made his name in cleaning up professional malfeasance. The absolute taint of his involvement with a prostitute and the glaring hypocrisy dictate that he resign immediately. Any reasonable tea-leaf-reading would yield the result that Paterson will succeed him in a matter of days. Furthermore, the Democrats are in the thicket of a highly charged presidential campaign. Given that his integrity is on the line and that cleanliness of the New York DP would be important for the party, one can further anticipate that he will resign. Dogru144 (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - Yes it is quite relevant, ground breaking, and describes a current event. Now, this may be violating to the high extent the Assume Good Faith policy WP:AGF (we're all human anyway), and not directed to anyone in particular, but I hope, for crying out loud, that if one opposes this inclusion in the article, it would be the case for a white individual also. Anyway, yes it may be speculative or so because Spitzer hasn't officially resigned, and we shouldn't assume he will, even though likely (see Deductive reasoning vs. Inductive reasoning - I learned in Logic class, very fun), but it is quite important that this may happen, and is in the works as we speak, or type rather, that the governor's term seems in jeopardy due to exponentially increasing pressure to resign, a very strong inductive argument. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support I've changed my opinon. It's now very apparent, Spitzer will either resign or be impeached. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Conditional support The speculation of his becoming Governor should be clearly marked for what it is: Major media outlets are pointing out that if Spitzer loses his position due this recent scandal (a reasonable avenue of considering near-future developments, which is part of the media's job) then Paterson will be elevated to Governor of one of the most wealthy and populous states of the Union. Wikipedia users are flocking to this article to get information about the man who might soon be Governor, for this reason, not for any points of argument over Wikipedia policy. Therefore we must stress that the media speculates about Paterson's future--a notable and appropriate addition to his biography--not simply declare potential future conditions as an "if/then", which would be Wikipedia speculating. --Yamara ✉ 22:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have risked editing the lede, to demonstrate my point. Plus another cite. I am not particularly precious about my edit. --Yamara ✉ 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

#Oppose Until Governor Spitzer resigns, dies (in office) or is impeached & removed? There's no need to mention Lieutenant Governor Paterson potential succession to the governorship. For over 7-years, Dick Cheney has been a potential 'future' President of the United States. We don't mention that Cheney, would be the first President from Wyoming if he succeeds? Do we? GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • To answer this, George W. Bush is not or was in any very significant risk of losing his position in any way. Sure every president gets death threats every day and flies in Air Force One, which some people probably want to shoot down, but that's not significant for mention in his article or V-Pres Cheney's. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. oppose at this point we are talking about rumors. should we go to every Lieutenant Governor page and add "if Governor resigns he/she will be named Governor?" 208.222.71.77 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL:"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" [bold/italics mine]. It's obviously notable, so let's move to "almost certain": the examples of suitable topics about future events that are "almost certain" to occur are the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics. By contrast, Spitzer is not almost certain to resign: he is only very likely to resign, which falls far short of the threshold required by the policy. Moreover, Paterson's ascent to the governor's chair stands at one remove from this very likely but not "almost certain" event, and so is doubly unsuitable for inclusion at this time. And Spitzer is absolutely not "almost certain" to resign this evening, so this needs to come out, consensus or no. Finally, I don't think this belongs in the lead until Paterson actually is governor, even if there's a case to be made for it belonging in the article. --Rrburke(talk) 21:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not "very likely" he will step down. It is almost as likely as it is that President Bush will vacate the White House on January 19, 2009. As I said below, depending on what involved means, Spitzer could go to jail. I do not think that this violates WP:CRYSTAL any more than it would have if Wikipedia had been around to cover the Watergate scandal. If Nixon had not resigned, he would have been impeached. The New York State Assembly's minority leader has already threatened to start formally moving toward impeachment if Spitzer does not resign with 48 hrs. Since Spitzer did not deny being involved with the prostitution ring, I cannot conceive anything that could save him from impeachment. J.delanoygabsadds 21:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with this. Based on what I read from the Republican minority leader today, it's a sure thing Spitzer resigns. He doesn't want the humiliation of impeachment. Enigma msg! 22:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's far less certain that Spitzer will resign the governorship than that Bush will leave the White House in January '09. Spitzer could, in principle, for example, dig in his heels and wait to be impeached and then tried. He won't -- he will in all likelihood resign tomorrow -- but "in all likelihood" is not the threshold for inclusion of a future event in a Wikipedia article: that threshold is that the event "almost certain to take place". There is quite a gulf between something that everybody is expecting to happen and very probably will (Spitzer's resignation) and something that is required by statute (Bush's relinquishing the Presidency following the inauguration of his successor). This gulf also helps distinguish what does not belong in a Wikipedia article from what does.
You mention that you "cannot conceive anything that could save him from impeachment". This is quite a fair judgement and I agree -- but, first, what you or I "cannot conceive" alternatives to is also not a basis for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Second, impeachment would not in itself remove Spitzer from office anyway.
So a lot of things might happen. The most likely outcome is that Spitzer will resign tomorrow or soon after, but just because it's very likely is not in itself a reason to include it -- not even in an article on Spitzer or the scandal, but in a passage about whether David Paterson may become the first blind governor of a U.S. State! This is just plain premature. There will be plenty of time to include it if and when it happens.
Finally, it's worth being a little more circumspect about the possibility of criminal sanction when Governor Spitzer has not been charged with a crime. Please consider having a look at WP:BLP, remembering that it applies to talk pages and articles alike. --Rrburke(talk) 22:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Who cares?

