Talk:Rudy Giuliani

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

Intro

On 5/26, I changed some of the intro to give Giuliani more credit for what he had accomplished prior to 9/11. To paraphrase what Jimbo Wales says below under "Drop in crime rate," "I do not know Giuliani, and I don't know if I would like him if I met him, but I like the results of his policies." And "To be clear on where I'm coming from," I was born and raised in NYC, and my parents still live there, but prior to about 1996, I just couldn't take the city. Under Giuliani, it became livable in that he brought order to a city that was out of control. He worked a miracle, helped by the rising stock market which brought in a lot of money for public services. And, if you look back at his first inaugural address, he did pretty much exactly what he said he wanted to do. I respect that.

Drop in crime rate

To be clear on where I'm coming from: I do not like Rudy Giuliani, and I do not like his policing policies. Having said that, I still think that this article may be unfair to him. I do not have the statistics at my fingertips, but I am very much under the impression that the crime rate in NYC fell much more under Giuliani than did national rates -- so that his taking credit for reducing crime may not be as unwarranted as the article indicates.

I would personally say (remember, I don't like him) that reducing crime is not difficult, if you don't mind running roughshod over rights while doing it. The problem is not that Guiliani didn't reduce crime -- the problem is that his methods were often too heavy handed and are not consistent with American values of freedom and limited government. As the old saying goes: Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Does anyone have the stats for the nation as a whole, versus Giuliani's New York?

--Jimbo Wales

---

Okay, some quick googling. Figures attributed to the FBI have the national rate of violent crime falling, pretty steadily, from about 750 per 100,000 (it's a picture) in 1991 to 524.7 per 100,000 in 1999 (see http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=crime&list=1). Similarly from the National Center for Policy Analysis, a paper published in 1997: http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s209/s209.html states that "Every category of violent crime has decreased since 1993."

The point various New Yorkers, including some newspaper columnists, have made is that they didn't have to ride roughshod over our rights: Boston got equally good results without doing so. (And Mussolini didn't make the trains run on time.)

(Very tangentially, it'll be interesting to see how they massage the figures for 2001: on the one hand, the WTC deaths weren't the result of anything done locally, but on the other they undeniably were murders committed in New York City.) --Vicki Rosenzweig

Crime has already increased in NYC since 9/11. The official explanation is that the continued police presence at "ground zero" and the large number of police monitoring traffic in and out of Manhattan is the reason that crime has increased. There is actually some validity to this, as I see it. --RoseParks

Google for "Rudolph Giuliani": 76,700, for "Rudy Giuliani" 52,400. Which is the best form? --G

• I'm not sure how long ago or under what circumstances 'G' did his search, but I got:
  • "Rudy Giuliani" 256,000
  • "Rudolph Giuliani" 198,000

Definitely stick with Rudy.--Pharos 08:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The page as of 7-11-03 is very biased againist Guiliani and certainly does not represent NPOV. The man is probably one most admired mayors in New York history, even before his handling of the 9/11 tragedy. Whoever wrote the meat of the article certainly has a strong dislike for the man that they didn't try to hide.

do the criminology somewhere else. This article is about Rudi and NOT about various demographic theories of crime in 1990s. Rjensen 06:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The graphic is extremely problematic. The graphic omits the fact that crime rate had been steadily rising for a half century prior to the beginning date of its data.

Not to mention, when we see that there was a nationwide decline overall on the same graph--how much of that nationwide decline was taking place in NYC, where 3% of the US population halved its crime rate? NYC itself was a heck of a downward weight on the rate of crime nationwide, and to include it within the nationwide figure is to fail to properly isolate NYC in the imagery, and to short-change NYC's crime decline relative to national. DBaba 06:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Giuliani's police policy

It would be worth adding a paragraph w/more detail about the CompStat and "zero-tolerance" aspects of Giulani's approach, as they have been influential and widely imitated.

