Talk:Rudy Giuliani 2008 presidential campaign

Need for truly recent references

A passage on Giuliani's name recognition and on comparisons of voter assessments of negative and positive qualities of candidates was referenced as "recent." Given that this and many election seasons are fast-evolving, it is necessary to precisely say what "recent" means. Actually, the reference from the passage was a July 21, 2006 page.

A great deal has changed in the Republican race since the poll and the article which developed from it. It is for this reason, that I have removed this notably dated passage. Dogru144 03:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is bad

This article is really bad and is just a constant bashing of Giuliani, I will rewrite it tomorrow.--Southern Texas 05:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Southern Texas 19:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. You nearly cut the article in half, and that information was sourced. Also, I object to your reorganization strongly. "Strengths" and "Weaknesses" is complete political commentary and should be kept out of the article. His views are found at Political positions of Rudy Giuliani, where they belong. If you feel the article is slanted against him (and I admit having controversies before development seems shaky to me), add facts that are absent and remove any commentary, for or against Giuliani. Also, see wikipedia's policies on verifiability, neutrality, and original research. Atropos 00:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the supporter's arguments should be renamed and become a section on different commentary on why he can or cannot win, rather than an argument for his ability to win. I encourage you to improve this article, just remember to keep anything you add neutral and verified. Atropos 00:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Putting the "campaign development" section further up wouldn't make much difference, since most of its items are slanted against Giuliani too. Wasted Time R 02:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to write about criticisms put it on the criticisms page. This page is about the campaign, it doesn't matter if it was sourced because it had nothing to do with what this page is about. I am not adding commentary but putting the strengths and weaknesses of his campaign and not talking about stuff like some opinion of somebody that nobody has even heard of. I removed the bogus stuff and added some stuff so that if somebody wants to read this article they can see the pro and cons and strengths and weaknesses of the campaign. I just wrote an article about Joe Biden and I used the exact same format.--Southern Texas 04:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because you've used it before doesn't mean it isn't wrong. Defining certain political views as strengths or weaknesses is obviously commentary. Atropos 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's no real consensus on what an 'XYZ presidential campaign, NNNN' article should look like. The ones for 2008 vary in format, content, and approach. The ones for little-known candidates tend to be very favorable and go on at great length (Mike Gravel, Ron Paul); the ones for the big-name Democrats tend to be shorter but still favorable (Clinton, Obama, to a lesser extent Edwards); the ones for the big-name Republicans tend to be more negative (Romney, McCain, most of all this one). Then if you look at the ones from last time around, such as John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004, they are completely different from any of these. And Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 is still yet another different brew.

In my own view, a campaign article shouldn't be a collection of talking points for or against the candidate, but a history of what happened during the campaign: where the candidate was successful and why, where the candidate faltered and why, what part of the electorate supported the candidate, what part didn't, etc. Of course it's hard to write such an account as it's happening; things that look significant now may turn out not to be in the end and vice versa. Wasted Time R 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just look at the article, the strengths will always be positive for the candidate, it may be slightly POV, but this is what helps the campaign go up in the polls and therefore it is a strength and should be written on here. The weaknesses will be slightly POV against the candidate but it should not monopolize the whole article its just the things that hurts the campaign in the polls. These two sections should counteract each other making the article NPOV. You have to admit there are some aspects that help a campaign and other aspects that hurt a campaign these should not be ignored and not added because we fear it breaks NPOV. This article was extrememly bad citing people that are not mainstream and citing events that were obscure, just talk about the campaign, the strengths, the weaknesses, the poll numbers, the financials, and events in the campaign. It should not list some kind of Swift Boat Veterans thing about Hillary, what does this have anything to do with Rudy Giuliani's campaign page?--Southern Texas 16:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand the problem. You're taking certain qualities and defining them as strengths or weaknesses. To make that call on a certain trait of the candidate is to provide original commentary and can't be included. Atropos 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats because they should be defined as strengths or weaknesses. All campaigns have attributes that help them and attributes that hurt them, strengths and weaknesses. Its not commentary is just mainstream political facts about the campaign, the strengths help the candidate and the weaknesses hurt them, I am not stating my opinions on the matter its all understood, Giuliani's campaign is helped by the quality of leadership, position on terrorism(to republicans), and lowering of the crime rate in NYC, these are all things that will help the campaign, things that will hurt the campaign(to republicans) are his divorces and his pro-choice stand, its all understood I am not saying he is right or he is wrong but just stating facts about what could lead to a victory for the campaign and what could lead to a defeat. If you would like to add something I encourage it, but please try to tone down the POV, this article was a POV nightmare until I reorganized and erased sourced bits that had nothing at all to do with the campaign, Thank you--Southern Texas 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is better than it was before after I reinstated some of the previous information. I added a "Supporters' arguments" and "Detractors' arguments" which is similar to the style of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign page. The bits on the Iowa family and the South Carolina Confederate flag are directly related to the campaign, yet your edit description said that they should be placed in the general criticism section of Giuliani's main article. That's not the case, they belong here and I have reinstated most of them, leaving out the ones that are included in the main article.--Gloriamarie 00:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please give a reason for such a major edit and don't just say that you did it because it is on the Hillary page, its all confusing now, unorganized and hard to read, if you want to add the stuff you added add to the weaknesses, I'll be fine with that, just don't restructure it so much that it scares people away and it becomes too confusing for any resonable person to want to read.--Southern Texas 04:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

