Talk:Rudy Giuliani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rudy Giuliani article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
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.)
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Flag of New York City
NYC Portal

This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. August 17 2006 12:10pm. WikiCheck 12:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Archives: 1 2 3

*** PLEASE PUT NEW SECTIONS AT THE BOTTOM ***

Contents

[edit] Fresh eyes

I tried to read the article for the first time today, and it just seemed clogged with details not notable enough to be on Mr. Giuliani's page. So, I spent a couple of hours and trimmed out a number of paragraphs that seemed less relevant to Mr. Giuliani, and it was mostly additional information about other people that I removed. I also chopped a couple of pre-1990 details that seem less salient. I'm sure I cut out a few sacred cows, but I think the article really needs trimming to be more useful to the majority of readers. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Pro crast in a tor 07:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a number of my cows are gone. I and some others spent a fair effort trying to convey how Giuliani fit into the tangle of New York politics; in order to understand that subject, you have to get into detail and discuss other people at times. And why things that happened before 1990 are unimportant is a mystery to me; recentism is a good thing? Oh well, no matter. That's the Wikipedia way; there's a reason I picked my username. For the record, [1] is the article before this purge; future editors can retrieve material from there without having to rewrite it from scratch. Wasted Time R 12:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Many of the chopped details are already on subpages or other people's pages, so it's not like they're gone, they're just not on the main Giuliani page. Trying to fit everything on one page does a disservice to readers, as it turns it into a book rather than a WP:BLP. Other chopped details had been cited as needing facts for multiple months. I think the only pre-1990 section I removed was about Marc Rich and Pincus Green, which seemed like they jumped to notability because of Mr. Clinton's 2001 pardon, rather than having been notable at the time. My judgment may be sketchy on this one because I was just starting to read the paper in 1984, so please restore the section if you think it's appropriate. Giuliani's life from 1983 to 1989 is not skimpy and still has 8 paragraphs in it, though, and it doesn't seem like we're skipping over his rise to fame. Perhaps this calls for a subpage, "Public prosecutions of Rudy Giuliani", for the Marc Rich, Pincus Green, and details of the five families trials? Pro crast in a tor 19:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to take one example, you excised two things from the section on the 1997 mayoral campaign: the Messinger-Sharpton contested primary, which rendered the Dems even weaker than they were going to be and helps explain Giuliani's victory margin, and his remarkable acceptance speech quote about trying to be less divisive in his second term, which was much commented upon at the time. These bits are not in the Messinger or Sharpton articles, and there is no dedicated article to the 1997 mayoral race (as there is, for example, for the New York City mayoral election, 2005). So in fact, these details are indeed now down the Wikipedia memory hole. Wasted Time R 19:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a subpage is called for on the 1997 mayoral race, too. The contested primary doesn't explain why he won, just by how much he won, which is why it didn't seem notable enough given the length of the article already. The acceptance speech quote, though nice, seems like pure puff to me: it has little to do with what he's done, rather, it addresses what he says he'll do in the future, which has already happened. Pro crast in a tor 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Page on the 1997 mayoral race now created. Wasted Time R 03:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Good call on most of your deletions. The only thing that I think should be put back is the fact that he believed that the city couldn't survive without him as mayor. As a New Yorker, I can assure you that it was truly significant, because it seemed to many New Yorkers that he had lost his marbles. (I know it's covered in Controversies of Rudy Giuliani, but I think it's important enough to be included here as well.)
Wasted Time R, I don't agree that the acceptance speech was "remarkable". It seemed like a typical acceptance speech, with the added twist that he had alienated practically every Black and Latino voter in the city. "Hey Blacks and Latinos, I know I won despite the fact that only white people voted for me, but I'm going to reach out to you anyway". Gee, that's very white of you. His behavior over the next four years proved that it was nothing but hot air, but that's all we thought it was in the first place. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It seemed like another episode of "lots of talk, but nothing happened", like the section how he said he wouldn't run for public office in 2005, everyone expected him not to run, and then he actually didn't run, which I certainly didn't find notable. I was glued to the news around then, and remember a few comments about the sought-after extension, but it was drowned out by all the other post-9/11 news. I also left NYC in '99, so I wasn't paying as much attention to local NYC politics. I could see perhaps 1-2 paragraphs instead of the original 3, but given all the other coverage between 09-2001 and 01-2002, I could also see still leaving it out. Personally, I think WTC location, FD/PD radio frequency issue, and the air quality controversy are more noteworthy, as they are all garnering coverage to this day, unlike the extension issue which pretty much died in 2002. Pro crast in a tor 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More consolidation