Rosario

I don't think the information about Rosario belongs on this page. I do see that it is related, so I lined to it under "See also." I'm also having a hard time substantiating the claims. Are there articles in NYT I can look to? I have access to all listings and am willing to go look them up. Just tell me the page number. I'm asking not because i don't believe it is true, but I'm not sure this is the right place to post information that is novel and not well agreed upon (that's not what an encyclopedia is). Pdbailey 23:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Backpedaling

I removed,

" - Although he later said he was trying to make the point that it was John Kerry blaming the troops."

writen after,

In response to the lost explosives in the Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy "No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there"

There is no way to reconcile this obvious back-pedal after negative press reaction. Pdbailey 16:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why would you remove that? It's fair to provide context to the reader of the article and let him or her arrive at his or her own decision. I'm adding it. RNJBOND

I removed it for the reasons I stated. It is pure mud slinging that he later commited (saying something and then saying that someone else said it!). The quote is what is important. I'm changing it. please discuss posts here first. Pdbailey 23:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're mixing up your opinion with the idea of offering context and facts. The current form is better, and it should be left at that. RNJBOND

He said something and then later said that someone else said it. It's just a lie, there is nothing else to it. I mean you could argue that if John Kerry had blamed the troops that that could be concieved of as blaming the President, but it doesn't work the other way around. The troops follow orders that the President is ultimately responsible for, not the other way around. That said, the present version is fine. Pdbailey 23:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

press coverage

removed

Although mayors dont usually get national attention or get considered for president, as Mayor of New York (a city with a larger population and larger budget than many states), he has.

I think the author 172.148.184.221 must not have realized that the mayor of NYC always gets loads of press coverage. He is, afterall, the most obvious politician in a city where every major TV network is headquartered as well as the home of the New York Times. Bloomberg also gets tons of national coverage. To a lesser extent, so does the mayors of Chicago and LA (think if you know the name of a mayor of Chicago... I'd be okay with some comment about how he, like others, got lots of press coverage but that is sort of a silly thing to write down. Pdbailey 00:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

View on issues/Platform

He promised New Yorkers that if he is elected as the mayor, he will crackdown on not non-fat yogurt liars.

I saw that one to. I think it was on WNYS.--Jerryseinfeld 00:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Knighthood

Should KBE be placed next to the name at the top of the article considering his honorary knighthood, even if Giuliani doesn't make much fuss about the title? It really is part of his full name, just like having MBE put after a name. --Harro5 08:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

...and shouldn't Sir Rudy Giuliani, KBE be given the same heading as Sir Rudolph Bing, KBE? --Wetman 03:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Pataki and Rudy running for Governor of New York in 2006

The correct spelling of the name of the current governor of New York state is "Pataki". See http://www.state.ny.us/governor/. Kelly Martin 18:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ratboy, who the hell is Alan Chartlock (and why should we care), and which political pundit is predicting Rudy will run for governor? They all predict he will not, so this is not an Alan Chartlock exclusive. patsw 14:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Patsw, they are respectively spelled "RattBoy" and "Chartock." The copy-&-paste function can be your friend! :-) (A glance at the link I provided shows that Alan Chartock is a political analyst of long standing with WAMC, the Albany affiliate of NPR Radio. Albany's a small town, but it is the state capital, and thus Chartock has some cred as a NY State pundit.)

I didn't claim that anyone was predicting that Rudy would run for governor. I inserted a counterpoint to that speculation (which was in the page prior to my edit), naming my source and providing a reference. Though I don't doubt that, as you wrote, "The consensus of political observers then was that Giuliani would not run against likely Democratic nominee Eliot Spitzer," the segment would be much better if some of the "political observers" were referenced. I'll begin with Dr. Chartock.

The first sentence of your revision says "Giuliani was often speculated that he would become a candidate for statewide office in 2006..." I'll assume you typoed, and therefore I'm fixin' to change it to "Giuliani has often speculated...," because it doesn't otherwise make syntactical sense.--RattBoy 23:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Wives

Can anyone expand on (add) the part about moving the mistress into the Governors mansion? I'm not trying to make a POV article or judgement here but that fiasco is totally left out. Politicians get off easy sometimes here on Wikipedia. JoeHenzi 00:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tautology

"entitling him to add the post-nominal KBE after his name."