by the way the Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2008 is set up the same way. Wikipedia is not the place to spew political venom so please don't turn this page into an attack page, keep it NPOV and fair and balanced, its divided into strengths of the campaign and weaknesses don't make it just one big attack page, just keep it simple and organized. Even if you don't agree with the facts the facts remain, the crime record, leadership, and terrorism are all topics that pull Giuliani's campaign up in the polls, his marriages and his views on abortion bring the campaign down in the polls, Its not commentary but basic facts, and I really don't think we should present this guy as the doom and gloom candidate as your edits make him appear since he is leading in the polls and even leading Hillary in a 2 way race, please keep it as it is and don't try to cover up aspects of his campaign that are universally considered strengths, Thank you.--Southern Texas 04:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone, I'm trying to make this article better. I'll work on it again, but the "Strengths" and "Weaknesses" section cannot remain as they are just not NPOV at the outset. Joe Biden's page is only like that because you created it and set it up that way-- it's not NPOV. Who is to say what is a strength and what is a weakness? Some of these could go both ways. I'll change it to reflect the "Opposing forces" and "Supporting forces" that Hillary and McCain's articles have. Those articles are clearly laid out and make much more sense than this one in its current state.--Gloriamarie 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Many of your additions are commentary, not NPOV encyclopedic material, such as these: "While mayor of New York, Giuliani showed that he has an abundance of leadership skills, perfectly displayed in the aftermath of the World Trade Center Attacks." "The images of Giuliani in the aftermath of 9/11 bring to mind strength as he instilled confidence in the city and the country in its darkest moments and was given the name "America's Mayor" as well as being named the 2001 Time Magazine Man of the Year. To many people he has proven what it takes to lead and has proven that he won't back down from the fight against the terrorists that committed the acts he witnessed"... These possibly be rewritten in an NPOV manner but until that time, I'm reverting.--Gloriamarie 02:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't that hard, if one is trying to be neutral instead of praise/bash. Stuff like this:

While mayor of New York, Giuliani showed that he has an abundance of leadership skills, perfectly displayed in the aftermath of the World Trade Center Attacks.

is real bad and should go. Stuff like this:

According to a Gallup Poll taken February 9-11 2007, responders who supported Giuliani were asked why they supported him. The results showed that 13% of supporters did so because of Giuliani's strong leadership and 53% did so because of leadership related topics such as time as mayor and handling of 9/11.[30] Another poll taken by Marist showed that 42% of Giuliani supporters believed that leadership is the most important quality for a candidate, this is compared to 34% of McCain supporters who believed the same. [31]

is good and should stay. Weaknesses can be illustrated using poll results like this too. Wasted Time R 02:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I was working on it and the organization is really bad now. I will change the titles from strengths and weaknesses to what you called it but some of the criticisms that you wrote really don't belong and are displayed in a very pov manner, swift boat stuff is not important and should be on the hillary page not here, the iowa family is not important at all it just shows giuliani's strategy of trying to get the most money, and the other speculation does not belong. I will delete the section I wrote on terrorism but all the others are backed by sources, with the crime it was reduced, and leadership is backed up with polls, I'll admit there is some tone issues and I will fix these, I also think that I had it organized better, I am willing to negotiate but I will not leave this article a pov unorganized mess, Thank you--Southern Texas 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani had in the past mentioned that the Confederate flag should be removed from South Carolina's Capitol building. On a 2007 visit to Alabama, he said that the state should be able to decide. The president of the Alabama chapter of the NAACP said, "Giuliani is posturing himself to try to get the conservative, right-wing, Southern white vote in Alabama. He used to oppose the flag, but now he's backtracked because he's running for president." Giuliani's spokesperson responded that the candidate's position had never changed and he had always thought it should be left to the state to decide.[50]

In 1998, on a visit to South Carolina, where then-Governor David Beasley had tried to remove the flag, the New York Daily News quoted Giuliani as saying Beasley had taken "a very courageous stand … at great political risk."[50]

This really doesn't belong here, perhaps it should be moved to the criticisms of giuliani page, I doesn' have anything to do with his campaign.

