Wikipedia

Talk:Rudy Giuliani/Archive 2

< Talk:Rudy Giuliani
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Ramendik in topic  Opposition to transgender rights as Mayor?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Law Firms

I added the paragraph about his pre-mayoral law firms. I'm new to editing articles, so I hope it's okay. -- Tooptoo [02:18, 1 January 2007 168.103.223.60]

Political Views of Rudy Giuliani

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

For John McCain we have an extensive list of political views, and for Hillary Clinton we have Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton. But we scarcely have anything for Rudy. Simesa 00:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Political views, let's be fair about his views. Giuliani called for the construction of a fence and said today that new Americans must be expected to be able to read and write in English. See the addition that I added under the Illegal Immigration section and the citation. --70.152.143.172 06:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've create a Political views section, and have started to populate it with material. I moved the immigration material mentioned just above into it, since it didn't belong in the Mayoralty section. Wasted Time R 18:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

911

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think the 911 section is too negative about Guiliani. Criticism is the easiest thing in the world to create about people-- and this article plays too much to the lowest common denominator in that department. People saw for themselves what kind of leader Guliani was during 911 and that's why he enjoys huge popularily today.

Phil 168.103.223.60 02:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

But we've all seen the media get the facts absolutely backwards, as they did on 9/11. For instance, no one can dispute the facts of 9/11, like the fact that Rudy's critical command center was put in an insane place by Rudy himself, and even his supporters said it was dangerous, long before it proved to be deadly.

The very fact that Wikipedia uses mainstream media as its source means most sourcing cannot be accurate. The media moguls, for instance, are mostly cigar buddies of Rudy and that's well-known, but it's not like the NYTimes is going to report that! There are literally millions of examples of mainstream media reporting the exact opposite of the facts. I've had thousands of stories written about me in the Times and on TV and not once did they fact check anything.

The 9/11 section is not negative enough, if you know all the facts. For instance, Rudy got caught lying about his illegally destroying all the evidence and melting down the steel and shipping it to China. But only Newsday told some of the truth about it. The rest of the media continued to shill for a "popular" mayor who gave them billions in corporate welfare. EX: reread the preface of Time's "Man Of The Year" issue and they admit that Rudy in no way meets their criteria. They gave it to him because Rudy had given AOL/ Time Warner over a billion in taxdollars and he was their close pal---facts they never disclose. And you'll see that the media almost never discloses their serious conflicts of interest. EX: how on earth does the NYTimes or the Post praise Rudy without disclosing the billion dollars he gave both in defiance of taxpayers??

christopher empiregoodness@yahoo.com [01:35, 16 March 2007 69.22.244.175]

You are http://mayorbrodeur.org/?
Anyway, read WP:V and some other Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If all "mainstream media" and "mainstream books" are wrong about something, then Wikipedia will be too. If you are looking for a venue for "alternative" viewpoints, you have come to the wrong place. Wasted Time R 01:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

reguardless of "lying" all Politicians lie, so thats in-conclusive, so do not rave about Rudy lying as no proof = no care! - Regaurds, keithalmli

Iraq

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone know what Giuliani's position on the war in Iraq is? [21:56, 6 February 2007 220.239.204.81]

Sorry that I'm a novice on the workings of this site, but Rudy has fully supported Bush in every way on the issue of Iraq.

More telling, is the fact that Rudy's star head of security at Giuliani Partners was Bernie Kerik, who trained the Iraqi police force before mysteriously leaving before the job was done. (And I think it's safe to say that Kerik didn't do a very good job.) Kerik of course no longer works at GP and Rudy says that was Kerik's decision, meaning Rudy wanted to keep on the man who trained the Iraqi police. That's a devastating bit of information the mainstream media will not discuss. And I can't post it unless the media reports it!?

Chris empiregoodness@yahoo.com [01:39, 16 March 2007 69.22.244.175]

That is correct; read WP:NOR. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Wasted Time R 01:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani and the towers collapsing

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Where in the article is there a mention of Rudy's highly significant and suspiciously curious foreknowledge that the towers would collapse as is proven in the following clips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hNmf76GUCw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=426_gsf9pZc ? --Hyper_Anonymous [04:14, 17 March 2007 24.121.179.99]

There's a conspiracy theory article somewhere that I'm sure you'll be delighted to help edit. This here, on the other hand, is a reality-based article. Wasted Time R 04:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My question is reality based. Why such arrogance? It was a simple question. Rudy was forewarned that the towers were about to collapse. That is not a theory, that is a fact. Giuliani admitted it and I provided a link to him doing so. Do you think that maybe that warrants a mention in the article section about what Giuliani did on 911 or is that not on your agenda you arrogant, glib master editor? While we're on this subject, why is the 911 section of Giuliani's article so short? One would expect that this would be one of the longest sections of the article regardless of which conspiracy theory one decides to believe regarding the events of that day. In any case, I apparently Inadvertently placed my comments in the Iraq section and not 911. Unfortunately I am not a master Wikipedia editor, so I don't know how to fix that. --Hyper_anonymous

The first clip is just him getting warned a few minutes before the tower collapsed that it was in danger of doing so. Doesn't imply any foreknowledge or conspiracy. The second clip is the one I was referring to. As for the section header, I created a new one for this topic. As for the length of the 9/11 treatment in this article, here is the table of contents on it:
# 6 September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
    * 6.1 At the scene
    * 6.2 "America's Mayor"
    * 6.3 2001 Mayoral election controversy
    * 6.4 Time Person of the Year
    * 6.5 Criticism for lack of preparedness before the 9/11 attacks
    * 6.6 Criticism for handling of Ground Zero air quality issue

Doesn't seem "short" to me overall. However, I agree that the "At the scene" subsection needs some description of where Giuliani was at the time of the WTC burning and then collapsing. I think there was some material there previously, but it got lost in edit battles about NYC emergency preparedness. I'll try to recover or write something on this when the article opens up again. Wasted Time R 12:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned somewhere in the article with no subjective concluisions attached to it so the readers can make up their own minds. Just a quote from the clip would suffice. The point is that he was told beforehand that the towers would collapse, that *is* the epitome of foreknowledge regardless of if it's a few minutes or otherwise. Whether it suggests conspiracy is another matter which is best left to the readers. Thanks for your consideration. --hyper_anonymous

Org work

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The organization of this article had become pretty bad - inappropriate material in the intro, no early years section, the post-mayoral section had way too many choppy short sections, the personal life material was scattered and lacked simple date information - so I've endeavoured to improve it. Wasted Time R 00:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Smoking Gun Research

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0212072giuliani1.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeago (talk • contribs) 18:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Immigration

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I very strongly disagree with Giuliani on his sheltering of illegal aliens, but I believe it is only reasonable to cite what he actually said, including his reasons, rather than Michelle Malkin's polemic (if not at all unfair) characterization of it. 69.143.31.101 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Marsh

I changed an immigration quote in the mayoralty section to more closely reflect Giuliani's views on immigration and how they relate to New York City. I didn't throw out the old quote, but instead put it with the separate article on Giuliani's political views. Jmegill 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is important to mention Giuliani's constant flip flops on immigration. EX: when Elian Gonzalez was a political football in FLorida, Rudy said he should be able to enjoy the American dream (illegally). This is pretty amazing coming from the man who had drinks with Baby Doc of Haiti and then jailed thousands of refugees when they tried to come to America. He only backed Gonzalez b/c The Clintons were on the other side.

There are few issues Giuliani has not completely reversed himself on, but the media continues to portray him as a man who never wavers.

Chris empiregoodness@yahoo.com [01:43, 16 March 2007 69.22.244.175]

Transvestism

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Why is Giuliani's transvestism consistently hidden from Wikipedia readers?? He is the only mayor in NY history known to have appeared in women's clothes on multiple occasions in public. This would surely be worthy of mention alongside the abundant personal trivia listed in the article even were he not already the subject of much speculation as to his morals and even were he not running for president, but given that this issue is the subject of much consternation on the part of right-wing commentators I can't imagine why a well referenced mention of it should be repeatedly excised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.155.63.6 (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

His few appearances in drag are mentioned, in Rudy Giuliani#Media management. There is no evidence that he is a transvestite, however; he just did the drag as a lark. Wasted Time R 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Nor is there any evidence that his cross dressing was just done "as a lark." Many New Yorkers and political observers believe otherwise....The current wording seems adequate for now but the article could use a section to address the growing speculation over Giuliani's private life and morals141.155.63.6 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
True, though cross-dressing isn't a "moral" issue. Bill Maher had a good discussion on this on his most recent show, combining jokes with some seriousness. I'll paraphrase, but he essentially quipped that doing it once or twice for a charity routine is one thing, but going that far on numerous occasions may mean he's got some hidden issues for which the religious right wouldn't be thrilled. --AWF
To my knowledge he did it three times, twice at a roast/charity event and once on a TV comedy show. How does that rate? You know, New Yorkers take these things in stride.... Wasted Time R 13:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of us _did_ take his lifestyle in stride...the lifestyle that is....It was the hypocrisy of the moralizing authoritarian flaunting his private life that grated on so many of us... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.125.223.18 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
If you can find a quote where Giuliani said that appearing in drag is immoral, then add it. Otherwise you have nothing. Wasted Time R 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the Maher clip now. I think he used multiple still photos from each of Giuliani's three appearances, to make the total number look greater than it really is. He also threw in a still from Saturday Night Live that wasn't even drag, but rather a silly male costume with a fake pompadour. Wasted Time R 12:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Election

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added an election tag since Giuliani is a candidate for 2008. JQLibet 18:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Mayorial Elections

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I changed the statement that he was the first elected Republican Mayor of New York since Lindsay's re-election in 1969 to Lindsay's election in 1965 due to the fact that Lindsay was not the Republican nominee in the 1969 election. If you were to argue that Lindsay was not the Republican nominee but he still was a Republican then you would need to change the 1997 reelection comment regarding Rudy being the first re-elected Republican Mayor since LaGuardia in 1941 to Lindsay in 1969. Since the LaGuardia remark was sourced (23)..... Reddawnz 19:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement that Ruth Messinger, his opponent in 1997, was a City Council member is wrong (or out of date), she was Manhattan Borough President when she ran for mayor, as documented in her entry. MatthewBrooklyn 15:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Now fixed. Wasted Time R 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Need semi-protection

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The rate of anon vandalism has gone way up lately. This article needs semi-protection (blocking anons and newly registered users), the same as Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton and others of this ilk have. Wasted Time R 22:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, anons have been making some useful edits to the article, so I guess this call is premature. Wasted Time R 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Subarticles created

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Note that subarticles have now been created for Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 and Political views of Rudy Giuliani, and the material here moved into them; this is in line with how Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and other similar articles have been structured. Wasted Time R 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Creating a daughter article, to present one part of a subject in more detail without cluttering the main article, is fine. In such instances, however, Wikipedia:Summary style calls for the main article to retain a brief summary of the material that's been spun off. I think it's especially important that a bio of a politician retain at least the basic information about his or her political views. I'll try to create such a summary. (Admittedly, summarizing often raises the touchiest NPOV issues, because there's some POV inherent in deciding what's important enough to be in the main article, but we have to make the effort.) JamesMLane t c 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've added this for the Political views section in the main article. I've done what most of the other 2008 candidates have there, a description of poll results showing how the American public views them on the L-M-C spectrum. Trying to otherwise summarize political views is, as you suggest, a foolhardy enterprise. Wasted Time R 23:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I said it was difficult, not foolhardy. I think it's something that has to be attempted. Poll results about overall orientation are worth including, but the basic bio article should have more than just the politician's image. There should be some information about his or her views on major issues, for the benefit of a reader who comes to the article with no prior knowledge. Trying to purge the article of all such information is JamesMLane t c 07:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Rudy is a businessman"