I still think the article needs more condensing, to make room for other quite notable issues that are currently being omitted (like the WTC location controversy). Any thoughts about merging the "Time person of the year" section into the "America's mayor" section? Both paragraphs have very similar purposes. Pro crast in a tor 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping "Controversies" section on a separate page

Strongly Oppose. I'm absolutely appalled by the separate "controversies" section and page, which look like an out and out "POV fork". Reading this article, under the September 11th section we see all this blather about "America's Mayor", then you have to go to a subsection of a different article expounding "controversies" to see how he made the no-bid contract for the walkie-talkies that failed in 1993 and left the firemen to die and the part where he lies about his decision to put the command center in the location where its diesel fuel contributed to the fire. I think that these things are his most important contribution to the September 11th attacks and belong right there under the main September 11th section header. Mike Serfas 20:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The man has been nothing but controversial. If we are going to break something out of this article, why not his personal life? Haiduc 22:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and restored the September 11th section to a form I find more appropriate. As it is now it completely duplicates the Rudy Giuliani during the September 11 attacks article, which should be deleted. I should add that I do agree that some of the content in the Controversies article had the character of a diatribe, and I chopped down many of the things I brought back to keep closer to the facts at hand. I think that one of the many problems with a Controversies section/article is that it gives editors a sense of license - that to present a point of view is actually the purpose of the section. Also I should say that there is still quite a bit missing from this article, especially about the events of September 11 itself. I'd like to see something about the decision to close escape routes from New York, and the process by which gold was recovered from the site, for example.
If the article is too long (and I can't say I helped with that at all), I think that it should be split into Personal and Politics articles: the one covering his childhood, work as a prosecutor, private firms, divorces, etc. and the other dealing with mayoralty and presidential campaign. If need be those last two can be split from one another at January 1 2002, though I wince to think of it (too much dispute about where to put events that occurred before 2002 and were reported afterward) Mike Serfas 23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ask Jimbo. The Hillary Rodham Clinton editors had a long debate, and dismantled an existing separate controversies page, deciding it was a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. Moreover the material was not stuck into a controversies section of the main article, but rather was disbursed to appropriate mainline sections of the main article and various subarticles. In other words, controversies were integrated into the main history material. I was part of that effort, and believe it to be correct, but it sure would help to have an explicit ruling on this from the Higher Powers. Currently, of the seven major candidates running for president, about half have controversies pages and half don't. That's not good. Wasted Time R 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, when you click on the controversies link, it takes you stealthfully back to the Rudi Guiliani page--in otherwords, there is no real controversies page--someone has deleted all that and it needs to be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.103.195.132 (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on several recent requests and comments, and my stronger view than when I wrote the above that controversies sections are in violation of WP guidelines, I went ahead and dismantled the controversies page and disbursed and integrated its legitimate contents into the other Giuliani articles. See Talk:Controversies of Rudy Giuliani for the full story and the destinations of the former contents. [[Controversies of Rudy Giuliani]] itself now redirects to the main article, as you have discovered. Wasted Time R 02:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
There should at least be a brief summing concerning the controversies - including a link to the Giuliani-Controversies-Site. Everything else isn't truthful at all. - Oliver, Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.169.89.43 (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: this page, which is supposed to talk about Guliani's life, doesn't even have a LINK to a section discussing the controverial aspects of his past? How can this article be taken seriously. Let's call a spade a spade here folks and include a "Vote for Rudy" ad. Oh, and get ready to add some new parts to that missing section by the way.Cactalicious (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually read this article and its subarticles, then come back. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I came here specifically looking for the controversies in which Giuliani has had a role. I did not want to read about his entire history, or read a dozen articles. I specifically went looking for why people find him controversial. This is a perfectly valid topic to discuss, and at *least* merits a sub-section of this article which references other articles or sections. I am perfectly capable of parsing a controversy and deciding for myself whether it was acceptable or a witch-hunt. - BalthCat 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Given WP:BLP and other guidelines, this is not a service that Wikipedia seeks to provide. However, I am confident there are many other websites out there that are only to happy to supply what you seek. Wasted Time R 02:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It is not a "service" but a collation, by theme, of notable events in a person's public career. I do not wish to view "many other websites", or I would be there. I wish to view a list of controversies explained objectively. Do you suggest there are actually "many other websites" that describe his controversies objectively? Any time an article, or a biography section, becomes long, I find it sensible to collect particular aspects together, this is one theme, despite the sensitive nature, as far as I see it. I remain in disagreement. - BalthCat (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, my previous response was a bit flip. While we will have to agree to disagree on whether WP policy permits separate controversies pages, there is no doubt that having the ability to "collate by theme" subject matter would be a huge benefit, as you say. One of my great frustrations about WP is that it's all just raw text subject only to brute force text search; it lacks any semantic tagging or structure. Maybe someday something like Semantic Wikipedia will be in place and we can choose among multiple semantic perspectives on a subject, such as the one you want. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention that there used to be a "list" of Hillary Clinton controversies. However, it was deleted.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SAT scores