I hesitate to just change this without providing a reason, as somebody will just change it back but, as 'post-nominal' means 'after name', this is tautalogical. I'd suggest just cutting it down to "entitling him to add the post-nominal KBE" unless anyone else has a problem with that? Mullet 21:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's also a bit beside the point. The honor is the knighthood, not the right to use the initials. The pertinent point is that he was made an honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire: the postnominal is an epiphenomenon of that honor. - F. X. Leyendecker 21:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

American politicians NEVER mention royal honors. It violates the spirit of the Constitution (though technically legal), so drop it. Rjensen 05:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Reproductive Rights"

Isn't this a stealth POV presentation on the right to abortion? "Reproductive rights" is a euphemism for abortion, isn't it? patsw 14:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No. Reproductive rights are about a persons right to control their reporoduction. It also carries less negative connotations. IreverentReverend 21:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What aspect of "reproductive rights" is controversial in the context of the opposition to Rudy's nomination as presidential candidate in 2008 other than abortion? It is a euphemism for abortion. patsw 00:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The term "reproductive rights" is used only by those who support abortion. Those who support abortion and those who are opposed to it use the word "abortion". The very use of the word "rights" implies that there is a right to abortion. Obviously the Wikipedia talk pages are not meant for discussion on whether or not there is such a right, but it is generally agreed that a lot of people do not think there is a right to abortion. The word "abortion" is therefore more neutral, as it can be used by people on both sides. Ann Heneghan 06:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

While "reproductive rights" encompasses other subjects like access to birth control, it is generally used by the pro-choice lobby in place of "abortion." This is because it sounds better, but mostly because this way they can say that a pro-life person is against "reproductive rights," and make it sound like they are against not only abortion, but also access to birth control pills, condoms, etc (even though this may not be the case). It's actually a very underhanded way to distort the perception of the uninitiated. Jrkarp 20:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Underhanded?" Hardly. Many of the politicians who are against abortion are also against access to birth control pills and condoms, and for the very same reasons. It is perfectly legitimate to include the two issues together, since for people on both sides they are shades of the same thing. --Chancemichaels 14:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

John Lindsay

I'd like to hear someone talk about Mayor Giuliani hiring John Lindsay as a $10,000 dollar a year consultant (with healthcare paid). It was a rather honorable thing to do, since Mayor Lindsay needed the healthcare badly.

Request input

I would like to see a full section or sub-section dedicated to Giuliani's behaviour on the day of 9/11, as this is what made him Man of the Year, KBE, etc. and most importantly the best-loved politician in America, preferably with a comparison between what he did and what was perceived (i.e. media coverage).

I would also like to see more than a succint paragraph on his family history, especially considering that his divorce and remarriage, on top of being unusual in U.S. politics, are believed by many to be an obstacle his seeking the Republican nomination for the presidency, since the Christian right would only back a wholesome family man.

LeoDV 05:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, it was two divorces. He was married and divorced before he met (and later married) Donna (Kofnovec) Hanover. patsw 01:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to Brooklyn Museum art exhibit

Accuracy: My anti-Giuliani source has it that Giuliani stopped payments to the Brooklyn Museum. [1] which is how I wrote it.

The article as written now:

[Giuliani] threatened to cut off city funding for the Brooklyn Museum, shut it down and replace its current board with one of his own choosing if the museum did not remove a number of works in an exhibit entitled Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection.

Questions on this:

• Where is it cited that he threatened to shut it down?
• Where it it cited that he threatened to replace the board with one of his choosing?
• What work other than Holy Virgin Mary was protested by the Mayor?
• What's the significance of the mention of the name of the exhibition "Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection." -- in this article? What does it tell us that leaving it out doesn't tell us?