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Does charging people for speeches make someone a businessman? myclob [17:15, 24 February 2007]

If you have a cite saying he's done nothing else in his companies than that, please provide. Wasted Time R 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but why does Wasted R think that the media doesn't get facts wrong? Just because it's in print doesn't make it true. And just because a politician says something doesn't make it true. In fact, more often than not, the opposite proves to be the truth. Rudy is a businessman however. The media speculated on what heroic thing he'd do after 9/11 and I said "his only concern is making money for himself". Probably a lucky guess. Note that after he took on corrupt big business and politicians as US Attorney he did a 180% flip flop once mayor. He arrested NO corrupt pols or big bizman as mayor. He instead hired them or had lunch and befriended them. Any ideas why?

christopher empiregoodness@yahoo.com

All I can say is, you have to do a lot more reading about Wikipedia's rules and guidelines before you have any chance of becoming effective here. Or you can just run for Mayor again. Wasted Time R 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is Romney's religion mentioned and not Rudy's?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

myclob 17:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is, in both the infobox and the Early life section. Wasted Time R 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Crime statistics

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Our article currently states that, when Giuliani ran for Mayor in 1993, the city "was suffering from an all-time high in the crime rate". The source cited in support of that assertion says, in its first sentence no less, that "crime in New York City took a downturn starting around 1990...." Thus, our article flatly misstates the facts. It adopts the mass media's view that the decline in the crime rate must have come under the mayoralty of a white former prosecutor, and that the city's first black mayor couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it. We shouldn't join in the practice of giving Giuliani a free pass on the crime issue. JamesMLane t c 05:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Even worse, is that you can demonstrably prove Rudy faked most of the crime stats as he got caught faking all his other stats. His stats don't even make the slightest sense: for instance, his "Compstat" PR stunt claimed that they sent armies of cops to the worst neighborhoods, yet 8 years after he claimed to have done this, the worst 'hoods still had crime rates 500% higher than the neighborhoods with no cops (like Gramercy Park) which completely proves the NYPD had nothing to do with crime rates, nor did COmpstat. Another example: Rudy said he had to go after small crime to prevent big crime but this is insane at best. EX: he arrested tens of thousands of low level pot smokers, claiming it lowered murder, yet it didn't even lower pot usage! And according to Rudy's entire bogus theory of broken windows, if he allowed jaywalking (which he admitted he could not curb) then that inspired more murder! The man changed his story on every single topic and I know a lot more about Rudy than any journalist, as I was a researcher for the (ultimately toothless) movie "Giuliani Time". I've watched Rudy videos going back to 1972 and I have more footage of the man contradicting himself than you could imagine. But this video footage isn't considered a "reliable source"! This is why he took all the public records with him when he left office: so he could shred and shred, just like the corporate criminals he defended at Giuliani Partners. The problem is, mainstream media usually goes along with any empty press release a govt official puts out. Every time I was the victim of crime, the police wouldn't allow me to press charges, meaning no "crime" ever officially happened. And you want me to believe this was a fluke? Many people have identical stories but the media refused to report this b/c Rudy had so much power. (EX: the NYTImes needed Rudy's okay to do an emininent domain scam to build their new HQ on 8th ave. They covered up his scandals and this can be proven, but not via what many call "reliable asources" aka, unreliable sources. Again, I've had thousands of articles written about me and not once did the NYTimes or others fact check. That's not a coincidence. And when they made glaring errors, they not once would print a correction, b/c I'm not some powerful corp with an army of lawyers.

christopher empiregoodness@yahoo.com

Personal Life

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Current article somewhat whitewashes his marriage to Regina Peruggi and never mentions that he began seeing Donna Hanover as early as 1982, according to an interview with Donna Hanover, which calls into question his rationale for having his marriage with Peruggi annulled. Also references to Alan Placa, which support claims Giuliani knew all along of his familial relationship with Peruggi, have been removed. Alan Placa also adds to the 'controversy' topic. Joseph chapman 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why have all mentions regarding the fact that his first marriage was to his cousin and the controversy about the annulment of said marriage been removed? [05:49, 24 March 2007 68.175.52.61]
They haven't. You can't read. See Rudy_Giuliani#Personal_life third paragraph and Rudy_Giuliani#Annulment_of_first_marriage. Wasted Time R 12:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added the origins of the Hanover relationship. I'd like to have a second source on the date of the Peruggi annulment. And you didn't give any source on Placa. Wasted Time R 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I got the second source, so I added that bit ... but I'd like something more authoritative on when exactly the annulment was issued. I've begun adding Placa, but need more on that too. Wasted Time R 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant and not redundant

An editor repeatedly removes the following. It is neither redudant nor irrelevant: The New York Daily News reported that Giuliani learned of his daughter's acceptance to Harvard only upon reading of the admission in the Daily News. Giuliani has been absent from his son's golf tournaments and from his daughter's starring performances in theatrical productions. [1] Dogru144 17:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article already says that Giuliani is estranged from his children, "missing major events in their lives and sometimes going long stretches without talking to them," and gives the same Daily News cite. You're just repeating the same material later in the paragraph, to no useful purpose other than maliciously piling on. Wasted Time R 17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of my edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

User:Wasted Time R made a wholesale revert with the ES "revert back to last sane version without anti-Giuliani attacks everywhere; I will reapply legit changes". Many "legit changes" were, however, lost in this revert and not restored (or possibly messed up in subsequent edits). Some points that I'm fixing, with rationale:

  • It's generally a bad idea to include statements like "In the wake of the attacks, Giuliani was hailed for his leadership during the crisis." This makes it sound like a conclusion that the article is reaching, rather than a report of an opinion held by some. Better is to say that he was "hailed by some", to make clear that it's an opinion, and still better is to include a citation to at least one prominent spokesperson for that point of view (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words). Some places in this article still need citation. At some point, if citations aren't forthcoming, the report of the opinion should be deleted altogether. As an interim improvement, "was hailed by some" (and similar phrases) should replace the simple "was hailed".
  • There was criticism of Giuliani concerning the siting of the Emergency Management Center, and the report of this criticism should not have been deleted. I've created a subheading on "Before the attacks" to accommodate that material. That section can also include information about his monumental foul-up concerning the first responders' radios, as soon as someone writes it up with citation to sources.
  • It's POV to say that September 11 was "the defining moment" of Giuliani's term in office. The objective fact is that he was highly visible. Certainly many people praised his alleged "leadership" during that time, an opinion that can be reported with proper attribution and citation. On the other hand, there are many of us who believe that he received considerable favorable publicity based on little more than the happenstance that he was the Mayor at the time of the attack. ("All he did was act like a compassionate human being for a few weeks--granted, quite a feat for a man who announced his plans for divorce on TV before he told his wife--and people were calling him a hero." [1]) It's also puffery to say, "He balanced the need to make hundreds of decisions directly and immediately, to delegate hundreds of others, and to visit the injured and console the families of the dead."

I haven't compared the different versions with regard to their treatment of adultery and other personal issues. JamesMLane t c 22:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of all the bad edits ... but there was a ton of junk in there, conspiracy theories about why the WTC towers went down, long-winded edits about Dinkins right in the intro, etc. I assure you I am not trying to whitewash Giuliani ... I've been adding Controversies entries, and have tried to do my best describing the timeline of his tangled personal life, as you can see from my recent edits. But I'm trying to do it in a neutral way, not slanted. Wasted Time R 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand. Having survived the editing of the Bush and Kerry articles in the fall of 2004, I know that there's often such a swirl of edits that keeping track of who did what when is more trouble than it's worth. I posted as I did because I believe that, especially in articles about controversial subjects, explanations of significant edits (beyond what will fit in an ES) can help the collaboration process. JamesMLane t c 23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm okay with most of your edits, but "hailed by many" is more accurate than "hailed by some" (I could try to dig out a post-9/11 opinion poll), and your new "Before the attacks" subsection was duplicative of the existing "Criticism for lack of preparedness before the 9/11 attacks" subsection; I've merged your content into that one. Wasted Time R 23:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You also don't seem to credit enough the anti-Giuliani material that is already in the article, such as Sharpton's "Bozo could have lead us" quote, the handling of air quality, etc. Wasted Time R 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I can also say that edit battles over how Giuliani is characterized in the intro will go on forever. On the Hillary Rodham Clinton intro, we solved that by stripping the intro of anything that wasn't an obvious incontrovertible fact. Makes it very short, if nothing else ... Wasted Time R 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a problem with the organization of the article, with material relating to 9/11 being split up the way it is. Similarly, the placement of the Sharpton quotation exemplifies the scattering of material relating to the different reactions to his post-9/11 actions. I think that "hailed by many" should be removed but I won't bother doing it right now, because I want to think about addressing this overall problem. The same section has a "Giuliani was widely praised...." sentence, added to all the stuff about "America's Mayor", and even his appearance at a single baseball game. This is overkill (and would be even if bolstered by a citation or two). JamesMLane t c 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Horrible paragraph

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Let me point out a horrible paragraph. It's under the major heading "Mayoral campaigns, 1989, 1993, 1997", and within that heading, it's under "1993 campaign and election".

Here's the paragraph: "Giuliani promised a return to social order, addressing day-to-day issues rather than past or imminent crises: Poverty, welfare, and the prevalence of homeless panhandlers on streets and subways, and improving New York City's image via improvements on crime, infrastructure and urban revitalization."

It's unclear whether terms that come after the colon ("Poverty, welfare", etc) have to do with "day to day issues" or "past or imminent crises". This should be made explicit. It's tempting to delete the entire paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dlbarber (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. I've junked it. I think the next paragraph with the RG quote was saying the same thing, anyway. Wasted Time R 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"America's Mayor"?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"His public visibility in the days following the attacks earned him the nickname "America's Mayor." The statement about the purported nickname seems factually implausible -- does anyone actually use that term to address or refer to RG? It's also, obviously, not NPOV. If someone, somewhere, actually referred to him that way, and that fact is somehow noteworthy, just say that. Bassomatic 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an American thing ... there is a tradition in sports of anointing certain teams, such as the Dallas Cowboys in American football, as "America's Team". Then other things began being called "America's <whatever>", and the Rudy label came from that. Wasted Time R 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite common and notable; the nickname was given by Oprah Winfrey, accoridng to The Economist [2]. It doesn't take much basic research to turn up that Google News Archive finds 580 hits for giuliani "america's mayor", most dating from before his current presidential race, and many even in articles that are negative about him. --Delirium 13:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but much of this falls under "earth is flat", doesn't it? Just because everyone believed the earth was flat and all authority said it was, that doesn't make it true, correct?

All the hype and most of the media articles on Rudy can be proven false, but what can you do? Galileo died in prison for the crime of being right, in a world where the powers that be had corrupt reasons for hiding the truth.

christopher empiregoodness@yahoo.com [01:50, 16 March 2007 69.22.244.175]

"Sir Rudolph"???