I don't think this material is notable:

He had an 85 average there, graduated 130th out of 378 students in his class, and received SAT scores of 569 verbal and 504 math.<ref> http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0028,barrett,16371,1.html</ref>

Ufwuct 17:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think GPA or where he graduated are appropriate, but this seems too detailed to me, too. Perhaps just "He was a B student, graduating in the top 1/3 of his class"? The SAT scores are almost useless since the scoring system has changed over the past 30 years. Pro crast in a tor 04:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Not meaningless. 569/504 are mediocre scores in any era of the SAT. Wasted Time R 05:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, meaningless, because he's not known for his academic achievements, nor has he (or anybody else) made any claims about them that need to be supported or refuted. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Those numerators are only useful if provided with the denominator. A 569/569 would be a perfect score, for someone who took the test thirty-odd years ago, what were the top possible scores?Steven (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Look Alikes

Has anyone else noticed that he has a resemblance to this cartoon character? --64.238.49.65 (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Show it to me

Due to his high profile and visibility Giuliani was supported by the state Republican Party, even though he had irritated many by endorsing incumbent Democrat Governor Mario Cuomo over Republican George Pataki in 1994.[53]

The National Review isn't really a reliable source. Unfairly discrediting him? He was supported only because of his high profile? This is not very encyclopedic. MD12752 04:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section: "Cleaning up" the city

Giuliani curtailed services to the indigent by setting a limit of 90 days for homeless individuals' stays in shelters, leading opponent Dinkins to accuse him of punishing the children of the homeless.[citation needed]

In an attempt to change the character of the Times Square area, his administration forced out businesses such as peep shows, game parlors and souvenir shops, filling it with more chain stores, including the MTV studios and a massive Virgin Megastore and theater. [citation needed]

In this section I see two sentences of unsourced statements containing weasel words and thinly veiled criticisms. Is this section needed? Clamster 02:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thinly veiled criticism permeates the whole article. Take it out and you won't have much left. Wasted Time R 02:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Height and other vital stats

Seem to be totally missing for this dude. How come? Zaphraud 05:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giuliani and LGBT unions

Wait a minute. Rudy Giuliani does support any other union for gay people except the marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.138.228 (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crime data

I'm examining the crime data found here[[2]] out of curiosity. The national data are available from the given source[[3]], but I can't seem find the individual city data. The FBI has years of crime data available, but they do not provide the city points, only the national ones. I'd presumably find the 1995 New York City statistics under "Crime in the Unites States" and Table VI, but a search for "New York City" in the 1995 PDF[[4]], for example, yields nothing. From what I can see, the individual city statistics in Table VI relate to the number of law enforcement personnel and not to crime rates. Can someone please explain where the city statistics are to be found?