On May 29, 2007, CBS News reported that conservative website freerepublic.com had begun banning accounts of Giuliani supporters, evidently because they didn't think he was conservative enough.[11] The purge occurred one month after site founder Jim Robinson wrote a piece entitled, "Giuliani as the GOP presidential nominee would be a dagger in the heart of the conservative movement." A "Giuliani Truth File" was posted to the site, the only such file posted on any candidate of either party.[11]

This doesn't belong for the same reason, I've tried to see how it is relevant to the campaign and I just can't find anything, sorry.

A top Giuliani donor, Richard Collins, who has supported George W. Bush for several years, was central in establishing "Stop Her Now," a Swift Boat-styled negative campaign operation aimed to spread negative publicity against Hillary Clinton. [55]

This should be on the Hillary page not here please.--Southern Texas 05:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in this because this topic totally doesn't interest me, but I have two problems with your arguments Southern Texas that I want to make clear:

1. With the "Strengths" and "Weaknesses" qualifiers, you are saying "This quality makes him a strong candidate;" "This quality makes him a weak candidate." You are providing commentary on different qualities and what kind of candidate that makes him. That is very obviously original research and non-neutral. If you don't understand how, I really suggest you reread the appropriate policies. I believe I've already linked to them.

1. You say that Gloriamarie (whom I'm assuming is a she?) needs a better argument than that the same format is used in Clinton's article, and then support your poorly structured and content-stripped article because the same format is used in Joe Biden's article. This is hypocrisy if you're angry and irony if you just think its funny.

That's all. Atropos 01:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that much needed comment when in fact the strengths and weaknesses categories are no longer in this article or the Joe Biden article, I'll admit that I was wrong, but I wasn't wrong when I said that this was in fact a Giuliani attack page, I believe that I fixed the article and also fixed my somewhat biased tone. The article is great now and I am proud of it.--Southern Texas 21:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is good

I am proud to say that after a few changes the article is now good and ceases to be an attack page. It now represents the facts in an NPOV manner.--Southern Texas 23:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fire Fighter Controversy

Someone should note that the particular fire fighter group that has criticized Rudy's performance tends to be a partisan group, or rather that's what the Campaign said.Arnabdas 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can source it please add it.--Southern Texas 18:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find it, but I think it was a press release. The AP article actually said it too I think.Arnabdas 14:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

AP Bias

The Associated Press ran an article a few months back about how Rudy is out of touch with voters by incorrectly noting the pricing of bread and milk. The AP quoted prices of D'Agostino's, a high end mini market that caters to elite Manhanttanites (and therefore marks up prices). Most people don't buy bread and milk from ultra high end places like that. The prices he actually quoted werent too far off. Not sure if it is noteworthy or not. Arnabdas 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POV in image size

When one compares the size of the lead photo of the first and second tier Republican candidates for the presidency in 2008, it is apparent that the image for Giuliani is much larger than other than the lead image of the other candidates. Dogru144 12:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I made the image smaller.--Southern Texas 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Campaign Advisors

I know that it isn't common to include a section on campaign staff/advisors, but I think that in the light of recent developments (ie: Carl Rove, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown etc.) there is a growing concern over a candidate's ability to choose staffmembers. Some of these advisors are potential cabinet members should the candidate be elected. I am proposing the inclusion of prominent staff/advisors (and a short bio) to all candidates' campaign entries in order to help voters better understand each candidates' ability to judge character. I believe that attention is inordinately focussed on individual candidates, when in fact, the major influence on any new administration will be in the advisors surrounding the new president. Your input would be greatly appreciated. ----Rawkcuf. (In the interest of uniformity, this is the same 'form letter' I've sent to other candidates' entries. I'm impressed that you are on the ball, and already have two entries referring to staff appointments. Might I suggest combining them into one entry, and adding more as necessary. Thanks, -R.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawkcuf (talk • contribs) 04:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. See Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008#Campaign_staff for existing case. Wasted Time R 16:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Atheist?

