Talk:Rudy Giuliani
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
This is not a forum for discussing personal opinions about the article's subject. Such messages may be deleted. Please discuss the article instead. Thank you. |
Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. August 17 2006 12:10pm. WikiCheck 12:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
*** PLEASE PUT NEW SECTIONS AT THE BOTTOM ***
Contents |
[edit] He married his second cousin. That is relevant. Why do people keep reverting that fact?
Why do changes reflecting this fact of his life keep being reverted? It's amusing that it's being reverted to a version which goes so far as to describe the marraige as one between people who have known each other since childhood...and bore no children...whomever's comfortable with that version is absolutely aware that he was married to his second cousin, and they both tried to deny that later. We have a page here describing married cousins, this bio should at least link to that page.--Woody Taylor 13:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are not reading the article carefully. Later in the Personal life section, it says: "[an] annulment of the Giuliani-Peruggi marriage was granted at the end of 1983[96], according to Giuliani, because he discovered after fourteen years that he and his wife were second cousins[100] and they did not have the Church dispensation thus needed." So it definitely is mentioned. And then in the Controversies section at Rudy_Giuliani#Annulment_of_first_marriage, a whole subsection deals with whether he did in fact know she was his second cousin when they married. What's being reverted is the label of 'second cousin' when the Peruggi marriage took place; to put it there implies that they knew they were second cousins at the time, which is disputed by them. Wasted Time R 13:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- There's considerable controversy around the notion that they did not know they were related. Giuliani has made many conflicting statements about the duration and nature of that marriage, what you are referring to...that they "discovered' it...is POV. It's much simpler to state it as it is rather than get caught up in any notions of how two people from a close-knit family could know each other their entire lives and not realize they were related.--Woody Taylor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.228.76 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
-
-
- More specifically, it should be stated "as is" in the marraige section. Notions about how they didn't know they were related are best left to the controversies section, IMO.--Woody Taylor
-
-
-
- OK. No one disputes that they are in fact second cousins to each other, so I've restored that on the first reference to her. What's in dispute is whether Giuliani knew at the time of the marriage that they are second cousins, and/or whether he knew that he need a Church dispensation for a second cousin marriage. That, as you say, can be left to the Controversies section. But note that the description of the annulment needs to come later than your last edit put it, since the Hanover relationship had already started. Wasted Time R 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- That works, thank you. I do think it's biased to quote Giuliani in that initial section as saying "overwork" was the reason why the first marraige ended. Obviously his reasoning might have been more grounded in political expediency (which is the controversy, which is why I'd prefer any rationale on why the marraige ended to be in the controversy section). Plus, the citation there is from the Hong Kong Sunday Morning Post...in that same article, per The Smoking Gun documentation, indicates that Giuliani stated that marraige lasted six years. That's either a lie on his part or a typo on the part of the reporter (or I guess the person that compiled the document at TSG).
-
-
-
-
-
- OK, I removed the 'overwork' bit. It was out of balance with the rest of the section, which just gives event timelines and not reasons. As for the length of the marriage, I think in that context Giuliani was counting the length until it was emotionally over. However, if you read the Barrett biography, during the time he was living in New York Giuliani was giving everyone the impression that the marriage was completely over except on paper, even while he was still living with Peruggi. Weird if true ... or did Barrett just talk with people who had axes to grind? Who knows. You'd need a squad of detectives to sort out all the twists and turns of Rudy's personal life. Wasted Time R 18:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Judith Nathan
" a twice-divorced [1]sales " - edit by AuntJennifer. Is it really necessary to add Judith Nathan is twice-divorced? That information is found on Judith Nathan's page. Jmegill 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't necessary. Aunt Jennifer is obviously a prude. I've reverted. Wasted Time R 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kerik controversy
On the last edit, is "police commissioner" capitalized or not? and also, "from his Corrections days" ? Also, this addition, "As Giuliani campaigns in his bid for the White House, he has faced repeated questions about Kerik -- and what his support for the disgraced former driver and police commissioner means about his judgment. Giuliani told voters in one New Jersey appearance that he should be judged by his success and his mistakes" has POV problems. I think that last part should be removed. Jmegill 05:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I moved that bit to the campaign article, where it was more appropriate. Wasted Time R 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Refusal of Saudi Donation
This anecdote really seems out of place in this section. Would be more appropriate in a subsection on his views re Israel and the Middle East conflict or post 9/11 controversies if anywhere. But in general it seems like gratuitous POV (as the act seemed particularly politically motivated at the time to many...) and probably should just be removed from the article...71.125.218.31 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- It belongs where it is. This was a very notable act that got a lot of attention at the time; it's mentioned in the Time Person of the Year article, it's mentioned in Adam Sandler's heavily-cheered Operaman routine at the time, and so forth. It helped define the framing of how 9/11 was viewed in the U.S. Giuliani's exact motivation for the act is ultimately unknowable and immaterial. Wasted Time R 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