Thanks. Aristotle1990 03:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the crime data chart is rather odd. Comparing NYC to the national level, it clearly shows that NYC had a drastically greater reduction in crime than the national average, which suports Rudy's contention. The fact that it also cherrypicks two other cities, Newark and LA, which had a significant drop as well, means nothing. Couldn't the mayors of those two cities also have improved the crime problem at the same time? Surely Giuliani hasn't claimed to be the ONLY crime-reducing mayor, has he? And, if you look at the chart showing pretty dramatic crime reduction in NYC, Newark, and LA, only to show a rather tiny drop in crime on a national level, that means that some major cities must have been getting worse from 1994-2002, by definition. Would it really be NPOV if I created a graphic comparing NYC crime rate with major cities that got WORSE from that time period? Just sayin. JK (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crime Data and National Trends

It is well known among statisticians that all major cities saw a reduction in violent crime as shown in the graph. The reason (which police departments will argue is not true) is the effect of legalizing abortion; there simply were less potential criminals.

You can obtain any crime statistics you need by writing to the FBI to request it. The FBI will then send you the paper reports. Too bad the FBI doesn't send out a PDF but they probably don't want this information being passed around easily.

Also see http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ for summary information by State and Local Agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.80.244 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guiliani's "Knighthood"

In 2001 Time magazine named him "Person of the Year"[2] and he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II .[3]

Guiliani received an honorary knighthood, and the Star of the Knight Commander medal, but it's misleading to simply say that he was knighted. He did not kneel before the Queen for the traditional touching of the sword on each shoulder; that is a protocol reserved for British subjects who receive full knighthood.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but to say someone was knighted when they actually received an honorary knighthood would be akin to saying that an individual is an alumnus of a university that awarded him an honorary doctorate. Westwood67 21:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that holders of foreign titles of nobility are forbidden by the Constitution from holding federal officers (such as the Presidency)...I have to ask, is an honorary knighthood legally considered a title of nobility? 76.123.216.96 (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's Incorrect. Article One of the United States Constitution, Section 9, Clause 8, clearly states:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Congress merely has to give its consent, for someone, like Giuliani, to receive a Knighthood from a foreign nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGrupp10799 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani, KBE is the way the page should be written. According to Wikipedia's own page on Order of the British Empire

Knights and Dames Grand Cross and Knights and Dames Commander who are not subjects of the Queen (i.e., not citizens of the United Kingdom or another country ruled by the Queen) are not entitled to the prefix "Sir" or "Dame", but may still use the post-nominal abbreviations.
Ergo it is indeed proper to place the KBE post-nominal after his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGrupp10799 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Negative Tone

I read the laudatory Mitt Romney page and then this one. This one looks like a thinly disguised hatchet job to me.

Everything he accomplished--busting up the mob, reducing crime, cutting taxes, inspiring leadership after 9/11 is listed, then followed by a whole paragraph of criticism of his behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.146.244 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct. The Giuliani articles have been dominated by Giuliani-haters for some time now. Wasted Time R 04:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Everybody's free to edit. Add what you think is appropriate and delete what you think is unnecessary, but keep in mind that Wikipedia articles should be neither "laudatory" nor "hatchet jobs". — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Ancestry

Does anyone know where in Italy Giuliani's family comes from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.173.8 (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Genoa is referenced in one speech he gave.(no link, memory) Both side came from Italy, though. I also think he has some southern Italian, too. Jmegill 01:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a few challenges to the article's neutrality