I took out the part that says he would be the first atheist president. Just because some poll says something doesn't make it absolute truth. 75.67.142.56 15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pro-choice vs. Pro-abortion

I revereted something that said he was "pro-abortion". As far as I know, he doesn't actually support abortion, but supports people being allowed to choose. Would someone comment on this? 75.67.142.56 19:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Graphs, Diagrams, polls, I am getting dizzy

I noticed these on Romney's articles as well. As far as I know normal articles don't present these many graphs in excess. You don't write scientific articles this way. You refer to images in the text. These images are just pasted blatanly filling more than half the article. It is very annoying, disruptive for reading and actually not very informative either in the context and layout they are presented. Lord Metroid 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns so I moved the charts to the end of the article so that all of the textual information is at the beginning of the article to be read.--Southern Texas 17:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnpseudo has now nuked all the graphs. That seems a little excessive to me; they constitute useful, objective data, something articles like this need all they can get of. What if the graphs are restored but wrapped inside a colored "show" bar, the same way Endorsements are handled? Wasted Time R 00:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Twelve Commitments to the American People"

We shouldn't be copying an entire 1.5 page section directly from his campaign website to the article. The source is not neutral, and the weight is not balanced. johnpseudo 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That the source is not neutral is irrelevant — we're describing Giuliani's campaign platform, of course that platform is not a neutral document. The weighting is okay for me, for taken as a group the Giuliani articles are skewed badly to the anti-Giuliani side. However, the issue is one of appropriateness of encyclopedic content. We shouldn't be including a verbatim document like this, no matter what its neutrality or weighting. Contract with America doesn't include the text of the Contract, and that's a lot more famous a campaign platform than this is. Wasted Time R 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. That's a better reason to get rid of it or summarize it. johnpseudo 17:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you got rid of it completely, which isn't right. I've put in a 'Campaign developments' section that mentions it, but the summarization needs a little expansion. Wasted Time R 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Issues about WP:WEIGHT

I am concerned the article is returning to its old state. It is now highly critical throughout and is mainly just a collection of criticisms even in the supposedly neutral "Campaign developments" section.--Southern Texas 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Controversies of Rudy Giuliani; I have been moving things out of that article that clearly don't belong there. If you feel that their inclusion in this article is unwarranted, then we can discuss that here on an individual basis. Wasted Time R 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Southern Texas, I don't view the "Campaign developments" section as supposing to be neutral. To me, it should reflect ... campaign developments, be they positive, neutral, or negative towards the candidate, in chrono order. That's how Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008#Campaign_developments is done. Wasted Time R 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem. Criticism is not a "Campaign development". Awards are necessary for WP:Weight and WP:NPOV issues and actually read it and you'll see that it is not the same. Just reasons for support--Southern Texas 22:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Awards have nothing to do with the campaign, and are already covered in the much more visible main article. You are right that the Giuliani articles have been badly skewed against him, and I am trying to fix that on the Controversies page. But putting the Awards in here is not the answer! It makes no sense. There are better ways to improve this article. Wasted Time R 22:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually they show reasons why people vote for him just like people don't vote for him because of the crossdressing issue even though this has nothing directly to do with the campaign, it affects it and should we added for weight issues.--Southern Texas 23:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Then the solution is to get rid of both the Awards and the cross dressing sections. This article should be a history of the campaign, not a debating stage as to Giuliani's merits. Wasted Time R 23:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is too much to delete because there is so many issues like this. Just leave it alone and it'll be neutral.--Southern Texas 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The big story of the Giuliani campaign is how, two months before the voting begins, he's still ahead in the polls despite all predictions that his liberal views, his bad temper, the protests of social conservatives, the entrance of Fred Thompson, etc. would derail him. Does this article convey that big story? Nope. The forest is lost for the trees. Your strategy of balancing anti-Giuliani shots with pro-Giuliani fluff isn't going to change that. Wasted Time R 23:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the "Southern Support" section, I've tried to add what you are saying, it could be expanded.--Southern Texas 23:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted Time. The article is a jumble of discrete facts. It has very little summary, very little analysis, and doesn't give the context in which a reader might be able to find the relevance of the bits of information presented. We need to move towards-