  • By the time the vote is done, everything will likely change. We're talking hours here. It's nice that the wiki format lets Wikipedia be up to date, but we needn't worry about being up to the minute. We're still an encyclopedia, not a news site. -R. fiend (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Spitzer is officially resigning in a half hour. Yes. it's a breaking story, but as of now, he's officially "governor-designate" and should be listed as such.Ericl (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he is not officially resigning in a half hour. His aides have told major news outlets that he is going to, but that doesn't make it official. If I said, "Hey everybody, Ericl is quitting his job in half an hour!", does that make it true?
Granted, the odds that he won't resign are about zero right now, but Paterson is not governor-designate until Spitzer actually resigns. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I understand that suddenly, Paterson's chances of becoming Governor have increased. But, Governor Spitzer hasn't said he's considering resignation & the New York Assemblay hasn't mentioned anything about impeachment proceedings. So, let's stay calm & wait things out. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point. Although the news article here says that "sources" say that Spitzer may resign, the article does not elaborate on who or what the sources are. However, Fox News is a pretty significant news agency and I doubt that they would be willing to make such a pointed statement if did not have a good reason for saying it. J.delanoygabsadds 21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend waiting, until Governor Spitzer mentions resignation. Anything else (no matter how well sourced) is speculation. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish the article was more accurate. I thought better of the wiki community. I find Fox news is not a credible source, but if you do then I guess you have a right to listen to their rumors. 208.222.71.77 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The source for this article is CNBC. Also as I was typing this NPR commented on that fact that Spitzer used the past tense when discussing his work as governor. The idea that Spitzer might be stepping down is notable and not just coming from the right wing of the political spectrum. —MJBurrage(T•C) 22:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly what I was thinking. Although Dick Cheney has had a slight possibility of being President for what, 7 years, it was not (and is not) likely he would ever be elevated. Negating assassination, death in office, or something similar, there was never any real chance that George Bush would not complete his term(s), as he has never been in such a deep scandal like this is. Depending on what "involvement" means, Spitzer could potentially go to prison; at the very least, he is disgraced, and he will be labeled a criminal by the public no matter what. Paterson is far closer to the governor's mansion than Cheney ever has been to the White House. J.delanoygabsadds 22:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Spitzer scandal story is re-written with it's own section (something like Spitzer's scandal)? I'll change my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But keep in mind, people? Wikipedia's job isn't reporting. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And that seems to me to be the most important element of this. SixFourThree (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Move