I would like to respectfully point out a few items in the Guiliani article that betray the fact that the writer(s) don't like him. It's a free country and that is their personal right, but I'd like to see Wikipedia maintain a level of detached neutrality and remain as apolitical as possible. Mayoralty/Law Enforcement section--the article asserts that one of the reasons crime fell during his tenure as mayor was overall improvement in the economy--this is the old "poverty causes crime" axiom that is a faith tenet of religious leftism--there is no empirical evidence to support it--per capita crime is much higher now, in far better economic times, than during the depression. The assertion by the writer cannot be factually based, or the writer needs to cite a source to prove it. 9/11 attacks/public reaction--the article states that the mayor "profited" from the "tragedy" by making money from speaking engagements. The same charge, then, could be leveled against everyone in history who ever became known for their leadership during a crisis. Oprah's ratings no doubt went up while she was discussing the attacks, so it could also be said she profited from tragedy. Anyone who ever published a memoir about their leadership during war profited from the "tragedy" of war. What the writer is really saying is "I hate Rudy," & that's fine, but let's keep this thing neutral. Political positions--the article suggests that Guiliani has flip-flopped on partial-birth abortion by recently approving the Sup.Ct ruling--all this ruling in fact established is that the issue is subject to vote, as opposed to the left's position that that type of abortion should be mandated to be legal everywhere, regardless if 51, 70, or 99% of the public votes that it should be illegal-hence there is no contradiction, though the writer clearly wishes to see one. Ernhope 19:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Wasted Time R 03:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia really should indicate that the neutrality of this article is disputed. I would not be surprised if Romney and Clinton campaign staffers have had much to do with the editing of this article. It seems to me that more than 60% of the discussion of his political career is extremely biased against Giuliani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.38.162 (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Giuliani articles have had problems with skewed, anti-Giuliani editors, but I don't think they come from other campaigns, rather they are from the Village Voice/Wayne Barrett school of Giuliani hating. Wasted Time R 13:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's not overlook the school of Giuliani whitewashing -- the editors who, for example, sanitized the article of any mention of the Louima/Diallo/Dorismund cases or of the legal troubles of Giuliani appointees. The simple fact is that articles of prominent candidates are constant battlegrounds. So it was in 2004, so it shall be again this year. JamesMLane t c 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Indeed, Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 currently seems to have some sanitizing forces at play. Wasted Time R 14:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An error in the article

The author states that

"[Rudy's daughter] Caroline apparently linked her personal Facebook page to the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama."

(Emphasis is mine.)

That is not, in fact, true. The author cites Slate.com as the source. However, Slate has an accompanying picture of Caroline's Facebook page. This picture clearly shows that the site she linked to was a message board/Facebook group called "One Million Strong for Obama". She did NOT link to the Obama campaign.

Here is the site of the picture.

http://www.slate.com/id/2171738/

192.216.142.51 (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Elliot

I changed it to "... to a page related to the campaign of ...", which should cover both cases. Wasted Time R 12:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where I'm supposed to point this out but anyway, in the "Aftermath" section, there is a sentence "negligently dumped body parts and other human remains in the Fresh Kills Landfill". Are there other human remains that are not body parts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.218.226 (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rudy in DRAG with TRUMP!

Why is there no mention about this? Are you trying to supress minorities with this virulent discrimination? -Lapinmies 12:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Drag_appearances. A nice description of each of his drag appearances, including an image of the one with Trump that you so much want to see. Wasted Time R 13:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Positions

The positions section is lousy. All it mentions are his positions on social issues. I'm quite certain there are statements by giuliani to list positions on energy policy, taxes, immigration, war on terror, etc. I would add an energy policy section with a reference, but of course the page is protected. I believe the position section to be the most important section for each candidate and should be fully updated for each candidate. Anyhow - if someone cares to use it - my reference is a permalink on CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/22028499

On Energy policy, Giuliani believes we should do everything possible, "that means clean coal, carbon sequestration, that means nuclear power, it means hybrid vehicles, it means wind, solar and hydroelectric. It means more refineries, it means more domestic oil, it means ANWR, it means natural gas, liquid natural gas." Giuliani favors increased use of Nuclear power by streamlining the process to build new plants. He believes that we need to use tax credits to help the coal industry.