Undo POV: (1) scare quotes don't belong around offensive. (2) The genitalia images came from pornography. Is it disputed that Holy Virgin Mary is composed with collaged cut-outs from pornography magazines around her? [2] This is critical to understanding why the mayor and others found the picture offensive. (3) The Hillary quote is restored. It speaks for itself regarding her position and it is superior to the redaction by Haiduc -- if her comment belongs in this article at all. patsw 21:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• On shutting it down: in a suit filed in New York State Supreme Court two days after the Museum filed its suit in this court, seeks to eject the Museum from the City-owned land and building in which the Museum’s collections have been housed for over one hundred years. [3]
• On the board: Michael D. Hess, the Corporation Counsel, said yesterday that ... The Mayor's intent, he said, is to gain leverage over the museum's board. Lacking any clear authority to remove the trustees himself, the Mayor hopes that the trustees will, if evicted, voluntarily agree to cede ownership of the art to the city rather than see it leave Brooklyn.[4]
• On the works:." The exhibit features mutilated pigs, a pornographic painting of the Virgin Mary splattered with real elephant dung, mannequins of perverted children with multiple genitals, and a glorified portrait of a child killer. Giuliani is right, "sick stuff." [5]
• On the name of the exhibition: No great need, it could be dropped.
• On the "scare quotes": They too could be dropped w.l.o.g.
• On the source of the genitals: That is prurient and irrelevant detail that seems inserted to slant the piece. A genital is a genital. If you needed a bunch of them quick and cheap for a montage, you would rech for the nearest copy of Pink Pussy, or whatever. But it has no bearing on the story. Can you see Giuliani backing down if the genitals were replaced with ones cut from $100 med school textbooks? The fuss was as much about the ding as about anything else.
• On the Hillary quote: The fact that Hill also saw fit to curtsy to the religious vote is not relevant here. It is simply a "she too" cover for Giuliani's deed. May fit in another piece on politicians' tactics.
• On the way this is shaping up: The back-and-forth is useful, as long as we keep the additions within reason, and defensible. Haiduc 23:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this the Bernard Kerik article or the Rudy Giuliani article?

Current:

Giuliani turned down the offer and instead recommended former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik. That move backfired after Kerik withdrew his nomination after it was revealed he had hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny and failed to pay the employer's taxes on her wages; he also failed to report that a judge ordered his arrest in a civil dispute. Later, it was also revealed that Kerik, a married man, had two mistresses, at one point simultaneously; even using an appartment donated to NYPD near the World Trace Center complex in the fall of 2001 to "entertain" them. He is also rumored to have mob ties, although those are unproven.

My version:

Giuliani turned down the offer and instead recommended his friend and former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik. Kerik in his pre-announcement interviews with the White House failed to disclose facts in his past which were certain to disqualify him. After the formal announcement of Kerik's nomination, information known for years to local reporters, but unreported, became widely known. The political fallout was damage to the perception of competence in the White House vetting process and doubts on the political judgment of Giuliani for recommending Kerik in the first place.

Of course "Trace" should be "Trade" but the current version is full of facts, but what Kerik did is unimportant relative to the impact on Rudy in when and how it was disclosed. patsw 15:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Extending Rudy's term in 2001 by emergency legislation.

The initiative in the extremely short-lived attempt to extend Rudy's final term in 2001 came from two sources:

• the Conservative Party of New York State, and in particular Michael Long -- who opposed Bloomberg's candidacy -- and sought to derail it.
• opponents of the city's term limits in both major parties.

Unless there's a source that says the Giuliani or one of his top aides was behind this, this section is unverifiable as written. It's really a story of how people wanted to exploit 9/11 and the timing of the primary and elections for their own agenda. patsw 20:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

If you can conclusively back up that claim that the idea was not Rudy's, that he only let himself be used and went along for the ride, then we should re-write the beginning of that section. Haiduc 22:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't ask me (or anyone) to prove a negative. The burden of proof is to show Giuliani's direct involvement or through an aide representing his views. What you've linked to and what I recall is that others started this brief initiative. It's like Schumer's current plea that O'Connor withdraw her resignation from the Supreme Court. O'Connor might obtain some benefit from it but no one alleges she's behind it. I looked at the Barrett and the Kirtzman biographies of Rudy in the library. The event is too recent. A new bio by Fred Siegal should be in my hands later in the week and that might cover this in depth. patsw 18:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Pat, my request came because the link I listed seemed to provide sufficient proof for my phrasing, and I simply invited you to overturn that with stronger evidence. I look forward to hearing what you come up with in that new bio. Haiduc 13:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It took me less than half a minute on Yahoo! to find this information. From a Gotham Gazette article dated September 30, 2001:

Mr. Giuliani made clear that he was not about to go yet. The mayor told the candidates that he wanted them to agree to extend his term, for two to three months, to help with the transition. Otherwise, he said he would ask the State Legislature to overturn term limits so that he could run again. [6]