Why was this moved from David Paterson there is no other article of that name that needs disambiguation from this one. —MJBurrage(T•C) 22:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. This article should be moved back to David Paterson (afterall, where's the consensus to move to David A. Paterson (politician)? GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Moved back to David A. Patterson. J.delanoygabsadds 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 Not doneShould be moved to David Paterson, but it won't let me. I'll get an admin. J.delanoygabsadds 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the move was made to disambiguate from David Patterson (two t's). Such a disambiguation may not be necessary. However, there does exist an article on David L. Paterson (with sources) and David Paterson (actor) (without sources). This suggests to me that the current location at David A. Paterson is not such a bad one. Geometry guy 22:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
David A. Paterson is wrong becasue he isn't known by the initial. If there's a disambiguation problem (and there isn't) it should be moved to David Paterson (politician). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If David Paterson redirects here anyway, it makes sense to move this to David Paterson. Enigma msg! 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
David Paterson only links here because the first person moved the page to David A. Paterson (politician). I still think this should be moved back to its original place. This article has been around since August 11, 2006, and there has been no problem with its name until now. J.delanoygabsadds 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So why doesn't someone simply move it back? Enigma msg! 23:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Try it, see what happens. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An administratively sactioned move was requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves#March 11, 2008. The copy and paste move attempted by User:Enigmaman was reversed, as it splits the article history from the article. Comments on the appropriate name for the article are appropriate here. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for doing it incorrectly. It's one of the reasons I hate WP:BOLD. As stated, I see no reason for the initial. This article should be at David Paterson. Enigma msg! 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I've converted David Paterson to a pure redirect so that anyone can do the page move (i.e., I've removed the short edit history caused by the cut-and-paste move and other edits). However, please disambiguate this article from David L. Paterson. Geometry guy 08:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If we go by WP:MOS, WP:NCC, and WP:DAB, this article should be at David Paterson or, optionally, David Paterson (politician). My preference is for the former. Initials should not be used as disambiguators unless the person is commonly known that way. (This is a common mistake.) A hatnote can be used to point to the David Patterson page. (The screenwriter is often credited as David L. Paterson, so there's no problem with his page.) --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone going to do the move? Enigma msg! 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do it. I think I've only done two edits today. I'll move it to David Paterson with a note on the top leading to David L. Paterson. SixFourThree (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
Thanks. :) Enigma msg! 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Leave the hatnote alone, it works fine with the David Patterson disambig page. If this page is moved, corrections can simply be made there. --Yamara ✉ 20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
David Patterson disambig page updated --Yamara ✉

The NYT appears to call him "David A. Paterson" consistently. Let's see what happens when he succeeds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

First legally blind governor

I inserted that he was the first legally blind person to hold such an office. I have no source for that, so if someone doen't like it or suspects that its untrue then remove it. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. David Paterson is not the first legally blind governor in U.S. history. Bob Cowley Riley, who served as Governor of Arkansas for 11 days in 1975, was! 68.174.27.152 (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be a terribly wise method of editing. In fact, it's against Wikipedia policy. Instead of throwing out wild guesses and expecting others to catch your errors, how about doing a little basic research? If you can't substantiate it beforehand, it doesn't belong in an article. SixFourThree (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

What happened to the edit history on this article?

The edit history goes back to March 10, 2008. Where is the prior year of edit history--What article is it attached to? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, someone, namely User:Enigmaman did a copy and paste move, pasting the article onto David Paterson, which left behind the edit history at David A. Paterson. This was not a proper method to change the name of an article, as it causes the edit history of an article to be disconnected from the article. I reversed that effort, to re-combine the history with the article. A move over a redirect needs an administrator's attention if the redirect has had more than one edit. I'll make the request. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And the history at David Paterson has nothing before today, for a similar reason. Enigma msg! 02:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Disambig

Just for reference, I added to the top of the page the Distinguish template saying "Not to be confused with David Patterson," which leads to the disambiguation page. I put this because David Paterson, with one t, redirects to this page, which is just very similar to David Patterson. So it needs to be disambiguated at the top. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Title

Changed his job title from "Lawyer" to "Politician," as he's not licensed to practice law. 160.39.212.68 (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Blind from birth in left eye and limited vision in other?