Giuliani also does not favor reducing the capital gains tax even though speculators routinely get away with paying a 15% tax on millions of dollars of income, because he sees increased competition from London and Tokyo threatening New York's status as financial capital of the world.

Rudy Guliani, also believes that the corporate income tax should be lowered as it is now higher than most other Western Economies.

Giuliani does not favor tariffs, and is generally a free trader.

See, and edit if desired, Political positions of Rudy Giuliani. Wasted Time R 18:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The Political Positions section was still lousy, so I cleaned it up. It also seemed NPOV to choose abortion and gay rights as the only two issues to mention on this page, so I removed them. They are covered on the Political_positions_of_Rudy_Giuliani page.Paisan30 (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, the history of his party affiliation switches didn't belong here either; it's basic biographical info that intertwines with his job history of the time, so I moved it into the appropriate mainline sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling Errors

It is correctly spelled as 'Giuliani'

Personal Life > Religion > 2nd Sentence (Guiliani)
September 11 > Aftermath > 2 Par > 1st Sentence (Giuiliani)
Mayoral Campaigns > 1989 Defeat > 3rd Par > Last Sentence (Giulani)

I would change them if I could, but I can't. --Chipmunker (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the "risk" at the end of his 2008 election strategy that should be "risky" to read properly. [08:50, 5 January 2008 207.118.118.88]

No, "at risk" is correct; you're thinking of "as risky". Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign add

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)

Campaign article, if anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media Coverage

Rudy Giuliani was featured in a Reader's Digest article this past December. I'd like to propose that a link to this article be added under the "Media Coverage" heading of the External Links section.

http://www.rd.com/content/the-contenders-2008--rudy-giuliani/

What are everyone's thoughts?

TraceyLynn (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The External links section is already too large and out of compliance with WP:EL, and most or all of that "Media coverage" subsection should be removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly biased statement

"Giuliani was praised by some for his close involvement with the rescue and recovery efforts, but others, including some firefighters, police, rescue workers, and families of WTC victims argue that "Giuliani has exaggerated the role he played after the terrorist attacks, casting himself as a hero for political gain."[115] Giuliani has also profited personally from the tragedy, collecting $11.4 million from speaking fees in a single year."

I don't think this is well worded. To me it sounds unnecessarily accusatory, to say that Giuliani personally profited from the tragedy. He didn't profit from the tragedy- he profited from giving speeches. Whether or not those speeches even have some kind of link to 9/11 isn't relevant. If he is giving speeches, he's going to talk about 9/11 because it's what people want to hear.

There seems to be a lot of anti-Giuliani toned stuff in this article. It has a bad gist. Let me know if I can help. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about the tone of the article. It used to be the subject of heavy edit wars and a nexus of anti-Giuliani editors. But now that his presidential campaign has spectacularly fizzled out, nobody pays this article much attention. Go ahead and make changes as you see fit. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a simple factual statement, albeit one worded a bit inappropriately. It is hard to argue that Rudy hasn't profited tremendously both politically and financially from his high media exposure following the attack. We'll see how his earning power does following his humiliation and withdrawal from the 2008 race in a couple of weeks.Veritas23 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This is kind of like saying FDR profited politically from the Great Depression and World War II. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Not at all...FDR saved the country from the Great Depression, maneuvered us into WWII, won that war and put the US into the position of global top dog for the next fifty years...and accrued no personal benefit from his genuine leadership while alive....only the gratitude of the nation following his all too early death. Rudy merely temporarily deviated from the nasty and divisive behavior for which we knew him well and acted human for a few weeks while the media of the world focused on him intensely. Since the attack he has tried to sell himself to a country not previously familiar with him - selling himself almost entirely on claims that he 1) "cleaned up NY" and 2) did something undefinable but unbelievably heroic during the attack. I would argue that the former claim is demonstrably spurious, but certainly it is a claim on which reasonable people can disagree. The latter claim however, is simply fantastic - as ludicrous as it is deliberately vague and aggressively promoted by Rudy. Had New York City not been attack in September of 2001 Rudy would have left office with opinion polls running 2-1 against him and would never had acquired the wealth or (now squandered) political capital he did. However, in the end, once America got to know the Rudy Giuliani we here in New York knew all too well, the myth was shown for what it was... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas23 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, Chopin-Ate-Liszt!, now you can see the mindset of the main editors of this article. My point about FDR was that had he lived slightly earlier and been elected president in 1920 not 1932, it's highly unlikely that he would be considered one of the greatest presidents (as there would have been nothing severe enough to test him) and certain that he wouldn't have gotten third and fourth terms. Both his power at the time, and his reputation since, benefited from his being historically coincident with tragedy and suffering. That's the way it goes. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point, but you cannot deny that Giuliani profited financially from his public persona in response to the 9/11 attacks. His speaking tour(s) netted him millions. FDR certainly didn't profit personally, financially, from the Great Depression. It's appropriate to note the financial profit that Giuliani realized as a result of the tragedy, but the fact needs to be worded carefully in order not to make him out to be a profiteer from the terrorist act.--HughGRex (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading sentence