Who was the first to have the idea isn't important; what matters is that Giuliani favored the extension. JamesMLane 19:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I looked for more info and learned that the new Fred Siegal bio The Prince of the City covers this episode. I'll let you know what's there in a day or two. patsw 02:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I have Fred Siegal's bio The Price of the City: Guiliani, New York, and the Genius of Amercan Life ISBN 1594030847. I'll present here more detail than what will wind up in the article (this starts on page 311):

• The primary scheduled for Tuesday September 11 2001 was moved to September 25. So this story is entirely contained inside this period.
• Sigel inferred from Giuliani's behavior during prior to September 25 he was supporting Vallone in the primary and perhaps the general election (should he win the primary).
• Rudy proposed the three month extension Quoting Siegal: The state constitution made explicit provision for just such a delay in case of an emergency. (It appears to be Article 3 Section 25)
• He had threatened to run again for a full term, against the statuatory term limits. (Siegal calls this a bluff and I agree. It was an empty threat.)
• Bloomberg, Vallone, Hevesi, Green (surprise) agreed. Ferrer alone disagreed. (Siegal doesn't mention George Spitz who was running in the Democratic primary.)
• The altruistic reason was to allow Giuliani to manage the initial requests for funds in Albany and Washington, speed up recovery, and slow down the exodus of jobs from lower Manhattan to outside New York City.
• Three extra months in the national spotlight wouldn't hurt Rudy's image in 2002 either.
• The primary had no over 40% winner, so there was a runoff between Ferrer and Green on October 11 which Green won.
• Because of the disappointment of Ferrer's loss who was very strongly supported by Sharpton to Green, the black and Latino base of the Democratic party failed to show up in the November election, and Bloomberg was elected.

I find it all interesting. Before I make this concise for Rudy's article, are there any questions that Siegal might answer that I could enter here? patsw 01:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

While I am sure that RG imagined he was doing what was best for the city, that is not sufficient reason to label any of his actions altruistic. It may be sufficient reason to label them deluded. And RG's claim of the emergency clause was both derrided and condemned, in the sense that while the city was truly in an emergency, there was nothing to prevent the democratic process from working. Even more, it was seen by many as a balm and a return to a normality that everyone craved. Events proved RG's critics right, the city rallied, carried out the election without major hindrances and the new mayor segued the old very well indeed. Other than that, the facts are as described. Haiduc 06:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"Either" was my tag that the altruistic reason was Rudy's POV and not considered by Siegel or me as credible. Both reasons can be given and the reader can decide how much weight to give one or the other. The article should make it clear that there was a constitutional provision for this. The condemnation, for example, that Rudy was tearing up the constitution and seeking a dictatorship is over the top. In reading this over again, what Rudy did stands on its own without weaving in the politics of the Democratic primary, that part will not go into the article. patsw 12:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

My rewrite including the Fred Siegal information is in place now. patsw 02:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I've corrected one error. There may be others; I hope to have a chance to look at this section more closely at some point. JamesMLane 08:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. Siegal's text didn't mention the Republican primary, and I had believed that Badillo had dropped out because he ran out of money. The results were 48055 to 18476 or 72% for Bloomberg. [7]. patsw 20:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

He threatened (to run again for a full four term and test the constitutionality of term limits)

This isn't patsw's point of view: It is in the contemporary reporting of the incident and in the published biographies. It has never been disputed, as far as I know. He threatened is accurate and anything less is inaccurate. patsw 02:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

London attacks

Should a sentence or two be written about him witnessing the 7 July bombings?