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm torn between being amused and being appalled that the intro line identifies Giuliani as "Sir Rudolph"! Giuliani is an American. No one carries that sort of title in the United States, regardless of what someone whom the Founders would have called a "foreign potentate" might have bestowed on him. It has zero validity. Unless "Sir Rudy" is in the process of becoming a British citizen, I believe strongly that this appelation should be removed. Anyone? --Michael K. Smith 02:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You caught a bad edit that was up for a couple of hours. It isn't normally like that. Remember, with Wikipedia it's not what you read, it's when you read it! Wasted Time R 02:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Since Giuliani is an American, people do not call him by "Sir". By the way, even though he's not called "Sir", I think we should put KBE beside Rudolph Giuliani's name because he accepted the British honor. E.g. Rudolph Giuliani KBE (born.....).... --Sli723 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No, not that either. See Talk:Rudy_Giuliani/Archive_1#Knighthood for prior discussion. Wasted Time R 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Harding Scandal

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why would Harding's child porn conviction not be mentionable alongside his other felony? Giuliani selected the son of a close political ally to head a vitally important city agency despite a complete absence of qualifications on the appointee's part. The appointee turns out to be not only a crook but a collector of child porn. Giuliani was elected on a "return morality to NYC" platform and as mayor repeatedly attacked those who did not agree with his own values. Both of Harding's convictions demonstrate his character and it seems to me reflect on the character of the man who appointed him. The full nature of the convictions of any Giuliani appointee are certainly more relevant to this article than Andrew's golf prowess.... 141.155.63.6 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If Giuliani makes an unqualified patronage hire who turns out to use his position to embezzle from the public trough, that's a very reasonable criticism of Giuliani. The crime is connected to the appointment. If this hire also happens to dabble in some hidden personal vice, that happens to get discovered by accident in the course of the embezzlement investigation, that's a private crime, not a public crime, and one that's not really something that can be held against Giuliani. Wasted Time R 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the Crime section, the following quote appears:

"Bratton, not Giuliani, was featured on the cover of Time magazine in 1996 and was subsequently fired by Giuliani. Many believe that Giuliani fired Bratton in order to receive full media credit for New York's improved crime rate. [29]"

The problem is the citation [29] is to the 1996 Time Magazine article. It does not back up in anyway the claim that Giuliani fired Bratton to get full media credit. I am removing that claim until someone backs it up with evidence.--GFrege 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation now given, and mention of Giuliani forcing out Bratton reworded and restored. Wasted Time R 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

please revert your last rudi guliani edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

[ moved here from User talk:Wasted Time R ]
you have gone to 4 RRs i think, you could easily be blocked, please revert your last edit, and bring this to the talk page, it is perfectly legitimate to have a section on his positons on gays while mayor, it is also perfectly legitimate to have a section on his positions on abortions then, a couple lines of material was included post mayor to bring a little balance to the abortion section, he looks much worse (to republicans at least) without a little material on his more recent abortion stances next to his views while mayor...anyways please revert yourself your last edit in good faith as it was a 4th RR...otherwise your getting warnings and a possible block129.132.239.8 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. The article without your changes does have a section on his position on gays while mayor, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudy_Giuliani&oldid=115606856#Gay_rights The material you want to add includes a duplication of this, and also irrelevant post-Mayoral opinions of various politicians and magazines. If you want to elaborate on Giuliani's overall positions on gay rights, do it in Political_views_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Gay_rights, which is the article set up for that sort of thing.
  2. Regarding abortion, Giuliani did nothing tangible while mayor, just expressed his opinion on it. Thus his views on abortion then, and his views on it later, belong in Political_views_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Abortion. Feel free to add there if you think the treatment is lacking. Your text again includes post-mayoral views. Remember, all of the sections under Mayoralty are just supposed to deal with his mayoralty!
  3. In fact, you are pushing an agenda with your edits, as the superfluous abortion descriptions and images indicate.
  4. I will be delighted if you take this editing battle to the admins. Wasted Time R 20:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That image was way overboard obviously. The other things you removed were valid for the article. His statements concerning abortions while mayor are obviously valid in the mayor section. This is now a compromise edit, the image added was removed as you wished and that was a good edit, the championing of gay rights and the references to appearances in drag while mayor belong together in the gay mayor sectionCrystalizedAngels 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

His post mayor views on abortion have now been removedCrystalizedAngels 20:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, we're starting to make some progress. We will leave in the mayoral opinions on abortion as a compromise in your direction, but I copyedited that section to take out the superfluous description of what a partial-birth abortion is (that's what the wikilink is for). I see you added the entire "Championing of gays" section to Political_views_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Gay_rights, which is the right place for it; accordingly I restored the smaller gay rights section, which uses your language but is restricted to just what occurred during the mayoralty. That leaves the Queer as Folk thing. This is an appearance that never happened, and as such is not very important, certainly not enought to warrant its own section! It belongs in the section that already details his three (not one, as your material falsely states) other drag performances. Wasted Time R 23:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

agreed the appearances in drag doesnt need its own section, moving it to champion of gay section I suppose.CrystalizedAngels 00:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It does fit well in the 911 section thoughCrystalizedAngels 00:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are unresponsive to most of my points and you are reverting subsequent edits I've made which have nothing to do with this. And do you really believe that gay and drag should be the first two sections that discuss the mayoralty, that they were the most important things that happened during those eight years, ahead of crime control and the rest? You are clearly just pushing an anti-Giuliani agenda to try to make him look bad in the eyes of conservative voters. Unless your edits improve I am just going to keep reverting them. If the admins come in to sort this out, they can decide. Wasted Time R 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

anyways I really think his political positions should be on the main page, I think a merge is in order. The fact is his championing of gays belongs in the mayor section, but it must be included in the political positions section too, with the page divided into two like this, we are forced to duplicate a bunch of stuff, but if it stays divided, then the political positions page must be comprehensive, the main page would just have the positions and actions regarding gays during his mayorship, but the PP page should have all accounts of his positions on gays, so the PP page should then have duplications and that shouldnt be a reason to trim it down just because its also on the main page, if you want to divide his page up like that, then you have to get used to some duplicated material, the PP page must be comprehensive, just because something is on the main page doesnt mean it shouldnt be on the PP page. Some people might just look at his PP page, and they want to see all relevant info on whatever the particular issue is.CrystalizedAngels 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: you don't budge at all on things yourself and you keep trimming out anything that doesnt look flattering. This page is not a campaign advertisement for rudy guliani OKCrystalizedAngels 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you study the edit history you'll see how wrong you are. I introduced most of the Controversies sections. I dug out all the information on his marriages, affairs, etc. in excruciating detail. But I am putting things into perspective. Whatever Giuliani thinks about gays, it's a relatively minor item in the course of his political life. But it's something you can't seem to get past. Wasted Time R 00:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not calling you a bad editor, and I'll take a look at your history on this page in more detail. The fact is his championing of gays is a major part of Gulianis career. It is a defining issue for him. It is particularly noteworthy in a republican politician. It deserves its own section, but it can't read like a political advertisement, you insist on making this page a political advertisement and that is just not acceptable. The same is true of abortions, its a major defining characteristic of his political career that a republican champions abortion rights also. These are two of the most noteworthy aspects of his career, some random award for crime control that nobody has ever heard is no big deal, but I have included it in this last editCrystalizedAngels 00:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

and I'll combine the drag thing into the gay section itself so there aren't two sections.CrystalizedAngels 00:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your earlier point, I agree with you that the 'Political views' subarticle structure does lend itself to duplication issues. I'm not sure that politician articles really work well this way. But that's how most of the current presidential candidate articles are structured, and since 'Political views' material tends to get very lengthy, with many subsections and quotes dumped in, just as a practical matter the separate article structure tends to be necessary. Wasted Time R 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Gays and abortion are a big issue for Giuliani now that he's running for president and trying to appeal to base Republican voters nationwide. But trust me, they were not a big issue when he was mayor! In New York, his positions were those of a vast majority of the city's voters and did not attract much attention. His mayoralty was about crime, urban quality of life, police brutality, his authoritarian personality, his conflicts with other city politicians, all of that. The article needs to reflect Giuliani's history in context, not just what's hot on the political menu now. Maybe you should give some attention to Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 if you want to focus on his political challenges now. Wasted Time R 00:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the pages on hillary, mccain, obama, biden, romney, there is still not quite a uniform way they are handled. Some are starting to have most political positions on a separate page, but for instance Biden doesnt have one. Hillary has one, but has so much about her past political career on the main page that many things are there too, romneys entire governorship career is off the main page on its own page, mccain has a PP page, and really nothing at all it looks like about his senate career anywhere, with several swipes at him on his main page and controversies, obama has a ton of stuff on his main page about career and also political views in addition to a second page just devoted to PP. Currently there isn't really a uniform way of handling this stuff. I think though that a summary of the political views is good for the main page, with the much larger more detailed second page just for PP is the way to goCrystalizedAngels 00:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

anyways with the gay thing, well it isn't even half as long as the crime section is it? Its not out of hand, and it was indeed a big thing during his mayorship, he made huge strides for the gays in New York, more than most any mayor before him probably, hes even appeared in drag!, lived in the home of a gay couple, not many mayors have done that! Democrat or Republican whatever, those are firsts probably. Just because his views were in line with many NY voters doesnt mean it wasn't a big thing and a part of his mayorship. As to abortions, it is just three brief lines, it is the shortest section in the mayor section, it in no way dominates the mayor section, in fact gay issues and abortions take up maybe 10% or less of the total space talking about all this mayor stuff, the elections etc etc. Plus included in the gay section is his call for gay issues and abortion issues to go to the back burnerCrystalizedAngels 00:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Where we stand after the lockdown

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion

well that was disgusting removing all mention of gay issues and abortion issues from the page. You must just be a Guliani political operative. Theres no way I'll vote for this guy now.CrystalizedAngels 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the page mentions gay issues in Rudy_Giuliani#Gay_rights, drag in Rudy_Giuliani#Media_management (if you consider that gay, which is a whole 'nother topic), and abortion in Rudy_Giuliani#Abortion. And of course, the page references Political views of Rudy Giuliani, which covers gay issues in Political_views_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Gay_rights and abortion in Political_views_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Abortion, both at greater length and extending beyond the mayoralty. Wasted Time R 01:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you insist on watering everything down, then several other politician pages are getting kids gloves treatment, wording is going to be all positive, unflattering things are getting watered down on several other pres candidates pages then, if we cant even mention on the guliani page that he stayed at gay couples homes and was a champion of gay rights, well then its time to just start erasing a bunch of stuff on other peoples pages. All unflattering things (even if its just unattractive to some voters, a bunch of voters may like Gulianis championing gay rights for instance) will be sidetracked to separate pagesCrystalizedAngels 01:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

and for your argument that his gay championing wasnt a big issue...well here is the chairman of the new york conservative party! "Michael Long, chairman of the New York state Conservative Party states, "The gay marriage issue draws a line down the middle of the street, and Rudy Giuliani is something of a champion of gay rights." thats not some political enemy! Plus commentary from political enemies belongs on the page too not just the chairman of his parties comments. This page needs some heavy hitter editors to start tearing it up and putting in some critical commentary. Right now its just a big political add!