1. Reducing the size of the article
2. Eliminating the separate pro/con organization of the article. No section should be solely pro-Giuliani or solely anti-Giuliani. All sections should be neutral-Giuliani.
3. Summarizing content. Several sections have no summary at all- they just go straight into a list of events/facts (Campaign development, Fundraising, Endorsements).
4. Re-organize in favor of fewer sub-sections. Not all paragraphs need to be separate sections. In fact, the current breaking-up of information into sections leaves the article hard to follow, with no flow. johnpseudo 23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the size of the article per se — the presidential campaign articles will tend to accumulate events, and it won't be until after the campaign is over that we'll know which were really important and which were transient. But I strongly agree that the pro/con organization is faulty. And I think Southern Texas has misunderstood WP:Weight — it doesn't mean that there has to be equal amounts of pro-candidate and anti-candidate material in an article, rather it means that the treatment of the campaign has to reflect reality. If Giuliani is leading in all the national polls, we have to describe that. If Giuliani gets significant negative press attention for taking cell phone calls from Judith, we have to describe that. And so forth. Wasted Time R 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how to better organize the article? I set up the separate sections on Support and Detrators for organizational purposes and both should present a neutral point of view. How else can the information be incorporated?--Southern Texas 01:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Describe the campaign. What states is Giuliani focusing on? What is his strategy for victory? How is he spending his money, on the ground or in the air? What segments of the GOP electorate is he trying to appeal to? How have his debate performances been? Have media coverage of him been sympathetic or hostile? Who's on his campaign staff? Who are his big-name advisors, on foreign policy, domestic policy, etc.? All of these can be covered in sections that have nothing to do with "supporters" and "detractors". Wasted Time R 01:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to do what you said. The article still needs signficant work in cutting out the POV. Please review what I did and correct any mistakes. I tried my best with what I had but I am tired and I don't feel like doing this anymore today.--Southern Texas 04:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What rationale do you have for your string of about 10 edits that remove perfectly-legitimate, sourced, negative material on Giuliani? It seems like you just deleted a bunch of stuff just because it reflects poorly on Giuliani and added more (truly negligible) endorsement information. Most endorsements are not news in themselves. Robertson may be an exception.

1. "Concerns about truthfulness": This doesn't need its own section, but it should be put in a larger category that might include other statements made by Giuliani that have made the news.
2. "Tommy Thompson endorsement": This is just another politician endorsing Giuliani: put it in the list and remove the paragraph of elaboration.
3. "Debate Conflict-of-interest": This seemed perfectly balanced, sourced, well-placed, and notable. Why remove it?
4. "FDNY family wants to swift-boat Giuliani": This topic is central to Giuliani's campaign, and there is nothing POV about showing a sourced statement on the topic from a notable, relevant person (Sally Regenhard).
5. $9.11 fundraiser and "student of Islamic terrorism": The Schaitbergherm statement doesn't really belong, but the "Giuliani rarely speaks of 9/11 during presidential debates" statement is unsourced. Also, why should we just remove the entire part about him claiming to be a 30-year student of Islamic terrorism? It was the subject of a Time article. I think that makes it notable enough.
6. Reference to "Islamic terrorists": I agree that this isn't notable.
7. Bernard Kerik, judged by successes and mistakes: I think the article needs mention of Bernard Kerik, and therefore this should not be deleted, but this is a weak piece of information. johnpseudo 22:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course the endorsements are notable especially someone like Tommy Thompson. The statement about the debate was not at all NPOV and not notable at all. The Time Magazine bit was irrelevant and not completely factual, Sally Regenhard (whoever that is) has not made any effect on the campaign . I welcome you to add something about Bernard Kerik especially since Giulani recently praised the work he did years ago. Everything done was to clean up the article and address the WP:WEIGHT issues that have been discussed.--Southern Texas 22:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Southern, sometimes you are a puzzle. The Pat Robertson endorsement is far more significant than the Forbes, Tommy Thompson, and Perry ones, yet you give more space to the other three and even throw in a big picture of Tommy Thompson to boot. Did you notice that, like, Tommy Thompson got zero support when he was in the race? There's a reason he withdrew so early. Anyway, I've added material on the signficance of the Robertson endorsement, but to me it really belongs in 'Campaign developments', not buried in the endorsements fluff. Wasted Time R 13:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the above listed items by johnpseudo are now back in the article, or have been added in new form (Kerik, expanded coverage of Fox News being called pro-Giuliani). I've also added a lead section that tries to capture the forest not the trees, per the above. Wasted Time R 14:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy

There should be more information about his policy positions. It's all horse race coverage; i.e. we go into great depth about how his campaign is operating (tactics), but not his actual platform. Superm401 - Talk 07:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You missed the 'See also' to Political positions of Rudy Giuliani, where that is covered. Wasted Time R 11:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that coverage of his presidential campaign should have no mention (besides a link) of the policies he expresses in that campaign? I think a better solution is to make a Political positions section, with a {{see}} to that page. Superm401 - Talk