Sam Burke 20:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

If he took no actions relative to those events it is not clear what interest that would have for the readers. It would say nothing about the man. If he participated in the response to the bombings then we should throw in the relevant details. Haiduc 03:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

What will be significant about that fact that he was in the vicinity of the London bombings in a year, or five years from now? patsw 03:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No one answered the above question. So I ask again, how is this mere coincidence significant in his bio? patsw 14:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Crime Control

Reverting the text for three reasons:

• The reduction in the crime rate was real and not merely a perception.
• Interestingly, is obvious POV.
• There's no cite for this "later research". patsw 04:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

In the new section:

• Where do the numbers come from?
• What is "Rhetorically" doing here? The reduction in crime rate was real and not rhetorical.
• Why is David Dinkins cited here? It is obvious he has a point of view. Does it get pulled, or balanced with comment from Rudy critical of Dinkins his lack of ability to address the problem of crime in New York, and pointing to the reduction in crime that the Giuliani administration achieved? patsw 05:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That Dinkins has a POV is no problem; we report notable opinions that are properly attributed. The fact that needs to be included is that the decline in the crime rate actually began during the Dinkins administration, possibly because of the expansion of the NYPD -- which also began during the Dinkins administration. JamesMLane 06:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, the appearance of Dinkins isn't a problem. There's plenty of story about crime in New York City between 1989 and 2001 that remains to told in the Wikipedia.

I've left a message for Pdbailey to provide verification of those crime statistics he added. James, if crime declined under Dinkins, why didn't he campaign on that? Why did I and about 930,000 other voters think that crime got worse under Dinkins? patsw 03:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe for the same reason that something like 40% of the American people believe that Saddam was complicit in 9/11. Heck, there are Americans who'll tell you that we fought against Russia in World War II. People believe what they want to believe, because it fits their preconceptions or makes them feel better about themselves or whatever. The media, of course, are also complicit. Consider this, from an article in Gotham Gazette by a Giuliani biographer:

In the final days of the administration of David Dinkins, we had 36 consecutive months of decline in the crime statistics across the board, in the seven index crimes. Murder went down 14 percent. Those last 36 months under Dinkins reversed trends that were a decade old. Who should get the credit, the mayor who reversed the trend or the mayor who deepened the trend?

Obviously, we know who's gotten the credit. The New York Times has done, by my latest count, twelve front-page articles about the decline in the crime rate under Rudy Giuliani. It did one article about the decline in the crime rate under David Dinkins -- and in that 55-paragraph story, it never mentioned the name of David Dinkins. What Rudy Giuliani has managed to do is mug the media into accepting as fact that he is the man who caused it to happen. [8]

There's lots more in the full article, including a glimpse of how Giuliani manipulated crime statistics. JamesMLane 14:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Graph in question.

I'm not totally sure what you want for verification, nor why I have to provide it, but I added a comment on the source used at the page for the image (basically, the FBI's crime stats). I'd also like to point out that popular opinion doesn't shape reality (contrary to popular belief) nor the other way around most of the time. --Pdbailey 02:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Verification is policy and part of the editing process of the Wikipedia. Of course, you don't have to provide it. Likewise, what you have added doesn't have to stay in the article either if it cannot be verified. I wasn't able to find on the FBI web site any page with a direct comparison of the LA, Newark and New York crime indexes. See Wikipedia:Cite Sources for guidelines. patsw 02:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the verifiability page, I appreciate it. I think we have followed the protocol quite well, you did post a comment to my talk page asking me for verification, and I have succeeded in providing the reference on the image's page, where it seems to be most appropriate to me.

It is true that this is no direct comparison between these cities on the FBI page. You will have to look at the reference (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm), under the header, "Crime in the United States," click on a year, then use Table 6. This is not an easy task, it took me many, many hours to collect and organize this information from the FBI webpage and the paper only pre 1995 FBI publication, "Crime in the United States." But the issue is often talked about without data, so I thought it would be worthwhile for Wikipedia to have the actual data collected into one place for people to see. I have provided the source now, so if you still disagree, I suggest you find a disagrement between the figure and the source. --Pdbailey 00:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

2006 info

The info deleted by anon has been restored.