I find the first sentence in the "Run for United States Senate, 2000" section to be misleading due to the dates. It states: "Due to term limits Giuliani could not run for a third term as Mayor" and the next sentence begins with "In November 1998..." - that confused me, because I immediately thought it implied that his term was up in November 1998. And what about 2000? Was his term up in 2000? - that's when the senate race was. The next section is about the 9/11 attacks, which occurred during his mayoral tenure. Does anyone see where I'm coming from? The sentence is misleading and confusing to say the least, and I feel it either needds to be rephrased or removed entirely. Happyme22 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify it, see what you think. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Much better. Thanks. Happyme22 (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please edit the first paragraph

It still says that Rudy is seeking nomination for 2008 Presidential election —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.221.158 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Alanraywiki (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1101011231 400.jpg

Image:1101011231 400.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I added fair use rationale for this article. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An addition of a navigation box to subarticles, directly below infoboxes

Readers looking for articles about Rudy's mayorality, etc., are likely to come first to the main article. In the interest of facilitating users navigation between the main article and the campaign and positions subarticles I've improved WP by adding a nav box directly under the infobox. --Justmeherenow (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Current components of the Giuliani biographical series are

  • Mayor of New York City · 2008 presidential campaign - chronological items
  • Political positions - dealing with works and legacy

Any we ought delete? --Justmeherenow (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"America's Mayor" is improperly linked to Rudy Guiliani's page. This is not an honor created for and given exclusively to him. Others have been dubbed 'America's Mayor' and Guiliani's over-exaggerated contributions after 9/11 don't justify a permanent designation as such. lms101912.173.234.163 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Equal treatment in candidate biography articles

It looks like Noroton has identified a number of examples of inappropriate POV/Soapboxing in articles about other people. Some of them really are quite egregious. He would do Wikipedia a great service to remove (or at least heavily trim) those digressions into third persons that partisans put into other politician articles. If Noroton does not get to it, I might make an effort myself to clean some of that up (obviously though, as we've seen here, cleaning up to encyclopedic standards can often meet great resistance from anti-Bio-Subject partisans). Unfortunately, I can't personally improve millions of articles at once, probably not even dozens where the subjects are living persons of high general interst. LotLE×talk 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC) -- From the Talk:Barack Obama page (diff)

One useful way of checking the neutrality of an article is looking at how similar articles are edited. Right now there's a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama (in fact, it's a long, ongoing debate taking up most of the page, but the active section right now is at the Attempt to build consensus on the details section. I looked through this McCain article and the ones on Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani to see how negative information was treated in each, particularly how much information was presented about people associated with the candidate. The debate over on the Obama page is about whether to include any information on people associated with him (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, specifically) and if so, how much information to include about each. My own opinion is that, since there are articles about each of these people and their relationship to the election, we can have a very small amount on each, but we should have just enough so that the reader immediately knows why the person has become controversial in the election. For Bill Ayers, for instance, people should know that he's controversial because he's said to be unrepentant about violence with the Weather Underground. Other opinions are that this description unnecessarily lengthens the article or has nothing to do with Obama or that it's an opinion, not a fact, that he's unrepentant. It would be useful if people interested in this page would participate in the discussion there, because, as the quote I've put at the top of this section shows, editors there may be coming here to make changes.