The fact that he stayed at a gay couple's apartment is mentioned, in Rudy_Giuliani#Personal_life at the point where it happened. It would help if you actually read the whole article. Note also that someone else tried to take that out a while back but I put it back in. Wasted Time R 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any familiarity with New York politics? Giuliani ran for mayor sharing the Liberal Party of New York line. Read Conservative Party of New York too. Michael Long and his party withheld support for Giuliani in all three mayoral campaigns because they thought he was too liberal. It would help if you actually knew something about this whole period. Wasted Time R 01:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, i see the gay couple thing still in there under personal section which is OK too. Still I think you have weakened the gay championing section, you have removed several links/references from it as well, some of which were from sources not so pro-guliani, some of which were supportive of him like that "americas number one gay paper site" but it is good to have some links to pages with critical comment too and not just roses, whether or not the conservative party supported guliani we can allow a comment from their chairman surely, i suppose I'll go along with your removing a description of partial birth abortion yet I'm not necessarily happy with thatCrystalizedAngels 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So anyways I really think you need to mention this stuff about the conservative party aganist him and the liberal party of new york endorsing him. There is no mention of this in the several sections on his mayoral campaigns, so how did you expect me to know it, everyone would assume he would get the conservative endorsements and not the liberal ones as he is a republicanCrystalizedAngels 01:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That he ran with the Liberal Party line is mentioned, in Rudy_Giuliani#1989_campaign_and_defeat. You really have trouble reading, don't you? It's also implied in the Rudy_Giuliani#Promotion_of_Russell_Harding section, which I put in by the way. I agree that the article should expand this to state that he ran on the Liberal Party line, and was not supported on the Conservative Party line, in all three elections. I expect you to know this because you (or I or anyone!) is not supposed to be doing editing of an article unless you understand what the article is about. Your view of American politics, and especially New York politics, is way too simplistic. Wasted Time R 01:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
As a final note, your vow above to change other candidates' articles to be just as "all positive" as you (wrongly) claim this one to be, is a violation of WP:POINT. Wasted Time R 02:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is very unclear about the stance of the new york conservative party towards him. It is completely hidden and not mentioned. The very brief statement in 1989 about his candidacy just doesnt explain much. Under each election run it needs to be explained that the conservative party did not endorse him, currently it isnt even mentioned, and you have a brief line about the liberal party in the 1989 election bid. And take your insults back with you. I don't care enough about this individual to know everything about him, yet I do know you have hidden his very strong pro-gay stance, and one also that is especially notable and remarkable for a republican. In fact someone would be well served to create a very large section detailing that and the notability of a republican being so strongly pro-gay, it could go to many many paragraphs with many links, all I did was put in a very short single paragraph, and you took out the critical links, and tailored the paragraph so it was entirely positive. I have been reading the article and see it is flawed. Your getting full protection of the page right after your last edit was also underhanded. I gave way many times on several issues, yet you resorted to this tactic to get your way with the page. As I said, I think your a decent editor, so I am suprised you went to the length of making a last edit and then protecting the page. I can say that your view of american politics is simple, very simplistic, yet you are savvy enough to know that to mention the gay issue or abortions on his main page is damaging to him, as the fact is these issues are very important to conservatives, and rudy's positions on these issues run directly counter to the conservative opinion on them, if conservatives are made aware of these things they simply won't vote for him. So you squirreled it away and took relevant links away, putting up a massive paragraph on crime instead to lead. Anyways if you insist on the cosmetic buffering for this candidate, then you necessarily force other editors to head to other pages to treat the candidates in like means. Its not about making the other articles all positive, but its about subtle edit changes to improve their appearance. It can all be very subtle, yet can make a vast difference with just a couple lines altered, or even layouts of things just slightly switched. I said you are a reasonable editor, and a decent one, but I think your protecting the page fully after you got in a last edit was unbecoming of that.CrystalizedAngels 11:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. I didn't protect the page; I'm not an admin. I didn't explicitly request the protection; I just knew that with all the reverting going on, the admins would see it and likely take some kind of action. As far as I know it was just random chance that the protection happened exactly when it did. And the protection notice doesn't imply endorsement of that particular state of the page.
  2. As I said above, I agree that the Liberal and Conservative Party endorsements need to be more fully explicated. I'll do it once the article opens up again.
  3. I didn't start the Mayoralty section with the long crime subsection, it's been that way long before I got involved in this article. But it's correct, as other than 9/11, that was the signature issue of Giuliani's mayoralty.
  4. Here's a useful experiment for you. Go to the Time Person of the Year article on Giuliani, at http://www.time.com/time/poy2001/poyprofile.html, which covers his whole mayoralty, not just 9/11. Now count how many times "crime" is mentioned. (Answer: 7.) Then count how many times "gay" is mentioned. (Answer: 0.) What does that suggest to you?
  5. The purpose of this article is not to help or hinder Giuliani's presidential bid. It is not to educate readers about Giuliani's political positions (Political views of Rudy Giuliani exists if you want to do that.) It is to give a biography of Rudy Giuliani's life. Decisions about how much emphasis to give A or B or C have to be done in that context. Wasted Time R 13:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

a time person of the year article is naturally going to be flattering and avoid most controversy, especially one on the new york mayor right after 911 happened, but thanks for the explanation of the edit protect anyways, I'll take your word for it that you had nothing to do with the protect, but what exactly do you mean you didnt "explicitly" request it. Anyways I don't think we had a serious enough war to require a protect like that, the whole time we have been discussing the matter relatively tamely, and both have made some concessions, its just a couple lines we are haggling over. The disputed sections comprised a very minor part of the page, like 1% or so.CrystalizedAngels 14:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: other past winners of Time person of the Year: wellJoseph Stalin won it twice i think! Adolf Hitler won in 1938! Deng Xiaoping won twice as did Richard Nixon, Reagan won twice and so did Clinton and George Jr........Ayatollah Khomeini won in 1979.......So welcome to the club Rudy! Its certainly a varied sort! Of course there are others in there with a little less personal political controversy like FDR, Ghandi, and the whistleblowers Cynthia Cooper of Worldcom, Sherron Watkins of Enron, and Coleen Rowley of the FBI and Bill Gates and BonoCrystalizedAngels 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: for wiki-accuracy sake this tag should be on the article at top and not just the talk page

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

{{activepolitician}}

As the small print of the tag says, this is only intended for Talk pages. Go to Template talk:Activepolitician if you want to re-purpose it. Or join Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics or some such group. Wasted Time R 12:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested compromise re "social issues"

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Regardless of what's said about Giuliani's actions on gay rights, etc. while he was mayor, his views on those subjects have current importance because of the role they're likely to play in the presidential race. For many conservative Republicans, Giuliani is both "the hero of 9/11" and "a gun-grabbing, pro-gay baby-killer". I suggest that the section of this article about the presidential race point this out. For example, here's a paragraph I added to the article soon after the 2004 election:

Giuliani is widely reported to be considering a race for the Presidency in 2008. One obstacle to such a campaign would be his support for reproductive rights. Members of the Christian right bloc, which exerts considerable influence in the Republican Party, have already announced their intention to oppose Giuliani or any other pro-choice candidate. [3]

That exact wording wouldn't be appropriate any longer, of course, but it exemplifies the tone and context that I think appropriate. We should simply report, as a fact, that the issues of gay rights, abortion rights, gun ownership, and immigration will be problems for Giuliani with significant portions of the Republican primary electorate. It needn't be elaborated in great detail -- that's what daughter articles are for -- but it's a significant fact that belongs in the primary bio article. Perhaps putting it in the context of the presidential race would be a way around all the bickering about how to characterize his mayoralty. JamesMLane t c 19:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds fine to me. Wasted Time R 23:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
If the approach sounds fine to others, I think we could readily find cites for these major points:
1. Many conservative Republicans are unhappy with Giuliani because of his views on social issues.
2. Many conservative Republicans are unhappy with Giuliani because of what they consider his "messy" personal life (multiple divorces, first wife was a relative, second wife learned of divorce plan when he announced it at a news conference, adultery with third wife while still married to second, estrangement from children). Some might even include the old "living with a gay couple" thing. Even I, in my dislike of Giuliani, consider that last one pretty ridiculous, but if reliable sources indicate that it's offputting to many Republicans, then it merits reporting.
3. Many other conservatives are willing to tolerate their disagreements with Giuliani on social issues, either because they downplay the president's influence over them or because they despise Hillary Clinton so much that they'll take any Repepublican who they think has a good chance of beating her. (I don't assume that she'll be the Democratic nominee, but it seems that many Republicans do assume that.)
4. Giuliani has attempted to deal with conservatives' unease through his policy statements, but some of his statements have given rise to charges that he is flip-flopping in order to pander to conservatives.
Obviously, all these points should be presented as reports of significant opinions about Giuliani. The article should not adopt any of these POVs. JamesMLane t c 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of this ground is already covered in Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008, but if it makes everyone happy to cover it in the main article too, I'm fine with that. Experience on the Hillary Rodham Clinton article, which split large amounts of material off into subarticles over a year ago, has shown that many editors (and, presumably, readers) never see the subarticles, and get worked up over why topic X or topic Y isn't covered in the only article they see. Wasted Time R 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

sounds good to me. The point about maintaining placing these views in context as the views of some, and not wikipedias views, is an excellent one so as to retain an NPOV while presenting a significant opinion base concerning him, and presenting a significant issue on his page. Plus I highly agree with wasted time that many people just arent going to head to a subarticle but just look at the main ones, some may not even have figured out to click on subarticles and how that works yet or that things get re-routed to other pages. Anything with a significant subarticle, should present the subarticle in summarized version on the main page, then for those wishing more detailed coverage of the issue they can click to the subarticle.CrystalizedAngels 09:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The principle that a daughter article should be summarized in the principle article is somewhere in the Wikipedia policies or guidelines, though I can't immediately find it. The tough part is often confining the section to a legitimate summary, rather than a repetition of all the detail that's already in the daughter article. Some overlap is inevitable, though. JamesMLane t c 23:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

.......... The current page states Giuliani is against a ban on partial birth abortion, but he is on the record as stating otherwise: Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" HANNITY: Partial birth? GIULIANI: Partial-birth abortion: I think that's going to be upheld. I think that ban's going to be upheld. I think it should be. And I think, as long as there's provision for the life of the mother, then that's something that should be done. HANNITY: There's a misconception that you supported partial-birth abortion. GIULIANI: Yeah, well, if it doesn't have provision for the life of the mother, then I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother, then I would support it. -M. Reed, Kentucky

The section on the main page is a subsection within 'Mayoralty' and thus only refers to that period. For more recent positions on this issue, see Political_views_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Abortion. Feel free to add further explication there. Wasted Time R 03:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening Line out of place

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

"Others, however, criticized him as divisive and authoritarian." I'm no fan of Rudy, but this seems out of place. Just about every high profile politician in the US has been labeled divisive, many authoritarian. I don't think this adds value to a reader's knowledge about the person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.189.44 (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2007