The NYTimes noted on January 23, 2006 that Paterson was "born with no sight in his left eye and severely limited vision in his right." This conflicts with the current statement in the article that Paterson "lost most of his sight as an infant as the result of an infection." Am changing page to reflect this source; feel free to revert if it's incorrect. Mediareport (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird, this article says it was an infection as an infant. Well, I imagine as a result of the huge amount of publicity this guy is about to get, we'll solve this before long. -R. fiend (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible the infection and damage happened in the womb? Both would be correct at that point, with the Yahoo story using "infant" to include the prenatal period. Mediareport (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's possible I guess. Using the term "infant" to describe a fetus is hardly typical though. Let's just sit on this for now. When he's governor (which seems almost certain now) there'll be much more public information coming out on him. -R. fiend (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The NYT today stated "As an infant, Mr. Paterson developed an infection that left him blind in his left eye and with severely limited sight in the other." I'll revert it; at least now it's sourced in the article. Mediareport (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with the footnoting; here's the URL for the March 12 article if someone wants to add the cite: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/nyregion/12paterson.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediareport (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This is still not being properly cited. I don't know if he has been blind since birth or suffered an infection, but in any case I can't find anything that says he had optic atrophy, which is why I've requested a cite (twice now) Isaacsf (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, here is a newspaper article that says he has optic atrophy: [2] But, I know this paper (it is the local newspaper where I live, for a city of about 300k) and knowing how reliable it has been in the past (hint: not at all), dollars to donuts I bet their source was this Wikipedia article. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bar exam

Did he pass it or didn't he? He couldn't have worked for the DA if he failed the bar, could he? Can someone clarify? -- Y not be working? 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He did work for the DA without passing the bar. He never did pass it.

Here's a quote from a story:

"Fresh out of Hofstra Law School, Mr. Paterson was hired by the Queens D.A.’s office before the results of his bar exam were in. In that capacity, lawyers can perform almost all the same duties as assistant district attorneys, including appearing in court on the people’s behalf.

But Mr. Paterson had a hard time with the bar. By his account, he ran out of time and found the accommodation made for his vision—an amanuensis read him the questions and transcribed his answers—inadequate.

“I can do some reading on my own, but the bar exam I couldn’t, because it was grueling. Six hours,” he recalled, adding that he had worked later to change the way the test treats the blind. “It was a big problem for me. I didn’t realize the time had expired. I was told later …. I didn’t feel I had enough time.”

Mr. Paterson said that he’d intended to return to take the bar, but his election to the Senate and subsequent appointment to a deputy leadership post consumed his time." Enigma msg! 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is true. In NYC you're allowed to perform quasi-legal functions under a practice order from a governmental organization so long as you've completed at least one year of law school and haven't failed the bar 3 times. That's how Paterson worked in the Queens DA office. 160.39.212.68 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote and expanded the article. The Observer reference now appears in the "Early life and education" and in "Controversies". Colfer2 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The "Controversies" section was later deleted ("Red Book" controversy), so now the bar exam story is only in "Family and education". Colfer2 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Current event tag moved to top

CBS and Fox report Eliot Spitzer to resign at 7 PM ET tonight. Still not official, but moving the tag to the top, and adding "Active pol" tag to this page. --Yamara ✉ 14:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

74th Lietenant Governor

The New York State website (www.ny.gov) lists Paterson as the 74th Lt. Governor, and Spitzer as the 54th Governor. The Info here should probably be changed to reflect New York States official count, let me know who agrees. EMT1871 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking at Lieutenant Governors of New York template, it appears the discrepancy is based on the difference between acting LG's and the real McCoy, as well as, perhaps, the fact that there have been non-consecutive terms. So I guess it comes down to definition. (On a side note, I always thought it was stupid to count Grover Cleveland as two Presidents.) -R. fiend (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the reason for the discrepancy is people not being counted twice, the question is if wikipedia should reflect new York's official count which is 74. I beleive the article should reflect NY's count not it's own.EMT1871 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fair. I support that. -R. fiend (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed all the bios of NY Governors. Will somebody fix all the bios of NY Lt. Governors? GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
PS- seeing as Paterson is numbered as the 74th Lieutenant Governor of New York? Does that mean 'Acting Lt Govs' are counted as Lt Govs? I don't have the list with me. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, acting Lt. Governors are countedEMT1871 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Governors in the US

Wait a sec. Paterson would be the third black Governor in US history. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First black governor in New York history, first blind governor in U.S. history, which is what the article says. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Paterson would not be the first blind governor in U.S. history. Bob Cowley Riley, who lost his left eye in World War II and later lost vision in his right eye, served 11 days as Governor of Arkansas in 1975. 68.174.27.152 (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, Pinchback was 'indeed' Governor (his predecessor was convicted & remove from office). So yes, Paterson would be the fourth. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer rumored to be "in the process of resigning"

