Talk:Political positions of Rudy Giuliani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Discussion at another article named "Political views of ......" 2 Gun rights 2.1 Reference to Mayor Giuliani's lawsuit vs. gun manufaturers 3 Giuliani's position on government spending is entirely about stadiums...? 4 Habeas Corpus 5 Comments on Board of Education 6 Global warming 7 Civil liberties

[edit] Discussion at another article named "Political views of ......"

• It appears that a number of the United States presidential candidate biographies or presidential campaign pages on Wikipedia have an associated "Political views of ____" article.
• There is a discussion of the merits of changing the name of Political views of Mitt Romney to Political positions of Mitt Romney, or, depending on how the conversation develops, some other name.
• In case you're interested, go to Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney#Requested move.
  
• The conversation there might influence other "Political views" articles.

-- Yellowdesk 06:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed over at Political positions of Barack Obama that all outside opinion and criticism has been removed, the justification being that the article is about Obama's positions, not about other people's views of them. I would like to apply this same standard to all of these political view/position articles. I notice that there is some criticism by Bloomberg that would probably have to come out under this scenario. I think it is important that we treat all of the articles in this category to the same standard. - Crockspot 20:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Obama choice doesn't hold for all. Political positions of Mitt Romney has a lot of critical analysis, for example. It tends to depend upon whether the dominant editors for a particular article are pro- or anti- that political figure. Here in the Giuliani articles, they are very, very anti-. Wasted Time R 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gun rights

The Gun industry lawsuit was *NOT* about holding manufacturers responsible if their products were used in a crime. It was about much, much more than that. The Mayor argued that gun companies were breaking the law simply because they manufactured a lot of firearms. Thus, these excess firearms ended up breaking NYC's tight gun control laws. The press release says: The suit alleges a number of illegal practices conducted by the gun industry, including:

• Deliberately manufacturing many more firearms than can be bought for legitimate purposes such as hunting and law enforcement, and knowingly targeting these excess guns to criminals, youths and other persons unqualified to buy firearms;

• Deliberately undermining New York City's gun control laws by flooding markets with looser gun laws with firearms that the manufacturers know are destined to be illegally resold in New York City;

• Ignoring the illegal practices of gun distributors, many of whom openly engage in the above practices;

• Refusing to manufacture safer guns, with such features as trigger locks and "personalization" measures that allow only authorized persons to fire the weapon.

The reference is http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2000a/pr238-00.html. Jmegill 06:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the last line about Ron Paul's grade from GOA be in the gun control section? Jmegill 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have citations other than the NYC page for this? What were the findings on these counts?--Gloriamarie 22:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Mayor Giuliani's lawsuit vs. gun manufaturers

Here is a reference from the New York Times, June 20, 2000: "Giuliani Joins the War on Handgun Manufacturers" [1] Dogru144 05:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giuliani's position on government spending is entirely about stadiums...?

That's what it looks like currently. I think this section could be significantly trimmed as it does little to reveal Giuliani's positions on government spending, particularly beyond a citywide level. So, I would like to trim it, but I thought I'd mention it here first. Organ123 02:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it shows that he is willing to spend large amounts of taxpayer money, even in a deficit situation, for certain causes.--Gloriamarie 06:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Facts about a politician's past actions while working as an elected official are common in background information. I don't think it should be trimmed too much. Sukiari 23:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Habeas Corpus

The sited documentation for this section [2] doesn't contain any information about Habeas Corpus, or Guiliani's opinions on it. In fact the article doesn't even contain the term Habeas Corpus. I would recommend another reference, or that the section be removed. Bunchofcrooks 19:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Board of Education

He said :

... in April 1999 that he would like to "blow up" the [then] Board of Education.

This edit first included a reference to the Columbine Massacre's happening three days prior to this quote. Why was this reference removed? I have restored it. Dogru144 13:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was two day after. Dogru144 13:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP address editors (e.g., User:68.77.155.195) persist in removing the observation that the call for blowing up the Board of Education was two days after Columbine massacre. Dogru144 04:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither of your two cites gives a date for when Giuliani's statement was made; one just says that it was "recent", which is vague. You also need to give a fuller context for the quote, not just two words. You should also include Giuliani's explanation that the "blow up" phrase was one that Robert F. Wagner Jr., a former president of the Board of Education, had also used. Wasted Time R 10:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

While you are right that the cites do not give a specific date, we can conclude that it was made immediately after. I don't mean to be snippy, but statements usually immediate go to press. Speaking of the pre-Internet era, if the statement was made on X date, the item would appear in the newspaper editions, X + 1 date. Theoretically, one can fact-check this by going to the New York Public Library and looking at the hard copy. What is the cite for Robert Wagner, Jr.'s making the statement? Dogru144 15:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This observation violates the rule against original research because the argument is a synthesis of information not connected by an outside source. Neither article mentions Columbine at all. This is an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and constitutes original research. Unless you cite an article that connects Giuliani's comment with Columbine, any such connection stays out.-Fagles 20:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, union president Randi Weingarten took offence at the comment.Dogru144 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles you have cited mention neither Randi Weingarten nor Columbine. You are invited to restore the section once you find a citation to an article connecting Giuliani's comment and Columbine. If Randi Weingarten made that connection, an article quoting him would work.-Fagles 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your primary cite for this is http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E1DC153DF93BA15757C0A96F958260, which is dated April 28, but it's an assessment/analysis piece, not an immediate reporting piece, so "recent" remains vague. And this is the article that contains the Wagner reference by Giuliani (whether Wagner actually used that phrase or not, I don't know). Your second cite for this is a later National Review piece which gives no clue as to dates. Wasted Time R 15:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

"Giuliani believes the planet is indeed warming up." Could this be expanded by someone? Almost everyone believes the planet is warming up.. that's not the major debate. The debate is to what degree if any the warming is caused by humans and what the impact will be. Morphh ^(talk) 19:30, 05 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil liberties

Although those who sympathize with Giuliani's positions on interrogation and surveillance issues might see them as properly organized under "foreign policy," those who oppose them might be more likely to organize them in a "civil liberties" section. Could there be a neutral way of including both perspectives organizationally? 75.173.24.7 16:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It should most defiantly be moved from foreign policy because it isn't foreign policy, it is domestic policy. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)