I added a quote by the New York Times from a 1994 speech at a New York Post forum on crime in which he confirms the authoritarian part in his own words to the article on his views and its sourced too (directly to the New York Times). see:Political_views_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Freedom_and_Authority I think that helps to confirm that the opening line should be included. Life, Liberty, Property 06:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is laughable: "Others, however, criticized him as divisive and authoritarian" Of course he would be labeled with such charaterstics: he was doing the job of taking wanton license from over-empowered criminals, stray indigents, and other socio-deconstructionists. He made this city --my city-- livable. Is that a crime? To some fools, it is. I remember life in the 1980s; it was not civilized. The New York Times is in the business of reporting to as broad an audience as possible. Who cares what they say. Giuliani is the best thing that ever happened to New York in the last 50 or so years. Period. (Now attack me, Wiki-fools...) 70.107.104.75 16:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Giuliani was criticized as divisive far more than most politicians. It's a notable feature of his mayoralty as opposed to, say, those of his predecessor (Dinkins) or successor (Bloomberg). The pro-Giuliani puffery about his alleged successes in NYC is also given space in this article. My opinions about the puffery are similar to your opinions about the criticism -- and are equally immaterial. The article reports significant POVs even if some editors think those POVs are laughable. JamesMLane t c 16:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia teaches us that today, the essential nature of truth is now subjective, perhaps even "democrasized". The fact is, Truth is not a hubriated mob opinion, no matter how benevolent the mob thinks it is. For this reason, Wiki is a failure in many ways. 67.87.92.56 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't teach anything about Truth. Wikipedia is not about Truth; read the first sentence of WP:V. Wasted Time R 17:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I rest my case. Check mate. "Wikipedia is not about Truth" LOL. Verifiability? This forum should be called "Yentepedia!!!" 70.107.104.75 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about WP:V either. But it's their playground. You wanna play, you play by their rules. Wasted Time R 19:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. Don't ever worry about not living up to your name. You have indeed earned it. 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and thank you! Wasted Time R 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Have a good one! 70.107.104.75 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Six marriages

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It has just been revealed that Giuliani's current wife has been married and divorced twice before, not once as previously thought. Here is the citation:

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/giuliani-wife-each-married-three-times.html

Together the pair has 4 divorces/anulments and 6 marriages. Shows how much they love marriage. This should go in when the page is unlocked. --Anon

The Judith Giuliani article was updated earlier today with this. I'm skeptical that it really pertains to this article. Wasted Time R 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 21 external links on Rudy Giuliani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Name Vandalism

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It is obvious his name has been vandalized. No one has 4-5 names. Only 3 are legal. Also, why would an Italian Catholic have German and English names?119.92.93.84 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

While it may seem that way, A&E Television's Biography site supports his full name as being the one also given here. —ADavidB 20:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The fact that Mr Giuliani was the Mayor of New York should be in the opening sentence, as it's the highest office he's achieved and an office of great significance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.160.159 (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and done. —ADavidB 13:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Mayoralty

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

There you go again Bbb23 replacing my properly sourced piece with the non-existent linked and autobiographical sourced piece. This is an embarrassment to wikipedia claiming the mayor (dinkins) who presided over the 4 bloodiest years in NYC history "lowered crime more dramatically and rapidly than anyone in history". Why don't you argue facts bbb23? Because you HAVE NONE to stand on. Aceruss (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Bbbb23 is relying main on Dinkins' autobiography. Aceruss's changes cite RS. In such a case, RS clearly take precedence. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll add my opinion that Aceruss' recent reliably sourced edits should be allowed to stand. If there are reliable opposing sources, include them as well, but don't simply remove the sourced information and claim a lack of consensus. —ADavidB 12:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see where any of them mention the subject of this article, Giuliani. Looks like WP:SYNTH. Objective3000 (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
As she/he usually does, Aceruss cherry-picks. Murders notwithstanding, violent crime in New York City declined for 36 consecutive months under Dinkins. Giuliani can (and has) tell whatever lies about his predecessor that he'd like to, but Wikipedia editors don't get to erase history to suit their hero's narrative. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Concur with Objective3000 and MShabazz. General Ization Talk 15:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
MShabazz you'll note I did not erase the part about crime lowering at end of Dinkins term, I ADDED the fact with RS that violent crime went up the first part of his term for factual balance.Aceruss (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Unless backed up by RS, Mayor Dinkins' self-serving, extraordinary claims have no place in this article. How did this blatant propaganda creep into the article in the first place? Scaleshombre (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
How's this for an RS. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/home/poa_crime.shtml General Ization Talk 15:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
And this. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs-en-us-city.pdf General Ization Talk 15:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Very Good General Ization this RS you posted shows the point exactly. Dinkins term ran from 1-1-1990 until 12-31-1993. Even if you ignore that violent crime went way up from 1989 to 1990, the total drop in crime from 90-93 is only an 18% drop, Giulianis ('94-'01) term saw a 62% drop. This is NOT cherrypicking, MShabazz, this is fact that invalidates the disputed Dinkins claim about lowering crime more than anyone else in history.Aceruss (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't know who added that. But, it appears to have been written by Leonard Riggio, not Dinkins. I think the point of the current text is that the self-serving narrative from Giuliani that he is the source of a crime drop in NYC is highly controversial. Some articles: [4], [5], [6]

About 3 years ago PK800 added the following sentence ("Under Dinkins's Safe Streets, Safe Cities program, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly, both in terms of actual numbers and percentage, than at any time in modern New York City history") to at least SEVEN Wikipedia articles with NO consensus and NO discussion on the talk page. He later expanded on the sentence. He was reverted many times by many users but he just kept reverting. He was warned but just kept it up until he got his way. This isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work.Aceruss (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It goes without saying that Giuliani's claims about reducing crime need to be taken with a grain of salt; Giuliani shouldn't be regarded as an "objective" source on his mayoralty. But it's just as crazy to cite Dinkins' claims as if they were fact. I'm sure it wasn't the intent of the editors, but they've created a situation where "the loser gets to write history." Scaleshombre (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, I don't see Dinkins' claims anywhere. And, the General and I have provided five additional cites. Objective3000 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I respect your writing Objective3000, but none of those 5 articles say that Dinkins lowered violent crime more than anyone else in history. In fact some prove it way off the mark.Aceruss (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
By my count, you have made nine nearly identical, removal edits that have been reverted by multiple editors, and now a tenth during a discussion. It’s a wonder that you haven’t been blocked. Are you really surprised that no one wants to have a discussion with you? WP is built upon the concept of consensus. You have failed to build a consensus for a change. Your edits have also wiped out large amounts of text without a rational. Now, if you wish to actually discuss this, I suggest that you self-revert your last revert and try to build a consensus for a change (before you end up at AI). It’s entirely possible that you may gain consensus for removal for one sentence that you don’t like. It’s highly unlikely that you will gain consensus for removal of all the text that you have tried to remove. That’s just my opinion. But, like others here, I’m not really amenable to a discussion with someone that doesn’t follow the guidelines. Objective3000 (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
You say I have made nine identical edits INCORRECT. I have tried every kind of edit imaginable in an effort to work with you guys on improving an article. Each time one of 3 or 4 editors has reverted the ENTIRE piece. I have- Written an entirely new paragraph with a dozen RS. I have edited a sentence or two, I have deleted a sentence or two, I have added a sentence or two, all these different times with plenty of proper RS. I even added "according to Dinkins autobiography" before the most outlandish claims and that was reverted too. I tried recently to add for balance that violent crime went up the first part of Dinkins term again with plenty of RS to balance that it went down the latter part of his term, which I left in. I have tried many different types of edits and tried to work with you guys. Answer me these two questions then:

1) I have used the talk pages right from the beginning. Why was it OK for PK800 to add this Dinkins text to Giuliani's page with ZERO consensus and ZERO discussion on the talk page? And then to keep reverting the reverts of his additions? Why must his improperly added, improperly sourced text stand? 2) Show me sources other than the foreword in Dinkins autobiography that say Dinkins lowered crime more than anyone else in history-the sources you cited above said "he wasn't as bad as they say" "or crime started to drop at the end of his term" and the like, a far cry from the greatest crimefighter NYC has ever knownAceruss (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Rudy Giuliani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rudy Giuliani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Today's addition by Aceruss

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Today Aceruss changed a sentence in the article from

During Giuliani's administration, crime rates dropped in New York City,[2] which Giuliani's presidential campaign website credited to his leadership.[3]

to

During Giuliani's administration, crime rates dropped significantly in New York City, with record setting drops in murders and rapes.[4][2][3]

As usual, the sources don't support Giuliani's and Aceruss's inflated claims. His new source is an opinion column by Michael Tomasky. A great source for Tomasky's opinion, but not a reliable source for facts. The Langan and Durose paper is about the remarkable drop in crime in New York City "starting around 1990" during the Dinkins and Giuliani mayoralties, typically using 1990 or 1988 (when Ed Koch was mayor) as its base year for comparison. And Giuliani's campaign website also isn't a reliable source for facts. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Daniel Saltonstall, "Wife Makes Strive: Judi cause of tension with Dad -Rudy's son," New York Daily News, March 3, 2007
  2. ^ a b Patrick A. Langan and Matthew R. Durose, Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://www3.istat.it/istat/eventi/2003/perunasocieta/relazioni/Langan_rel.pdf "The Remarkable Drop in Crime in New York City", October 21, 2004. Retrieved December 5, 2006.
  3. ^ a b "Rudy Giuliani". JoinRudy2008.com. Archived from the original on September 4, 2007. Retrieved July 15, 2007.
  4. ^ http://nymag.com/anniversary/40th/50652/

Wow, Malik, I've respected you and tried to work with you and all you ever do to me is wholly revert my edits, insult me, threaten me, and make up your own rules. OK, you have highlighted here the above 3 sources, which you say I improperly added or misrepresented: 1) The Langan piece which was ALREADY there states (on page 3) the record setting drop in rapes occurred from 1993(2818 rapes,Dinkins last year) to 2001 (1530 rapes, Giuliani's last year) BUT according to Malik these are inflated claims by Giuliani, Aceruss, ET AL 2) The NY Magazine piece I added is from their 40th anniversary edition. Malik, are you kidding? An opinion column? This was a feature story for their 40th anniversary special, covering 8 pages! EVERY STORY IN EVERY NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE HAS A WRITERS NAME ATTACHED. Michael Tomasky was the writer for this one, that's all. You just don't like what was written. If you erase all articles with RS with a writers name attached Wikipedia wouldn't have anything left. 3)Giuliani's 2007 campaign website article. This is where you really leave me puzzled. You say it is not a reliable source. WELL IT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS IN THE Giuliani ARTICLE. Why haven't you deleted it? I didn't put it there. I think you like the sentence that infers Giuliani is the only one who credits himself with the massive downturn in NYC crime and you need that "RS" to leave the sentence there. 4) I'm also adding this RS: http://nymag.com/news/features/crime/2008/42603/index5.html Which CLEARLY shows the Dinkins years 1990-1993 were the 4 highest yearly murder totals in NYC history, and that as soon as Giuliani took charge on JAN 1, 1994 the murder totals started plummeting to totals not seen in 30 years. I guess another inflated Giuliani claim, huh?