Wiki is not a news source. If Spitzer's resignation will come "within the hour" then there's no reason not to wait until it actually comes, especially since news reports on this scandal have been wildly inaccurate (for example, Fox News reported on the first day of the scandal that Spitzer had already been indicted, which turned out not to be true). Let's kill the speculation and wait until these events are verifiable before including them. SixFourThree (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

For the record

He has now publicly stated he will be resigning, effective Monday (March 17 (St. Patrick's day)). Until then, he's governor. Let's make sure the article reflects that. -R. fiend (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Spitzer is still the governor of New York, and Paterson remains the Lieutenant Governor. Anything could happen before Monday. SixFourThree (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

He's not Governor until March 17, 2008

(New section so it's clear to casual browsers.) As above, Eliot Spitzer has only announced his resignation and he will be leaving office on March 17, 2008.[3] That is the date David Paterson will become Governor.--Oakshade (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody please block 68.174.253.28. He's being an ass. -R. fiend (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
He is, however Governor-designate, as mentioned in [4]. Is this an official title? Should it be included at the top of the article? 98.207.94.47 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That's interesting, but I notice that it was a Paterson aide that referred to him as such, not the NY Times. I do not believe it is an official title, or at least, I do not think one can rightly call him the official governor-designate at this time. As mentioned many times, Spitzer could legally change his mind, and then Paterson would not be incoming governor or governor-designate or anything of the sort..
I think the use of the title by the aide was just a strategic move to start getting people used to Paterson as the governor. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently wrong with calling him Governor-designate. It's a fairly common term throughout the English-speaking world. --Dhartung | Talk 01:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's an article with the New York Times itself calling him governor-designate: [5]. 98.207.94.47 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
We're being very pedantic as there are now numerous reliable and verifiable sources (ie every major newspaper and news source) that say Spitzer "will" resign on Monday and Paterson "will" become Governor. There are NO sources I can see that equivocate on that so by doing so ourselves are we not engaging in Original Research? Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking for. The Wikipedia article text also says, on several occcasions, that Paterson "will" succeed Spitzer on Monday. Now, none of these news sources is calling him "Governor Paterson" of course (because he's not), and so updating the infobox to say "Governor" at this time would be inappropriate.
The only thing I see in the external sources that Wikipedia has not done is a couple of NYT article referring to him as "governor-designate." I am very leery of how this term should be used, as I do not think it is an official title. For instance, I would very much oppose a "governor-designate infobox". On the other hand, if the article text referred to him as governor-designate, I think in the right context that might be acceptable.
Anyway, I definitely don't see any original research. The article says he "will" become governor, just like all the other reliable sources. The infobox says that right now he is Lt. Gov., also just like all the reliable sources. The fact that we have chosen not to use the term governor-designate, despite one reliable source occasionally using that term, is not original research; it is merely a style preference. Was there something else you thought the article should say? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protect requested

It's clear that we're going to see a lot of users, especially IPs, trying to change the article to say Governor instead of Lieutenant Governor. Enigma msg! 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not just IPs, I think full protection might be in order for a day or so, until the facts can sink into people's heads. -R. fiend (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we'll get some from users as well, but that way it's easier to control. Article is now semi-protected. Enigma msg! 16:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Haha, I actually requested temporary full protection, but got semi. Either way. I didn't figure they'd give full. Enigma msg! 16:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer resigned

Here is one story...
Should we change the article? J.delanoygabsadds 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not effective yet, which means Spitzer is still governor. Spitzer has announced his resignation, but he hasn't actually resigned yet. What change do you propose? Isaacsf (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As he approached the podium, he broke his "rib" - Sal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.55.249 (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Incoming governor" infobox