I agree that a "Political positions" section added to the campaign article with a WP:Summary-form xref to Political positions of Rudy Giuliani would be useful. But I think what you've added is way too long for WP:Summary; we've just got a lot of needless duplication of information. There are many "XXX presidential campaign, 2008" articles ... do any others have long "Political positions" sections like you have just added here? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Giuliani ad.jpg

Image:Giuliani ad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Commented You Tube link (1)

1 link commented out - Footage a speech - Is uploader the originator of the footage? It wasn't clear from the clip information or uploader profile.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Commented You Tube link (2)

1 link commented out - Footage of a political rally. Is uploader the originator of the footage? It wasn't clear from the clip information/uploader profile. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

May 15 GOP South Carolina debate

The significance the event in this section needs to be expanded more. Right now it's just an exchange between him and another candidate, with little significance noted. Quanticles (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008

Over the past week I wrote articles about Tom Tancredo's presidential campaign and Chris Dodd's. When I started getting sources together to write the article on Dodd I had a revelation. The article should flow smoothly, it should give information about the movement of the campaign, who they are attracting, what their motives are. I did this for the Dodd article mainly to show the rigors of the campaign and to sum up the whole election itself. I think the Giuliani should do the same and not be just a collection of talking points as it is right now.--STX 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current article is not very satisfactory. The structure and organization is disjointed, and a lot of the material is rehashes of pro- and anti-Giuliani positions from other articles. But more generally, it's hard to write an article about an ongoing event! For Dodd and Tancredo it's easier, because we already know how it will end: they will go nowhere in the polls, they will finish badly in the caususes/primaries, and when they money finally runs out they will quit. For Giuliani, however, we don't know how it will end, as he has a good chance at winning the nomination. How will we know which events on the campaign trail turn out to be pivotal and deserve extra examination, or which events that seem to be major at the time turn out to have no lasting effect?

As for your Dodd article, you're right that it gives a sense of the rigor of a campaign. I would like it to capture even more of the flavor of the underlying demorialization that must affect their efforts: here's a guy who's got qualifications, got the presidential demeanor, got some money and endorsers, but can't get anywhere, because he 's running in a year where three big names or upcoming stars have sucked out all the political oxygen. Put Dodd in the 1988 or 1992 Dem race, and he might have a better chance.

Can you do something like this for the Giuliani campaign article? Sure, why not give it a try. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Erasure of details regarding testimony regarding the security detail

An editor is repeatedly erasing details that provide support to the claim as to secuity details for Judith Giuliani.

For the record, the gutted details follow:

" A neighborhood witness, Lee Degenstein, claimed [in a published December 7, 2007 Daily News report] that the security began at some unspecified time earlier in 2000. His statement placed the security detail as beginning earlier than the previously stated May 2000 date. Furthermore, Degenstein provided details of the security protection: "The windows were all blacked out, it [the car] had several antennas affixed to the trunk and of course had the orange E-ZPass stuck in the front windshield," in reference to the colored toll devices stuck to municipal cars. " Dogru144 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Context as to relevance of the added reference

The information expands on previously reported information. The information is more precise that the generalizations in the politico.com article. The information is backed by an identified reference. For the sake of context, what follows is the text from opening of the New York Daily News report of December 7, 2007:

"Mayor's Gal Got Security Earlier than We Knew" -title. "Judith Nathan got taxpayer-funded chauffeur services from the NYPD earlier than previously disclosed --even before her affair with then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani was revealed, witnesses and sources tell the Daily News.

"It went on for months before the affair went public," said Lee Degenstein, 52, a retired Smith Barney vice president who formerly lived at 200 E. 94th St., Nathan's old building.

"It was going on longer than anybody though," added Degenstein, who, along with others in the neighborhood, said they often saw Nathan hopping into unmarked NYPD cars in early 2000 before the affair was revealed that May." Dogru144 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed your earlier edit here not because I doubted the Daily News story, but because you were confused on it on two points: one, the Giuliani-Nathan relationship began in May 1999, not early 2000; two, the security detail in this article is different from the one in the Politico article. Politico refers to legitimate security (but billed oddly to obscure city agencies) for Giuliani while visiting Nathan, while the Daily News story reveals possibly bogus security (more like chauffering) for Nathan before her relationship with Giuliani was even public. Any addition we make here has to reflect that. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Erasure of Al Thani association

User Southern Texas has blanked out the material on Giuliani's professional association with the Abdullah Bin Khalid Al-Thani minister of the Interior (Qatar). This is completely relevant material.