Before I make any more changes Malik I will give you the courtesy of answering a few questions. Tell me what I am missing. 1) Does the Langan piece say on page 3 the record rape reduction was from 1993-2001 (Giuliani's exact term) or not? 2) Is NY Magazine a reliable source or not? If not where does it say so? And these are FEATURE pieces don't give me any of those "opinion column" lines. 3) If Giuliani's campaign website is NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE as you say, DELETE IT and the accompanying line about "according to Giuliani's campaign website:..." 4) Were the highest 4 years of murders in NYC history: 1990-2245 Murders,1991-2154M,1992-1995M,and 1993-1946M the EXACT 4 YEARS of THE DINKINS ADMINISTRATION (1990-1993) or not?Aceruss (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. The Langan paper from the U.S. Dept. of Justice clearly states that it is a mistake to say that the crime drop started in 1994. It does not credit Giuliani. The study trumps the columnist. And, the columnist also states that the decreases in crime began before Giuliani. The campaign site is clearly not RS. The proposed text is misleading. Objective3000 (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

And today Aceruss is at it again. First restoring the Tomasky opinion column, then adding the misspelled and unattributed "at a record shattering pace" to the drop in crime, and deleting a dissenting opinion. I'm sorry, Aceruss, but you can't make shit up and add it to a Wikipedia article. If you wish to quote the source, use quotation marks. In any event, the source refers to the record-shattering drop in crime "starting around 1990" when you-know-who was still mayor, so you can't cite that source as flattery for your guy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, was just about to delete the record shattering addition as it was clearly misleading and not an accurate representation of the source. Objective3000 (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Is Crime In NY: A Success Story from the Roper Center's Public Perspective Magazine, RS? The author, a professor at John Jay, looks at what the NYPD accomplished during Giuliani's first term relative to crime trends in America overall. I think the article can be used to highlight Giuliani's successes on their own merits, without pitting them against Dinkins' record on crime-fighting. Thoughts? Scaleshombre (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That article appears to ignore the steep drop before Giuliani took office. An AP article ten yeas later quotes the same author as saying Giuliani takes too much credit for the drop in crime. [7] Objective3000 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't both pieces of information be worked into the article in NPOV fashion? Scaleshombre (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

We are trying to keep the article NPOV, as is its current state. The attempts to push a discredited claim by a political campaign do not belong in an encyclopedia. As explained, the reduction in crime has numerous causes. Let us not include self-serving claims. Objective3000 (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly the point I have been making, and many others have been making for over three years now, let's get the self-serving claims from Dinkins auto-biography out of this article.Aceruss (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I see no such claims. And your shouting has become tiresome. Objective3000 (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't see that these sentences are sourced only from Dinkins' book?
  • "Crime rates in New York City had started to drop in 1991 under previous mayor David Dinkins, three years before Giuliani took office."
  • "A small nationwide drop in crime preceded Giuliani's election, and some critics say that he may have been the beneficiary of a trend already in progress. Additional contributing factors to the overall decline in New York City crime during the 1990s were the addition of 7,000 officers to the NYPD, lobbied for and hired by the Dinkins administration, and an overall improvement in the national economy."
Open your eyes. —ADavidB 13:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This is not a useful comment. Objective3000 (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you about not using his campaign claims as RS. My main concern was whether the Roper Center article could be used as RS. Giuliani's "bluster" about crime might have been exaggerated, but that shouldn't negate the impact (as noted in RS) his mayoralty had on NY, and to a lesser extent on law enforcement and urban administration across America. The article might be, as you say, currently NPOV. But it doesn't seem to be worthy of FA status yet. Expanded coverage of his key claim to fame -- i.e., his mayoralty (warts and all, as documented in RS) -- strikes me as a logical place to start. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rudy Giuliani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Used the next older archive, which displayed properly for me —ADavidB 00:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

seeking consensus for claim in lede

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I saw the Administrator's notice and came over to see what the fuss was about. On the issue of issuing credit for the drop in crime, there appears to be a discrepancy. In the lede, it says: 

Within several years, Giuliani was widely credited for major improvements in the city's quality of life, and in lowering the rate of violent crimes. <ref name=Robertiello>Gina M Robertiello, "Giuliani, Rudolph", [https://books.google.com/books?id=N7lyAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA699&dq=crime#v=twopage pp. 687–99], in Wilbur R. Miller, ed, ''The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia'' (Thousand Oaks CA, New Delhi, London: [[Sage Publications]], 2012).</ref>

yet in the article we have this: 

The extent to which Giuliani deserves the credit is disputed. <ref>Levitt, Steven D.: "Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not", ''Journal of Economic Perspectives'', 18(1), 163–90</ref>

I read Freakonomics, where Levitt expands upon that report in a chapter about this exact issue. In the book, greater credit for the fall in crime is given to the availability of birth control. So besides the fact that the two sentences on their own are inconsistent, I question whether we can use the term "widely credited" by itself. I can't read the Miller encyclopedia source, so I have no way to tell what it actually says about assigning credit, but unless it makes that specific claim and cites numerous sources itself, putting in the term "widely credited" likely fails WP:OR. How about a caveat in the lede instead: 

Within several years, Giuliani was widely credited for major improvements in the city's quality of life, and in lowering the rate of violent crimes, although the amount of credit due has been disputed.

? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, you have a point. But, I don’t think Freakonomics is a great source – certainly not on its own and given the reasoning. There are many other sources that come to the same conclusion with better reasoning; which is a long subject of debate on this talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Which is why I didn't make the change myself, not wanting to jump into a fray, but it seems that changing the verbiage is justified. Note my suggested new verbiage doesn't say widely disputed - just disputed - and so Freakonomics does work for that muted qualifier. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Since you brought up the lede, another problem is the word and. Lowering violent crime is one of the improvements (probably the main one) alluded to in the preceding clause. It should be worded "Within several years, Giuliani was widely credited for major improvements in the city's quality of life, such as lowering the rate of violent crimes." Scaleshombre (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Lowering the quality of life for some. Not others. That's another subject of debate about his stewardship. Objective3000 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, if we're going to start tweaking the lede to give a more precise view of Giuliani's mayoralty, then we really need to take a closer look at the David Dinkins lede. The current wording paints a glowing portrait of the Dinkins years, making no reference to the widely held perception at the time of a city increasingly out of control and a mayor incapable of governing it. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
One thing at a time though. I agree that part of what improves quality of life is crime reduction. I think my qualifier can work here too. How about:
Within several years, Giuliani was widely credited for major improvements in the city's quality of life, including lowering the rate of violent crimes, although the amount of credit due has been disputed.

TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 05:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

KBE in infobox

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The info box prominently notes that Giuliani was awarded a KBE... shouldn't that be "KBE (Hon)" or something similar (to indicate that the award was honorary) Blueboar (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

From my knowledge and for future reference, if Giuliani was a British citizen he would be called 'Sir Rudy Giuliani', however as he is American he is referred to as KBE and that exists for all forms of knighthoods and therefore 'Hon' is not required. JLo-Watson (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rudy Giuliani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

And today's change by Aceruss

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

By my count, Aceruss has had 27 edits reverted by seven editors (MShabazz, Objective3000, Volunteer Marek, Oshwah, General Ization, Bbb23, and WikiDan61) in this article alone. This has been a 7.5 month edit war all with the same subject, credit for the reduction of NYC crime rates. In the last case, they insist that Giuliani added 7,000 officers to the NYPD. But, those 7,000 had already been officers at the transit and housing authorities, and the NYPD then had to take over those functions. The editor also removed the mention of Dinkins in the same paragraph without explanation. And, as usual, no attempt was made to discuss on the talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

For his own reasons, Aceruss is averse to crediting Dinkins with any role in reducing crime in New York. He would like to pretend that the new officers who graduated from the academy during the first years of Giuliani's mayoralty sprang, fully formed, from Rudy's brow—ignoring the reality that Dinkins lobbied the City Council long and hard for the funds to hire them (before Giuliani was in office). Aceruss would pretend that the increase in the size of the NYPD came from the merger of the transit and housing police into the NYPD, as if nobody had ever thought to add the size of the three forces together before saying the size of the police force had increased. Sheesh. On top of that, not one of his sources supported what he wrote. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been on the talk pages many times. You two or three guys never answer my questions. You just hurl insults and revert my pieces entirely. And the sources said exactly what I wrote. Appendix table 3 in the Langan study showed that the ONLY time 7000 officers were added was in 1995 and it was the merger of the 3 departments that was responsible. You guys have been on here a long time, you have been biting the newcomer (me). Instead you could have been working with me on edits to improve Wikipedia. I will try one more time to work with you, I'll ask one question of the many you never answered, and see if we cannot start a productive dialogue.
Let's see... Why have you said this is RS (barrett-gotham gazette)[1] And you always delete this and say it isn't RS (Tomasky-NY Magazine) [2] EXPLAIN WHY...Aceruss (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.gothamgazette.com/commentary/91.barrett.shtml
  2. ^ http://nymag.com/anniversary/40th/50652/
I'll try to explain, once again, but I have a feeling you still won't hear me. Wayne Barrett was an investigative journalist. Michael Tomasky is a columnist. One man was known for reporting facts, the other is known for his opinions. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I will look into what you have said on that. My next question is simple Malik Shabazz, and it goes to the point of this whole disagreement. Three years ago PK800 added one sided, unsourced extraordinary claims about Dinkins crime fighting achievements NOT ONLY to this page but several others including Dinkins own page. On Dinkins talk page several editors vehemently disagreed with his changes. To my surprise one of those editors vehemently disagreeing with PK800 was none other than you, Malik Shabazz! I agreed with every word you said. Why then have you spent so much time arguing with me on this matter when we both felt the same way about PK800s edits?Aceruss (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Aceruss slow-motion edit war. Objective3000 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems the edit war continues. The sources claim NYPD increased by 16,000. 7,000 was because of the merger. That leaves 9,000 real increase. If Dinkins hired 7,000 wouldn’t that imply Guliani hired 2,000? Work permit (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact, which Aceruss would like to (literally) erase from history, is that the increase in the number of police officers during Giuliani's mayoralty was the result of Dinkins' fighting in the City Council and state legislature for funds to hire more officers.[8] Officers have to be recruited and trained; they don't get hired and put on the street the day the funds are approved. By erasing Dinkins' part in expanding the force, Aceruss wants to give Giuliani all the credit. It's revisionism at its worst. (Well maybe not its worst, but it's a pretty egregious example of revisionism and original research.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Your NY Times piece were Dinkins proposals, the Langan 2004 source shows the exact numbers of police that were actually added to the force in appendix table 3[1] Mayor Koch added 3268 officers from 1980-1989, Mayor Dinkins added 3469 from 1990-1993, and Mayor Giuliani added 12464 from 1994-1999 (7000 from his merger noted at bottom of appendix) net of 5464.
That's why I changed the piece to reflect what actually happened, not what Dinkins proposed.
Exactly 15,933 officers were added to the NYPD during the 1990s Aceruss (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Did dinkins get the funds approved to for the officers that were eventually hired? If he did, the you are correct that Guiliani should not be credited. If Dinkins did not get the plan approved, was the eventual approved plan largely similar to Dinkins proposal? For example, was it funded through property tax increases? Were all officers that were eventually hired under Guiliani trained under Dinkins? From the sources this is not clear.Work permit (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, he did, even while cutting the rest of the city budget, which is why Aceruss is lying with his statistics.[9][10][11][12] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
"Mr. Dinkins's tax plan, announced on Dec. 5, (1990,) was the result of a compromise with the City Council to pay for the hiring of 3,500 additional police officers over six years." Who was mayor during most of those six years? Rudy Giuliani. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems like we are very close to agreement- your NY Times piece[2] indeed confirms the Langan Piece I quoted above that Dinkins added 3500 officers in the early 90s, then Giuliani added 7,000 in 1995 from the transit and housing police (a move supported by former mayors Dinkins and Koch), and in the late 90s Giuliani added 5500 more officers for a total of nearly 16,000 officers added to NYPD in the 1990s.Aceruss (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20090215053748/http://www.istat.it/istat/eventi/2003/perunasocieta/relazioni/Langan_rel.pdf.
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/23/nyregion/dinkins-says-tax-for-police-hides-surplus.html

Use of marriage templates

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I reverted the addition of {{marriage}} to the infobox here. Giuliani's first marriage ended by both divorce and annulment, and the template can't handle that. His third marriage is on-going; filing for divorce doesn't end a marriage, that takes an agreement between the parties or a court order. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Maria Rosa Ryan allegations

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The following content was removed as WP:BLP and WP:GOSSIP 

Nathan later alleged that Giuliani had been having an affair with hospital administrator Maria Rosa Ryan prior to their separation, an allegation Giuliani denied.[1][2]

I would like to dispute the removal. The content does not state the affair as fact, though the affair is not "gossip", it is being reported in mainstream news sources. While Page Six would not be my preferred source, it is the forum in which Nathan made her allegations, and I don't feel like those are being disputed. I believe it should be reinstated, as it is relevant to the Marriages and relationships section.

