Talk:Valerie Wilson

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

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)

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)

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

$PV\,=\,\$50,000\cdot {\frac {1-{\frac {1}{\left(1+0.05\right)^{20}}}}{0.05}}=\$623,110.52$

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)

Backdoor deletion

Changing this dab page to a redirect is essentially the same as deleting it. As such, it would be the mark of minimal courtesy to acknowledge this and discuss it on the talk page.

As for myself, I would prefer to not delete this dab, because keeping it serves the greater good of maximizing the avaliable information available to Wikipedia readers. Consider:

• At least 90% of the people (and, I honestly think, probably 99%) looking for Valerie Plame Wilson will look for her as Valerie Plame, which is where the main article on her is located. This deletion does not effect them.
• For the 1%—9% who might actually type in "Valerie Wilson", this dab page puts them only one click away from the desired article.
• For that rare person who might have heard about this woman who was struck twice by lightning (winning the million dollar prize in the lottery twice), this dab page provides them with the validation that yes, this woman does exist. Deleting this dab denies them this information if they come looking here for it. And this lottery winner's winning is well documented on this page.

I am restoring this dab page and expect it to remain; if someone wishes to delete it again, I would expect the courtesy of some well-reasoned arguments as to how the world is better served by its deletion. Unschool (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages exist to disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the Internet or the world in general. (See the opening remarks at WP:MOSDAB:Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term) Articles on disambiguation pages must either be redlinked from another Wikipedia page, or, at the very least, be mentioned there (see either MOS:DABRL or WP:MOSDAB#Items appearing within other articles). The entry for the lottery winner does neither. In fact it's worse than that, in that it links to another disambiguation page, something that is also to be avoided (see WP:DPL). The stated aim of 'validating that this woman exists' is not a valid reason to have the page in its current form. Tassedethe (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your point about it linking to another dab page is a valid one; it was not my choice to link it there. Now as to the point you make about the purpose of the dab pages, you are definitely technically correct. But you are wrong, in my most humble opinion, in thinking that this should be deleted. Wikipedia exists for the readers, not for the rules. The "rules" were created for the purpose of making sure that we create the best encyclopedia for our readers, not for the sake of following the rules themselves. That's the reason that WP:IAR exists, because of the recognition that on some rare occasions, despite the letter of the rules, the spirit of Wikipedia (bringing information to people) demands otherwise. It hurts no one to have this dab page, and it does help increase the amount of information available to our readers. It clarifies, it helps avoid confusion, it serves a purpose. Deleting it serves no purpose except to make a sacrifice at the Altar of the Rules. Unschool (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Digging back into the history of this page. Is this person notable? AfD says no. As this page has now just 1 article it qualifies for speedy deletion under Template:Db-disambig. WP:IAR might count for something if the notability had not already been tested. Wikipedia exists to provide encyclopedic knowledge of notable things (my emphasis); people/things that fail the WP:N requirements are not included in Wikipedia. People searching for them will unfortunately be disappointed, but this is because they are not notable, not through an oversight. Tassedethe (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reply still indicates that your concern is with using the rules to "win" this argument, rather than to serve the reader. As I indicated, no harm follows from this inclusion, some good may result. Someone who hears that Valerie Wilson won the lottery, and, thinking that it was the woman connected with the Plame scandal, comes to Wikipedia for clarification, will come here after this dab is deleted and remain unenlightened. The rules will have "triumphed". Nothing you have said is untrue, but, as I said, this is a better encyclopedia to include this information.

Look, Valerie Wilson the deli worker has been (appropriately, IMO) judged to be insufficiently notable for an article. But denying her an article does not mean that we need to deny the reader the clarification that they may need in their moment of confusion. That is why WP:IAR still applies. Saying that IAR does not apply because her article has been judged non-notable is reversely tautological: If her article had not been deleted, then of course this dab page would be needed. It is specifically because it was deleted that WP:IAR applies here: Normally we do not keep dab pages unless there is more than one article linked from that dab page, and I am saying that we need to ignore that rule in this particular case. No harm results from it, but a better encyclopedia does result from it. Unschool (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] I'm sorry if I keep on citing rules but that is what Wikipedia is based upon, anyone can edit "within the rules". I have no burning desire to 'win' the argument, if you could cite a single guideline (other than WP:IAR), or provide a cogent argument why this item deserves to break all the standard dab rules, other than to serve some mythic reader, I would be happy to concede. Your argument that because the article is deleted that means they must be included is almost the definition of tautologous; if they weren't deleted they would be included, as they are deleted they should be included??? After the AfD decision on the notability of this person their presence on Wikipedia is no more desired than a self-published bio, or the latest youtube film. If you feel that notability is somehow deserved (which it seems you don't) then the creation of a stub would be more appropriate, rather than the 'backdoor' presence on a dab page. As to creating a better encylopedia, my opinion is that removing all inconsequential and minor content will only aid that (something that also has a guideline, see WP:NOT). Tassedethe (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I found your comments a bit difficult to follow this time, so if my reply indicates that I have misunderstood you, my advance apologies. Okay, you say:

• if you could cite a single guideline (other than WP:IAR)

But that's the whole purpose of WP:IAR! The reason that IAR exists is because of the understanding that on some occasions, there are not only no other rules that cover the situation, but that the rules actually contradict the greater need of the project. If a person who cites IAR could find some "other guideline" to support their argument, then they wouldn't need WP:IAR!! This is not to say that IAR can be used to justify anything, it is simply to say that sometimes we need to evaluate the need for something based upon the overall good of the project, regardless of the rules.

• Your argument that because the article is deleted that means they must be included is almost the definition of tautologous

That would be a specious argument, but that's not what I said (or at least, wasn't my intent). I'm not saying that she needs to be included in a dab page because her article was deleted, but rather, that she needs to be included despite that fact. Because yes, normally the deletion of the article on her would require the deletion of her place on this dab page (and thus the elimination of the dab page itself). I'm saying that we serve the reader of Wikipedia better if, despite this normal policy, that in this case we ignore the rule and include her on the dab page anyway, just to help the reader.

• After the AfD decision on the notability of this person their presence on Wikipedia is no more desired than a self-published bio

I'm sure you're sincere in making this argument, but upon a moment's reflection, anyone can realize that the standard for sufficient noteworthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia is not the same as sufficient noteworthiness for having a Wikipedia article. There are, what 2.5 million articles on en.wiki, right? But are there only 2.5 million facts? Of course not. There are millions of factoids that do not merit having their own article, but are included in other articles. That's not unusual, that's the nature of an encyclopedia. It was determined at AfD that this deli worker was not noteworthy enough for an article. That's not the same thing as saying that what happened to her is not sufficiently noteworthy to include in the encyclopedia, if only a relevant place can be found. Of course, you could argue that this dab page is not the correct place, perhaps it should be in the article on the NY Lottery. I don't know. All I am saying is that there is a different standard for noteworthiness for factoids and articles.

By the way, regardless of how this turns out, may I thank you for engaging in a discussion that has been both intelligent and sincere? I wish more people would take the time to talk things out as you have. Unschool (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to have a proper back-and-forth discussion. I'll just address the 3 points (mainly just to have a good argument!) but I'll propose a specific solution.

1. I feel that WP:IAR exists to provide a way out when guidelines don't fit the specific problem. But I also feel that if guidelines have to be broken the spirit of the guidelines should not be broken, only the letter. I do feel that that this entry would break the spirit of many guidelines. I don't feel the greater need of the project is enhanced by this entry.
2. I didn't quite follow your initial logic - 'reverse tautology' threw me, a bit like a double negative. I see your point now, but still disagree!
3. Dab pages are a special case, they are not articles but aids to navigating Wikipedia. This is why they have such stringent guidelines (which you can see I love to cite). I agree that plenty of people/facts are included on the Wiki that on their own would not deserve an article, but a dab page is not the place for such information.

My proposal therefore is that information on this person is placed somewhere else on the Wiki. Perhaps on the page for the town where this occurred, or on one of the pages dealing with lotteries, or lottery wins, in general. Then the dab page can have a link to that page, and no rules will be broken. Tassedethe (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree with your thinking, I think that your proposal seems reasonable (you no doubt noticed my thinking was already moving in that direction), and, as you note will adhere to the letter as well as the spirit of the project. I don't have the time to make it happen right now, but I will try to do so by 04:00 GMT on 9-29-8. You of course are welcome, if so inclined, to find an appropriate spot in the meantime. Again, thanks for the civil discourse. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Any progress on this? Tassedethe (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, slipped off my radar. I'll get to it this weekend. Thanks for the reminder. Unschool (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)