Giuliani has based his entire campaign around September 11. It is controversial and POV to remove a multi-reference contribution that validly documents his professional association with a Qatari minsiter (and royal house member) that sheltered an al Qaeda associate that was being pursued by the FBI. Let wikipedia editors and administrators judge for themselves the validity and pertinence of said material to the discussion: Here is what Tex gutted out:

Giuliani Partners ties to Chavez and Al Thani

Giuliani's consultancy firm, Giuliani Partners, attracted controversy over its associations with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Qatar Minister of the Interior Abdullah Bin Khalid Al-Thani. (The latter was disclosed in an investigative journalism piece in the Village Voice.) Chavez has aroused controversy for his consolidation of power and his anti-capitalist rhetoric. Al Thani has aroused controversy because he sheltered September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from the FBI. Giuliani had already stepped down as CEO and Chairman of Giuliani Partners in June 2007, although this action was not disclosed publicly. On December 4, 2007, in the wake of the latest attention to the firm's client base, Giuliani Partners announced the stepping down, with Giuliani defending his work there, saying, "Everything I did at Giuliani Partners was totally legal, totally ethical. There's nothing for me to explain about. We acted honorably, decently." Giuliani maintained his equity interest in the firm. Dogru144 (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this related to the campaign?--STX 01:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is, but the connection needs to be better cited. I'll do it a bit later after the edit warring has died down; being whipsawed between you and Dogru is not what I'm here for. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll step aside and let you fix it.--STX 01:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chavez bit was old news and not a factor in the recent campaign, so I removed it. The discussion of Al-Thani was slanted because it left the impression that he sheltered KSM after 9/11, when in fact that happened five years before in 1996. I've reworked the rest of it, added the NYT Ethopian story re B&G, and given a couple of cites saying these client-base stories have contributed to Giuliani's recent decline in the polls. As with everything in this article, the importance of these developments may increase or decrease in retrospect. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections

File:Color.JPG

Editors of this article are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections.--STX 04:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Methods

I dont want this to be POV, I coppoed what I wrote originally on Rudy's page:

Anyone seen the fuss over Giuliani's racist campaign add? It states 'a people perverted' in refrence to all muslims, not to mention one of Rudy's subodinates told Muslims to 'get back into their caves'. The video is on youtube but I got it off the islamophobia watch site, a POV site I know, but as it directly quiotes it is reliable.86.138.116.141 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/category/resisting-islamophobia

perhaps this racism deserves a mention in the article? Or his campaigning?86.138.116.141 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

---

there it is, and please do view the video.86.138.116.141 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The video link is http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/01/giuliani_muslims_a_people_perv.html.86.138.116.141 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements

Does hosting a fundraiser for Rudy qualify as an endorsement under this article? Can it be mere support? Or does the endorser have to say "I endorse Rudy"? How far down the elected food chain should the endorsements list go?

He's got some important state reps hosting fundraisers for him in PA. Are these worth mentioning? Here's a link. [1] Also, what about placing Bob Asher on the endorsement list? He's mentioned in the controversies section, but he still is PA's national committeeman, which makes him a big deal.--RedShiftPA (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Drag Photo

Wasted, why would an image of Rudia within the marriage/family section of this campaign article be inappropriate? Never mind...it's all just nostalgia now....doesn't matter. However, if you really think that early and widespread circulation of photos of Rudia didn't play a big role in how the campaign has played out I would suggest you talk to a few more of his heartland defectors. Veritas23 (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Rudia stuff was out there from the moment he began running, and was available all during the many months he held the national lead in polls. As the article explains, Rudy's decline began in November, and was due to the Kerik news, the Shag Fund story, and the relevations about unappetizing GP and B&G business partners. Another cause was the dynamics of the other Republican contenders, e.g. McCain's resurgence hurt Rudy, since they were competing for some of the same national security hawk, domestic moderate voters. Then there was Rudy's skip-the-early-states strategy, which failed miserably. I haven't seen any evidence that the Rudia pictures had anything to do with Giuliani's collapse. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes because this sort of thing is too sleazy for more than passing media mention, and - perhaps like voters answering questions re ethnic prejudice, people didn't always volunteer how much Rudia turned them off in public. As regards the time frame - most Rudy supporters in early polls had no idea whatsoever who he was, so many didn't see the evidence of his interesting personal life until much later. But in any case, your point is well taken: as potential voters learned more and more about Giuliani they abandoned him in droves.Veritas23 (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

NHS controversy

Shouldn't there be some mention of the controversy over the alleged skewing of statisitcs in a campaign advertisement deriding the NHS. there are hundreds of links on this, a minister (alan johnson)commented on it, how did you lot miss this? 62.30.172.14 (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it, if you think it's that important. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Public perceptions section