Nah, I don't like it, as per WP:CRYSTAL. First of all, he is not legally "incoming governor." There is no such title, at least not in the case of an announced intention to resign. Second of all, there is absolutely no certainty that he will take office on March 17th, and as per WP:CRYSTAL we shouldn't say so. Any number of things could happen. Spitzer has every right to change his mind. A crisis could grip New York that would cause them to want to delay the changeover in power. Paterson could resign first. Paterson could be injured or killed. Even if these things are unlikely, they illustrate the foolishness of proclaiming the date of changeover as March 17th. That statement is not yet true. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed incoming governor box. A lot could happen between now & then, we must be patient. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - I don't think it should be in there. When he's sworn in as the governor, change the box. Isaacsf (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Context of the following comment: On my talk page, the other editor mentioned Dmitry Medvedev as an example of precedent.
The difference with Dmitry Medvedev is that he is officially "president-elect" according to the Russian constitution. In the NYS consitution, there is no such title as "incoming governor" that is triggered when the previous governor makes an announcement of intention to resign.
To say it another way: When Medvedev won the election, a legal process was set in place such that he is officially president-elect, and if nothing else happens then he automatically becomes president on such-and-such a day. However, when Spitzer announced his resignation, no such legal process was set in motion. If nothing else happens, Spitzer will still be governor Monday. Now, we can pretty safely assume Spitzer will resign Monday, but there is no legal compulsion for him to do so. Paterson is not officially incoming. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, though I think you should put a hidden comment on the page telling well meaning editors of this discussion. --Philip Stevens (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's hope, New York doesn't go through what Arkansas went through in 1996. See Jim Guy Tucker. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Update the MoS

This article needs to be brought up to date with the MoS standard for Governors. RIght now its out of order and mentions nothing about his twenty some odd years in the Senate (including role as minority leader) and Lieutenant Governorship. It also doesn't included the lawsuit he's facing. Mrprada911 (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Which MOS standard is this? Whether this article should be revised or the "standard" should be junked depends on whether this is a real standard or more MOScruft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Pataki, Spitzer, and Cuomo all have very similar layouts. I've made it as similar as possible, this article will probably be inundated with the back-story of his time as a State Senator and Lieutenant Governor, along with new info as he is Governor, so we should get a firm layout in place. Mrprada911 (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Paterson isn't Governor. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mrprada911, be ready. Partisans are dropping in junk too. The thing I fixed, see below, "Lawsuit over allegations of bias" was mostly cut-n-paste from copyrighted sources (Daily News and Post). On the next news cycle (tonight?) more stories of questionable notability should be coming in from the blogs and loud press. Should we just revert them and tell the submitter to do a better job, or let them wait to get fixed?? Colfer2 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Since everyone is a bit upset for some reason..take a break and look at these references not first Gov with a disability

Removed external link to irrelevant copyright violation.

Remember. This is all in humor! Like David Paterson he is a blind african american. The relations stops there. I am going to include references things that would be beneficial to the article
http://www.ny.gov/ltgov/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/david-paterson-new-york_n_90774.html
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/11/754593.aspx
http://www.observer.com/node/38382
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080310/NEWS/80310041
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/david-a-paterson-next-in-line/
http://www.hofstra.edu/Home/News/PressReleases/121306_midyearcommenc.html

  • What also must be noted is that David Patterson is not the first gov of ny with a disability. If you look you'll see that FDR had a disability too. [6] Does anyone think this should be mentioned?

Uconnstud (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The above are just random links (from Google probably). No one has written "the first gov of ny with a disability" in the Wikipedia article, as far as I know. This whole section should be deleted, Uconnstud (talk · contribs) was just joking around and has been blocked for 24 hours. Colfer2 (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The video link is a suspected WP:Copyvio re-added by anonymous I.P. 199.3.218.137‎ (talk · contribs) just after Uconnstud was blocked from his own account for 24 hours. Colfer2 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone should delete this section. Colfer2 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, now he'll be the second NY gov with a disability. Is there a limit to this? Are we going to start counting "guys whose first name has five letters and born in an even year?" Isaacsf (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Look, FDR was NOT the first New York Govenor with a disability. Anyone other than me remember "Peg Leg" Stuyvesant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Stuyvesant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbara Reader (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the links don't really belong here. Talk pages are not message boards. SixFourThree (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
Quite agreed, and please, anybody, feel free to blank this whole section. I'm just not doing it because of some disagreement over the interpretation of 3RR yesterday, and while I am quite certain the admins would side with me, I'd just rather not even edit war about it. Believe it or not, this dumb little section has already resulted in a user getting a 24-hr block! heh... so I ain't touching it ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the bit about first blind and second disabled. When we get a ref that says either of them, we can add it back - IF it is important, which is debatable. Isaacsf (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit over allegations of bias