Respectfully. PvOberstein (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Marsh, Julia (June 12, 2018). "Rudy Giuliani's wife says he's a cheating liar". New York Post. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ Ross, Martha (June 12, 2018). "Rudy Giuliani report: His alleged affair with married woman led to wife seeking divorce". The Mercury News. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Please explain why these rumors belong in an encyclopedia article. Also, I recommend you read WP:ONUS. Just because it has a source doesn't mean it belongs in an article. Finally, if Page Six, the New York Post's gossip page, "would not be [your] preferred source", why did you cite it? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
There's a different between a rumor and an allegation. The allegation has not been verified, but that does mean it is just a rumor. Wikipedia seems to use the definition of "heard through the grapevine", which the statements from Nathan most certainly are not.
And I simply meant that, while I would have preferred that Ms. Nathan made her allegations in something other than Page Six, that's where the allegations are found. Nobody seems to be disputing that she made them. In as much that the reasons for someone's divorce are relevant to an encyclopedia (and there are plenty of details about Mr. Giuliani's marital life already in the article), I believe that the content should be included.
I'm not particularly sure why WP:ONUS is being thrown about. "this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article"? It's hardly as if I reprinted every sordid detail from the publication. I believe that a single sentence does not seem overly undue, and it's balanced by including Mr. Giuliani's statement of denial. This is not just a random woman off the street accusing him of infidelity, either, but someone intimately associated with him. PvOberstein (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep it out. This biography contains more than the usual amount of titillating detail because it is part of his history. But that doesn't mean we have to mention every alleged affair he has been involved in; he may have had dozens. Furthermore, for us to publicize this report violates the privacy of the other person - who is a private party, not a public figure like Giuliani. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. Note that the Post is the ONLY source of this report. The story in the Mercury-News is based on the report in the Post. We need two independent sources to include negative information on a living person, per WP:BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Another independent source: https://www.thedailybeast.com/rudy-giuliani-i-can-handle-mueller-and-my-ex
Giuliani made a series of phone calls to journalists on Thursday, including a wide-ranging interview with this reporter in which he denied that he’d engaged in an extramarital affair with married New Hampshire hospital administrator Maria Ryan, who holds a doctorate in health care administration

PvOberstein (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

His dalliance with Lategano and treatment of Hanover was a much bigger deal, very public, and while he was in office. I don’t see a need to include this affair. O3000 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Photo

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I happen to think the original photo is better than the proposed one, so I reverted it back. In the newer one, his eyes are closed and there are shadows on his chin. What do others think?Work permit (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not. It's poor quality, and is cropped awkwardly (I'm sure SNUGGUMS would agree with that). Anyway, File:Rudy Giuliani by Gage Skidmore.jpg was used from September 1, 2016 until an unexplained change on November 13, 2017 by an IP. You clearly didn't object to it then, and now all of a sudden you object? The original is old, outdated, and in poor quality. His eyes are not closed in the one by Gage, he is just squinting, just like the one you reverted to. Corky 02:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I do agree the crop is odd, but I guess we disagree on the eyes, the shadows, and the overall look. I think it would be fair to hear from a couple of other editorsWork permit (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Do I need to crop it so you can see his eyeballs? They are clearly open, just the same as the horribly cropped picture in the infobox now. Corky 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I don’t like the shadows in his eyes, his chin. And I don’t like the color rendering. Work permit (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Of the two, my personal preference is File:Rudy Giuliani.jpg. Have you looked at the dozens of images on Commons to see if there's a better choice than either of those two? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
My personal favorite is File:Giuliani_closeup.jpg, since I think it is a better crop. Work permit (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why I was pinged here, but I concur with Malik Shabazz as File:Rudy Giuliani.jpg has better lighting. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Mainly because of this edit. This picture is horrible and is a "very awkward view" of Rudy. Corky 02:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Between the two images under primary discussion, I prefer File:Rudy Giuliani.jpg. If we can do without a flag in the background, I think File:Giuliani_closeup.jpg is better still. —ADavidB 07:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone object to replacing the current File:Rudy Giuliani.jpg with File:Giuliani_closeup.jpg? Based on some comments above, sounds like its a better crop than the current photo. Work permit (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Changed to File:Giuliani_closeup.jpg Work permit (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Duplication (done)

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Chapter "Presidential campaign supporter" has a duplicated sentence:

During the campaign, Giuliani praised Trump for his worldwide accomplishments and helping fellow New Yorkers in their time of need.[221] He defended Trump against allegations of racism,[222] sexual assault,[223] and not paying any federal income taxes for as long as two decades.[224] During the campaign, Giuliani praised Trump for his worldwide accomplishments and helping fellow New Yorkers in their time of need.[221] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.54.201 (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This duplication is removed. Thanks —ADavidB 05:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"Giuliani got paid for advocacy in Romania"

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

politico.com 29 August 2018 I'm european => I don't have the context knowledge to bring some of this into the article. I'm hinting to this article hoping that a fellow wikipedian brings it into the article if (s)he thinks it's worth mentioning it. best regards, --Neun-x (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

KBE

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Giuliani has never been a commonwealth citizen or resident, so according to style guidelines the KBE mark should not follow his name. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done for now: @73.71.251.64: Comparing to other people with honorary knighthoods such as Bono, Bob Geldof, Bill Gates, there doesn't seem to be a practical consensus either way. If you can find a consensus in the MOS to remove it, please come back and request the edit again. Sceptre (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
What does "consensus in the MOS" mean? The MOS is a general consensus on how to write articles. The Bill Gates article does not have a KBE mark in the lead, and the FAQ on its talk page explains why. You can sample the articles listed at Category:Honorary Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire to see that the mark is normally not included for non-commonwealth residents, consistent with the MOS recommendation. Geldof has been a resident of England. As for Bono, the mark should not be there either. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  Done, since there's not even a close affiliation with a commonwealth country, let alone citizenship. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed that it's also in the infobox 73.71.251.64 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

add Jon Sale update?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Giuliani called an unidentified man and butt-dialed a reporter (to voicemail) on Oct. 16th 11:07 p.m. for three minutes: can be heard discussing overseas dealings, add anywhere?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

X1\ (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It sounds bad -- but it's hard to nail down what the conversations mean. I'd omit it unless something comes of it later. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

add more Romania?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

X1\ (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

add Republican donor, Trump supporter Long Island attorney Charles Gucciardo investing $500,000 in Fraud Guarantee ?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Gucciardo paid Giuliani on behalf of Fraud Guarantee; $250,000 in September, and October 2018. ... Fraud Guarantee, which does not appear to have any customers. X1\ (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Giuliani present during phone call?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was astonished just now to find this in the article lead:

In July 2019, Giuliani was present during President Trump's telephone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (Trump–Ukraine scandal) which included a discussion of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter's Ukrainian activities. That call was later the subject of a whistleblower complaint which formed the basis for the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.[1]

Sources

  1. ^ Times, The New York (26 September 2019). "Document: Read the Whistle-Blower Complaint". The New York Times.

I have never seen that allegation before - that he was present during the phone call. As far as I could tell, that information is not in the article text and is not supported by any reference in the lead. Can anyone show me that this actually happened, so that we should put it back? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I've also never seen it alleged that he was on the July 25 phone call. I highly doubt that he was. It should've only been government people on that call. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas received $1 million from a Russian account in September, add?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Parnas (an account in Lev Parnas' wife's name) received $1 million from a Russian account in September, according to a court filing; during the same month that Parnas and his partner Igor Fruman received the first request for documents from the Congressional committees investigating the Trump administration's actions in Ukraine. In the past three years, Parnas has received more than $1.5 million from Ukrainian and Russian sources.

X1\ (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

include The rise and fall of Rudy Giuliani, explained ?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

X1\ (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Honorary knighthood

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Honorary knighthoods do not go in the infobox. Many Americans have them, and you'll note their infoboxes do not include the honorary letters, because they are Americans. The Title of Nobility Clause of the U.S. Constitution is clear that Americans are forbidden from holding these titles in a real way. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the UK also doesn't allow the suffix to be used by those outside the UK, even though they allow the honor. O3000 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

add Oleksandr Dubinsky ?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per

Giuliani met with Oleksandr Dubinsky, a member of the parliament known for his close ties to controversial Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky.

X1\ (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Separate section for Ukraine controversies

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There should be a section for that on this article instead of including it in the first section. This article is very biased and needs reform.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:D889:A796:6853:3BE (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I've moved two very detailed paragraphs, which I believe are to what you referred, from the lead section to an associated section within the article. —ADavidB 03:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Unintelligible sentence