I added this section a long time ago, I think it would be best if the material was cut out and added to a new article, Public image of Rudy Giuliani. I am going to be bold and go ahead and do this, if anybody objects then it can be undone. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's been created. I don't think it will be necessary to remove the whole section, but I'll work on this. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked much at the new article, but I think the "Public reaction" section in this article is kind of confused. Some of it is things that happened during the campaign, and some of it is things that happened before the campaign. I think the 'before' things should really go first in the article, as a "Leading up to the announcement" type section. Because any presidential campaign article needs to first answer the question, why was this person running for the office? What made him/her presidential material? What were his/her assets and liabilities going into the campaign? See Joe Biden presidential campaign, 1988#Leading up to the announcement for an example that I tried to do. In this case, it's especially relevant; why was this pro-choice, socially liberal/moderate East Coast mayor trying to run for the Republican nomination? It would seem crazy unless one knew about 9/11, his reputation as a crime fighter, etc etc. The central questions this article needs to address are (1) what made Giuliani attractive to the GOP electorate? (2) how did he manage to keep the polling lead for so long during 2007? (3) when it went bad, what caused it and why did it go bad so quickly? and (4) was his wait-until-Florida strategy fatal or was he doomed no matter what he did by that point? The answer to (1) and partly to (2) requires, I think, much of the public reaction section to get moved to the top of the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Structural questions

Since this article is getting an overhaul, I have a question. Why are the fundraising and polling sections separate from the campaign chronology? This has never made much sense to me. Fundraising and polling are the two most important things that happen during the pre-primaries year (2007, in this case) and continue to be quite important into the primaries year. Everything that happens is in reaction to them, and their numbers dictate what happens next. When I reworked the Mike Gravel campaign article recent, I folded these two sections into the main campaign chronology. I would suggest doing that here; otherwise, the reader has to understand them completely out of the context in which they occur. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there definitely needs to be a "background" section at the beginning, and alot of the material from "Public reactions" could be moved there, but I don't know if the public reaction section should go before the campaign events. Maybe I could fit all the material from public reactions into the campaign events and background, and avoid the problem altogether. The financial section is on a quarter by quarter basis and that could be easily fitted into the article. It would also make alot of sense to create an "aftermath" section and add the information about campaign debt and what Giuliani did for the rest of the election. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

POV editing by giving only Giuliani's side

A question has arisen about the relevance of specific crime statistics.

The article has long included a statement, sourced to a Giuliani spokesperson, about the murder rate, using statistics to bolster Giuliani's reputation as a crimefighter who reversed a rising tide of lawlessness in New York City. I left in the flack's statement but made this edit, also giving specifics about the murder rate (cited to a neutral source, the Bureau of Justice Statistics), that undercut Giuliani's claim. William S. Saturn then deleted the latter information as "irrelevant" while leaving in the former. I restored it, noting the discrepancy, but he again reverted (along with a request that I not edit war!).

We could omit this subject entirely, as not relevant to the campaign but more properly left to the Giuliani bio or mayoralty articles; or we could limit it to a presentation of Giuliani's image as a crimefighter, without trying to argue that the image was an accurate one; or we could simply note the contention of each side, without including any specific statistical supporting data; or we could make a slightly fuller presentation of the competing views, including the statistics relied on by each. Any of these approaches would be neutral. To give one side's supporting information but not the other's, however, would be blatantly POV. There’s no basis for William S. Saturn’s position that one statement (“By being tough on crime and enforcing the laws on the books, New York City’s murder rate [under Giuliani] was cut by 66 percent.") should stay in but that the other (“For example, the per capita murder rate had peaked and then begun to decline under Dinkins, and rapes decreased in each year of his term.”) should be removed.

Therefore, I am restoring the information. JamesMLane t c 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The information was not removed. All that was removed was the statement "For example, the per capita murder rate had peaked and then begun to decline under Dinkins, and rapes decreased in each year of his term.[11]" This was removed because it is excessive detail about Dinkins. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This article shouldn't try to make a statement on what Giuliani's affect on the crime rate actually was – that's a hard enough task for Rudy Giuliani and Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani to do and has been the subject of many discussions. This article should merely state that Giuliani's image as a crime fighter was responsible for much of his reputation as a successful mayor and for his appeal to the Republican electorate. It should state this in a way that does not imply the image was true nor suggest the image was false. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

::I'm done working on this article. It's become a waste of time, much like most of wikipedia. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)