Someone added a section "Lawsuit over allegations of bias" with a lot of text copied directly from he tabs (Post and Daily News), as well as references to archives of upstate papers that can't be accessed without paying a fee to "newswire". The refs seemed to be randomly spread in the two-paragraph section, not tied to the sentences they footnoted. So I scoured the whole thing down to one paragraph with a long direct quote from one of the stories. Everything there is supported by just the 2 refs, Post and News. Still might be a tempest in a teapot, worthy of more shortening, but it's better than the junk originally added. Colfer2 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. The best course may be to see if such things are mentioned in the Times, and boil down to the nub of verifiable fact; the NYPost is a dubious source, and we still are not free to plagiarize them. I would be willing to consult Lexis if asked (ping my page) and others may be too. But copyvios and unverifiable stuff should simply go; WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP are absolutely clear, especially here, where many reporters will be fools enough to believe we are a reliable source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives

Article is essentially detailed enough to be a B class.

Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. —Yamara ✉ 05:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

David is now the Governor of New York -- fix the timetable column

Eliot's out... as of right now.

David is the Governor of New York.

Hopefully this will get updated (as well as Eliot's page listing his termination date). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.106.246 (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer's still Governor until Monday. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

High School

I removed the unsourced referenced to "racially integrated" high school. The 3 refs for that section only mention race in his high school once, and only to say that it was balanced. If this is a significant point, let's find a reference that supports it; otherwise, it seems like it was a high school. Seems like editorializing otherwise. Isaacsf (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I might have phrased that badly. The Newsday reference says this
I would like to include the racial aspect as it seems important. 1970 was indeed a tense time! I was wanted to include radio club and debate team, and at least radio club seems supported by the Yearbook, not just his fellow student's recollection. Anyone have a second source on his H.S. days? Any advice on wording? Thanks - Colfer2 (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess what I'm saying is, what does this really have to do with Paterson? I'm concerned about the implication that because he's black, it means he should have some pre-supposed notions that are worthy of mention in an encylopedic article. I'm also concerned with the implication that he somehow has some specific connection to integration. It may be so, but I'd like to see a reference.
(Finally, and perhaps separately, I personally think it is sad that we Americans see the need to refer to people who look a little different from us as being a different "race." I've always felt that blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, etc. are all part of the human race.)
Perhaps we could refer to one of these articles:
Isaacsf (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Your social views may be correct (I may agree!), but I think the consensus is that race is a part of his story worth mentioning. Here's my suggestion, what do you think?
  • Was: "He graduated from the racially integrated Hempstead High School in 1971".
  • Now: "An excellent student, he graduated from Hempstead High School in 1971."
  • Sug: "According to Long Island's Newsday, he 'was in the forefront of integrating the school system, both because of his race and disability.' He graduated from Hempstead High School in 1971."
With a wiki link on "integrating". It's a little wordy, but I think it fits in with the rest of the Wikipedia article and is important. I don't like "excellent". Many successful people were excellent in H.S., it's not that "notable". I would rather add the radio club, or that he was a moderate vis-a-vis Black Power and got along well with everyone. But how about the suggestion above? Colfer2 (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I like the direction you're moving in, but I'd also like more input from others. I'm not convinced that "race" is an issue with Paterson. The sources I'm reading describe him as guy who brings folks together, not that he toes any particular "race" line. Also, what I'm seeing is much more that he is partial to causes regarding his disability than his ethnic background. "Consensus" is a great thing, but just because a few editors agree it's important doesn't mean the sources we are referencing think so...don't you think?
I'm also wary of the Newsday piece. They are using fellow students' hearsay... so-and-so "recalled" rather than "records show." That's more of a human-interest piece than a news article, in my opinion.
Still - I like your suggestion far better than the original line that I had removed.
Any thoughts? Isaacsf (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not the first legally blind gov after all?