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Could someone please replace this lead text -- Yet his cleanup of Manhattan shrank its social scene and premised a corporate influx, a swift transition recurrently criticized.-- with a simple English sentence? SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. Is there a source it is cited to? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, turns out this mess is the source.[1] I'll try to make sense out of it tomorrow. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ Whether lionized or criticized, "Giuliani's cleanup", especially of Manhattan, most famously Times Square, is widely recognized: B. McKee, "Rules and regulations alone can't revive America's downtowns", Architecture (American Institute of Architects), 1998 Mar;87:11; Jane E. Jeffrey, "Dramatic convergence in Times Square", in Phyllis R. Brown, Linda A. McMillin & Katharina M. Wilson, eds., Hrotsvit of Gandersheim: Contexts, Identities, Affinities, and Performances (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), pp 251–252; Alan Sinfield, Shakespeare, Authority, Sexuality: Unfinished Business in Cultural Materialism (New York Routledge, 2006), p 195; David Freeland, Automats, Taxi Dances, and Vaudeville: Excavating Manhattan's Lost Places of Leisure (New York & London: New York University Press, 2009), p 79; Michael Codella & Bruce Bennett, Alphaville: 1988, Crime, Punishment, and the Battle for New York City's Lower East Side (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2010), indexing "Giuliani's cleanup"; Ramón Rivera-Servera, Performing Queer Latinidad: Dance, Sexuality, Politics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2012), p 147; Insight Guides Pocket New York (UK: Apa Publications, 2016), indexing "Giuliani's cleanup"; Mark Coran, Opinion: letter to the editor: "Where have you gone, Rudy Giuliani?", New York Times, online 13 Jun 2018, print 14 Jun 2018, § A, p 26.
As the sentence's author, guilty of merely some tendency to phrase above Wikipedia's target reading level or its readers' general awareness, I've revised the sentence to fully say, "Yet Giuliani's cleanup shrank Manhattan's familiar leisure and nightlife scenes to favor corporate growth and tourism, a rapid change also criticized" [diff]. To address the related complaint in this talkpage section, my edit summary fully says, "As to talkpage section 'Unintelligible sentence', I reword. Yet as to citation being alleged 'mess', I see no real issue. Containing 8 sources, it of course, like any explanatory footnote with several citations, looks crowded. Each could take a new line, but that is unorthodox, so I leave them split by semicolons. Anyhow, this rebuts recent edit summary claiming 'civic cleanup' is 'absolute balderdash' and apparently demanded more focus on criticizing Giuliani. So the footnote does double duty" [Ibid.]. – Occurring (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. That version is a bit clearer but false. Drugs, pornography, and the homeless are not really what were considered the NY social scene. SPECIFICO talk 04:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Partly but trivially true, that assessment, although understandable at first gloss, is gratuitously presumptive, even prescriptive, and ahistoric while anyhow amiss. Drugs are indeed parts of socializing, and were once integral to much of Manhattan's. But the sentence, anyway, doesn't imply that partygoers said, "Ah, man, we lost drug dealers on Manhattan streets and in Manhattan clubs, now must get them more covertly, sometimes from outside of Manhattan, and therefore will stop partying". Social causation rarely manifests such direct logical structure. Meanwhile, strip clubs, live peep shows, sex clubs, and street prostitution, quite open and prominent near Times Square in Hell's Kitchen, in Chelsea, and in the Meat Packing District, with cheap hotels for it—altogether, perhaps what you call "pornography"—were indeed important parts of Manhattan's familiar leisure and nightlife scenes, how I've translated social scene. On the other hand, we don't imply that clearing the loitering winos, junkies, and panhandlers from downtown Manhattan's sidewalks finally stopped them from fictitiously funneling into the clubs. But new enforcement of laws against public noise and drinking did eradicate the summertime, nearly daily, virtual block parties in many largely Hispanic neighborhoods across New York City.
Yet most famously, in Manhattan, the cleanup "revitalized" Times Square and fanned especially southward. Staking "family values" atop the newly "safe" streets, the civic cleanup wielded new zoning laws and stricter alcohol licensing, thus ousting disfavored businesses while raising property values, ousting disfavored residents, too, spurring gentrification. Either zoned out or priced out of their rental spaces, and perhaps newly dry, thus losing drinking patrons and big profits on alcohol, the familiar bars, clubs, and lounges massively shut down. So did many of the unique, small cafes, restaurants, and shops, while small venues of performance art went virtually extinct, within several years. Corporate enterprises, especially chains and franchises, previously scarce in these sectors, filled the voids. Corporate office buildings and luxury apartment buildings replaced many old buildings or filled lots that had hosted flea markets. Yuppie transplants, amenable to the shrunken social scene, including its pasteurization and homogenization, nearly resembled the influx of tourists, too. Whether one dislikes or likes this rapid, dramatic transformation, New Yorkers who witnessed it, journalists, and researchers agree its watershed was the "cleanup" in the late 1990s. A pithy sketch is Basil Smilke Jr's review of Jeremiah Moss's 2017 book Vanishing New York. – Occurring (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Here, I follow up on my sole revision, which still says, "Yet Giuliani's cleanup shrank Manhattan's familiar leisure and nightlife scenes to favor corporate growth and tourism, a rapid change also criticized". I now propose this revision, saying, "Yet Giuliani's cleanup, asserting family values, favored big business and tourism, rapidly displacing Manhattan's familiar leisure and nightlife scenes, an effect also criticized". I think that, more informative, this topical but nearly full summary fills the explanatory gap that casual readers may, as evidenced, fill by adverting to crime-fighting via the "broken windows" theory and intuiting this as not merely the foundation of, but as the sole method of, Giuliani's civic cleanup. As the cited sources explain, a "civic cleanup" is a broader phenomenon, already applied elsewhere previously, premised on "family values", requiring that neighborhoods be "clean and safe" against both criminals and libertines. – Occurring (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I finally had some time to look at this. Having looked at the references for that sentence (they are cited above under the "sources" hat), I don’t find bland language like "familiar leisure and nightlife scenes". Instead I find things like "festering areas of urban blight that were contributing to the image of New York City as a place of menacing drug and gang activity, of large numbers of panhandlers harassing tourists for money, and, in particular, of a Times Square that had sunk into the officially perceived filth of a vibrant and successful sex industry." And I don’t find language like "big business and tourism"; instead I find things like "restoring Times Square to its former glory as the business, theatre, arts, and entertainment crossroads of the world." I do find the "family values" language. All of this is from the Jane Jeffrey article, the only one of the references that actually goes beyond a mere mention of Giuliani’s cleanup. The only reference that even implies "leisure and nightlife scenes" is a one-paragraph mention of the closing of gay bars in the Sinfield book. Most of the references barely mention the subject (why in the world is that letter to the editor included?), and I don’t find much to say that the "effect was also criticized" (although criticism is implied by Sinfield). So IMO this sentence does not reflect the sources and needs to be either removed or completely rewritten. I would suggest something like this: In particular, Giuliani focused on removing panhandlers and sex clubs from Times Square, promoting a "family values" vibe and a return to the area’s earlier focus on business, theater, and the arts. @Occurring and SPECIFICO: Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, thanks for taking the time to work through this. Yes, I agree completely. That lead text makes it sound as if Giuliani shut down the 4-star $100 a plate restaurants and hotel ballrooms, instead of clamping down on petty crime and decay that NYers avoided and despised, while going about their daily lives in ways that avoided contact. It was a controversial policy, and it remains so. But it was transformative and really had nothing to do with NY's "familiar leisure and nightlife scenes" -- it was more like the dingy lowlife scene. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to put this sentence into the article in place of the one under discussion here. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Fairness of Article - Example of Deceit

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think "although crime rates had already begun to decline under Dinkins" is misleading. The four highest murder totals in New York City History occurred during the Dinkins years [1]: 2245 in 1990 - highest ever; 2145 in 1991 - second highest ever; 1995 in 1992 - third highest ever; 1946 in 1993 - fourth highest ever. The number of murders was higher the year he left than in the year before he took office. So, yes. His first year was the worst ever for murders and his fourth was only the fourth worst ever for murders. The death declined by 49 murders, to 1946 in his last year. Then the next year, under Guilianni, the deaths dropped by about 400 murders The sentence suggests that the further declines in murders were the result of demographic factors or policies already in place before Gulianni took office That is false. The year before Guilianni came into office there were 1946 murders - they ha never been higher under any mayor of New York City other than Mr. Dinkins. The year Guilianni left, there were 649 murders. That sentence suggests an intentional deceit on the part of the writers and suggests that they entire article lacks balance. Hypercallipygian (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The murder rate in the entire US dropped dramatically during Giuliani’s time as NYC mayor. Also, there were multiple scandals of police under reporting crimes during Giuliani’s time. Your edit is original research, and an example of why we don’t do that. Please WP:AGF and don't make accusations like that against other editors. O3000 (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 
From Crime in New York City: crime rates were declining in NYC under Dinkins
Hypercallipygian, please assume good faith and don't attribute what may be an error to "intentional deceit". To address your specific point, you're only talking about murders, but "crime rates" refers to more than murder. The sourcing on the sentence "although crime rates had already begun to decline under Dinkins" is poor (WP:PRIMARY sources and a letter to the editor) and should be improved. The Washington Post says the effect Giuliani's advice had on reducing crime is debatable and that's a good place to start. As the graph from the Crime in NYC article shows, crime was going down under Dinkins, and there is considerable debate on what exactly the effect of implementing Broken Windows Theory was. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#Murders_by_year

Section "Appointees as defendants"

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Editor Cathradgenations has twice now ([13],[14]) removed reliably-sourced sourced content from this article concerning Giuliani appointees to head NYC agencies who subsequently pled guilty to fraud and perjury. The content at issue is:

Several of Giuliani's appointees to head city agencies were later named defendants in criminal court.

In 2000, Giuliani appointed 34-year-old Russell Harding, the son of Liberal Party of New York leader and longtime Giuliani mentor Raymond Harding, to head the New York City Housing Development Corporation, although Harding had neither a college degree nor relevant experience. In 2005, Harding pleaded guilty to defrauding the Housing Development Corporation and to possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to five years in prison.[1] Russell Harding committed suicide in 2012.[2]

In a related matter, Richard Roberts, appointed by Giuliani as Housing Commissioner and as chairman of the Health and Hospitals Corporation, pleaded guilty to perjury after lying to a grand jury about a car Harding had bought for him with city funds.[3]

References

  1. ^ "Disgraced ex-Giuliani official claims mental illness, judge prescribes prison", New York Newsday, July 22, 2005. Retrieved March 9, 2007.
  2. ^ Buettner, Russ (October 7, 2012). "Former City Official's Blog Chronicled His Fall From Grace and Plans for Suicide". The New York Times. Retrieved October 10, 2012.
  3. ^ Robbins, Tom (August 31, 2004). "A Going-Away Gift From Russell Harding". The Village Voice. Retrieved November 19, 2015.

Cathradgenations's summary says: The individuals named as "appointees as defendants" for the Giuliani administration were not high level officials of his administration nor key advisers; nothing in the indictments and charges touched on or alleged any wrongdoing by Giuliani himself, his family, or anyone in his inner circle; this is a Wikipedia entry about Giuliani not obscure minor officials in his administration; even if relevant, proportonally they might deserve a mere sentence or two.

I restored the content noting that The "head [of] the New York City Housing Development Corporation" and the City's Housing Commissioner are not low level positions, and the content was sourced. Further, the subjects of these paragraphs only receive a few sentences of coverage, and their treatment in this article is both relevant to Giuliani (as Mayoral appointees to head major City agencies) and is not undue. The editor again removed it, with the same summary, and without addressing my response.

@Cathradgenations: See WP:BRD. Please discuss the disputed content here. If you simply revert again to your preferred version without discussing your changes here, we will take it up at WP:AN3. General Ization Talk 00:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


This entire section is a glaring example of WP:SYNTH. It takes fair amount of audacity to first remove a statement from that section which cleared Guiliani of any wrongdoing with an edit summary that says "There is no reason to imagine Giuliani was involved in any crime related to these individuals", and then to restore the material about his appointees claiming the relevance to Guiliani is clear. This kind of 'guilt by association' has no place anywhere on wikipedia, let alone in a WP:BLP Trying to reconnect (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

protection

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Shouldnt this page be protected in some way? StStein1 (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Quote in Lead

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why do we have this in the lead: "...among them journalist Jack Newfield who wrote: "Rudy Giuliani was a C-plus Mayor who has become an A-plus myth. Since the atrocity of 9/11, Giuliani has managed to merge himself with wounded New York until the man and the metropolis–and this almost religious event–seem to be one heroic blur."? If this was some big political figure, then fine. But taking a single attack line from some random journalist doesn't seem like WP:NPOV. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Support delete The first sentence in particular is completely substance-less. --Steverci (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Opposition to transgender rights as Mayor?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a claim at https://paulinepark.com/giuliani-transgender-rights-the-untold-story/ that, as mayor of NYC, Giuliani opposed the pro trans rights measure that later became Local Law 3 of 2002. However, this appears to be a primary source and I could not find corroboration. Can this be mentioned? Ramendik (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rudy_Giuliani/Archive_2&oldid=1137165475"