Here's what I found in looking into negative information in three similar articles, particularly as it relates to people associated with the candidate who have become controversial. I'm re-posting it here for the information of editors who are unlikely to see it at Talk:Barack Obama. Any comments about this comparison as it relates to this article would be useful on this page, of course, and any comments on how the Obama article should treat information on associates would best be posted on that page. Please keep in mind that whatever happens in that discussion may well affect this page, with a good number of editors willing to form a consensus that might force changes here. A centralized discussion on the common points may be best on that page, where it's already started:

  • Hilary Rodham Clinton — numerous mentions of various people that put Clinton in a negative light. Regarding people associated in some way with Clinton:
    • The Presidential campaign of 2008 section has three sentences on Norman Hsu, who was certainly less close to Clinton than the Rev. Wright has been to Obama.
    • The same section has several sentences on comments by another Clinton associate who puts the candidate in a bad light: Bill Clinton's controversial comments about race and the campaign. Surely that is worth keeping in the article on Hilary Clinton.
    • The same section has two sentences on Geraldine Ferraro's comments that put the Clinton campaign, and by extension, Hilary Clinton, in a bad light in the eyes of some.
    • Regarding other negative information on Clinton (usually full paragraphs on each thing mentioned), there is the cattle futures contract (in two different places in the article), conflict-of-interest charges in Arkansas regarding the Rose Law Firm; controversy involving her term on the Wal-Mart board of directors; the controversy/investigation on missing legal papers in her East Wing White House office regarding the Whitewater controversy; and Clinton's sniper-fire gaffe during the campaign (a sentence).
  • John McCain:
    • Information on Richard Keating (footnotes 84-87; John McCain#House and Senate career, 1982–2000 section: Amount of space: two paragraphs
    • ADDED POINT: The article does not mention the Rev. John C. Hagee whose controversial remarks about Catholics and about the Holocaust caused McCain to disassociated himself from the minister. The article also does not mention McCain's ties to a lobbyist that some suspected was having an affair with him. (Personally, I think the Hagee stuff belongs in that article, in a sentence or two, and a link to the lobbyist controversy article should also be there, but it's a point in favor of the exclusionist side in this discussion that those two people are not mentioned in the article.)
  • Rudy Giuliani:
    • Rudy Giuliani#Early life and education: This section opens by telling the reader his father "had trouble holding a job and had been convicted of felony assault and robbery and served time in Sing Sing" and worked as a Mafia enforcer for his brother-in-law who "ran an organized crime operation involved in loan sharking and gambling at a restaurant in Brooklyn." Mind you, this last quote is about Giuliani's uncle.
    • The Mayoral campaigns, 1989, 1993, 1997 section has a subsection called "Appointees as defendants" consisting of a paragraph each on scandals/controversies involving Russell Harding and Bernard Kerik, and the Kerik paragraph is preceded by: "Main article: Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik" Kerik is mentioned in at least two other places in the article. "Post-mayorality" section is one ("Politics" subsection), and the "Family" section, where the last paragraph is a sentence stating that Giuliani is godfather to Kerik's children.
    • Other negative information on Giuliani includes part of the Legal career section, which opens with details his draft deferment in a paragraph; another paragraph is devoted to criticism of his setting up public perp-walks for arrested Wall Street bigwigs and then eventually dropping prosecutions of them. That paragraph is larger than Giuliani's leading the prosecution in one of the biggest Mafia trials in history (perhaps the most important).

Presidential candidates are big boys (and a big girl), and they get tough treatment in the media because they are trying to get a very powerful, very important job. We don't overprotect them on Wikipedia just as the U.S. media and international media don't protect them. The exclusionist side of this discussion appears to want far higher standards for inclusion of information about Obama than we have for Hilary Clinton, John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani. This goes against both Wikipedia practice and policy & guidelines. Noroton (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)