Bob C. Riley was governor of Arkansas for 11 days in 1975 -- the previous governor had become Senator, but the Ark. gubernatorial term had 11 days to go, so his Lt. filled in until the governor-elect took office. The Wikipedia article article on Riley mentions only that he wore an eyepatch due to a wartime injury, but this AP corrective that just came out over the wire says that he was in fact legally blind. Commence debate over whether he was actually governor or just acting governor... --Jfruh (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless it was different back then? The Constitution of Arkansas (I think) says, the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor upon the death, resignation or removal from office of the incumbent Governor. Therefore, Bob Riley was Governor of Arkansas. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless, the Lt Gov doesn't succeed fully, between a gubernatorial election & inauguration of the Gov-elect. I do know that Tucker wasn't Acting Governor from December 1992 to January 1995 & Huckabee wasn't Acting Governor from July 1996 to January 1999. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The ref to "first legally blind" (along with "second disabled gov of NY") was previously removed. Not really useful anyway. Isaacsf (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
An article posted at nytimes.com [7] calls Riley the first governor in the U.S. who was also blind. A professor of politics in Arkansas agrees that Riley's days in office qualify as being governor. Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See also First Legally Blind Governor? Not Quite, Sewell Chan. City Room Blog, nytimes.com, March 14, 2008. Postdlf (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Riley & other unelected Arkansas Governors called Acting Governor? Was Arkansas the way Massachusetts is now. Did the add an amendment to their state constitution before the Clinton (1992) & Tucker (1996) resignations? There something funny going with Arkansas gubernatorial succession history. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's Monday!

Paterson is now the governor. --72.224.93.8 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. Spitzer's resignation is due to take effect at 12 noon EDT. Isaacsf (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Listing successors and date of closure

I know he's not governor yet, but we know with reasonable certainty when his lieutenant governor's term is going to end and who his successor is going to be. I think that is worth listing. To say "2007 - " implies "for the forseeable future" and to simply say "incumbent" implies "no known successor. I think that it's misleading to state it as such. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article. Also, Bruno's title apprently will be Acting Lieutenant Governor. Or add a hyphen, Acting Lieutenant-Governor to mimic the constitution's usage, which no one does. See the article Joseph Bruno. The word acting is in the constitution, interim is not, for this position. We will see what official title the governor chooses for him, or he chooses for himself, or the Senate chooses for him, however that works, if there is any dispute! - Colfer2 (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Until 1PM

Paterson is acting governor. Distinction should be drawn.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Regardless of swearing-in, Patereson became Governor at the very momment Spitzer's resignation took effect (Noon time). Gubernatorial succession is automatic. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope. The law is Crystal clear. He, just like anyone else, is only acting in an office until such time that they are sworn in to fill that office.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect, the Governorship of New York is not 'vacant'. Regardless of 'swearing-in' Paterson became the 55th Governor at (Noon EST). GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
GoodDay is correct, succession is automatic upon the govenors resignation. Swearing in is generally cerimonial in all offices, and was likey conducted in private at noon for continuity. Regardless, Patterson became governor the moment Spitzer's resignation took effect, if not there would have been a lapse in the governorship.EMT1871 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Lead

The lead needs to be redone. Paragraph 1--is governor, because of scandal. Paragraph 2--is governor, because of a scandal. Paragraph 3--is governor, because of a scandal, is also a minority and is disabled. It seems unbalanced to me. He has had a very successful career and that should be put up top, and most of the stuff about Spitzer should be out the window. This is Paterson's article. Mrprada911 (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Disclosure

I have made some changes to this article, although I have been acquainted with Governor Paterson for over a decade, since he attended summer school at Albany law school. We're not close friends, but I want to note that, just in case anyone accuses me of a COI. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Basil Paterson's History

David's father, Basil, was not New York City's first African American Deputy Mayor. It was Lucille Rose under Mayor Abe Beam. Does anyone know how to switch that fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.173.45.166 (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure; do you have a reference? Isaacsf (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

30th not 29th district

Is there a ref for this change? It looks like maybe he was elected to the 29th and possibly through redistricting, it became the 30th. The categories at the bottom of the page have him starting in the 29th and moving to the 30th. Possibly a result of the 2000 census? Isaacsf (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes the references cite the two different numbers. Check them out. (Or at least both districts were cited in the references I put in on Saturday or Sunday, before all the hubbub on inauguration day.-- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Skips a beat

where story says-- Paterson's ouster of Connor had been an alliance of Manhattan senators against the Brooklynite Connor's more suburban-friendly politics.[11]-- who is Connor and why is he stuck in this space? was a line left off? Skywriter (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Connor was the beaten incumbent Minority leader in the contest. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Paterson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is just the stock boilerplate bio off of a number of his official websites and is just gushing. Thepedestrian 17:51, 13 September 2006 (

Last edited at 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Paterson/Archive_1&oldid=1136309434"