If you believe it to be inaccurate or could be better written now, correct it, don't delete it. patsw 14:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

positives not even mentioned

Alot of people believe that Giuliani was a huge success as mayor even before 9/11. the rapid crime decrease is touched upon in the article. however, the turning a budget deficit into a surplus, reduced taxes, reduced government spending, reducing people on welfare, increased number of jobs, etc is not. fact is, he was admired by much of the country before 9/11 and this article should talk about that at least a little so everything is not entirely negative. by the way, thank you Pat for adding "Time wrote that", one magazine writer's opinion needs to be identified as such. i still think "threatened" is a POV word with a negative connotation, people can be informed about what happened without saying he "threatened" everybody. but i will leave that alone for now. would anyone have a problem if i added some of the facts listed above to the article to balance things out a little bit? source: http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/giu0bio-1 RonMexico 12:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This article talks about many different aspects of his carer, positive and negative. Giuliani was a complex man, and he did not suceed by being weak. But his strength seems to have caused some mis-steps too. It's all in here. I looked at that website and it is an uncritical eulogy of the man. It is not helpful to have here the opinions of those who adore him, any more than the opinions of those who detest him. A lot of the "facts" from that site are debatable (and have been debated) like his "reducing the crime rate" "reducing those on welafare" "increasing jobs" etc etc. Its the kind of stuff people trot out when they are tunning for office, not the kind of stuff that gets inserted unchallenged into a biography. And if he threatened people, so what? Din't they use to say that he is a bastard but he is our bastard? The poeple who "believe he was huge success" are the poeple who like a strong leader, and the ones who think he was a scoundrel propelled to fame by events beyond his control are those who are suspicious of strong leaders. What difference do their opinions make if we are trying to keep a balanced view here?

"What difference do their opinions make if we are trying to keep a balanced view here?" so you agree that it is important for there to be a balanced view. obviously, a big section of the article is on the reduction of the crime rate and arguments on whether or not giuliani was responsible. unless i'm missing something i don't see anything about the improved economy, increased jobs, reduced taxes, etc. i'm not saying it needs to be said that giuliani should receive all the credit for that, but to not even so much as mention these fairly significant facts doesn't strike me as balanced. i can guarantee you that jobs and economy are more important to someone's mayorality than some art exhibit which this article dwells on. there seems to be a big emphasis on refuting any credit giuliani might get for the crime rate, the art exhibit, and police abuse; whereas the things that are alot more important in many people's eyes are left entirely out. I agree with your point that the article should be balanced, but disagree that this balance has been achieved. just my two cents. RonMexico 23:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ron, I agree that there is a lot more to the mayorality then is on this page. If you see something that you want to add, by all means, be bold. --Pdbailey 06:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletions since February, 5, 2006

A lot of material was deleted from the article starting February 5, 2006. Since there was no discussion here and some of the detail was added by me to provide verification of the material in the first place, I am concerned. I'm not going to massively revert but I'd like to see here a justificiation, for example, from removing the description of the offensive art which was past of the Brooklyn Museum opposition, and the other deletions. patsw 15:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Trilateral Commission

I examined the web site of the Trilateral Commission and failed to find a mention of the membership of Rudy Giuliani there and a google search likewise failed. The deletion of the claim he is a member is justified and will be deleted until it is verified. patsw 02:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Prostate Cancer

Please allow a link to the patient and doctor authored prostate cancer website, http://www.malecare.com , the information website of the eight year old national nonprofit, Malecare . Mr. Giuliani is a major source of inspiration and hope to many newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients, world wide. The Malecare website is updated weekly and is a trusted source of information for new patients, worldwide. An "external link" to the Malecare prostate cancer website is certainly in keeping with Rudy Giuliani's spirit of increasing access to healthcare for all people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.134.92.141 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Giuliani article links to the Prostate cancer article. The latter article is the appropriate place for any external link that relates to prostate cancer in general. External links here should be limited to those that provide more information about Giuliani specifically. (I haven't looked at the site you mention so I express no opinion as to whether it's an appropriate ext link at the Prostate cancer article.) Adding the link elsewhere may be in keeping with Giuliani's spirit but it's not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. JamesMLane t c 11:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

I added the POV tag to the section on crime control. The section as it is now is focused on talking about why Giuliani shouldn't get credit for the drop in crime, instead of talking about the drop (including facts, examples, and statistics), what proponents say, and what opponents say. Jrkarp 20:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:JamesMLane is still active and he gathered up all the statistics to prove that Dinkins and demographics were responsible for the fall in the crime rate. If you have other facts, or statistics, go ahead and add them. patsw 05:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done a rewrite to remove some of the outlandish POV. patsw 20:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag because the text that is there as of now is motivated by facts and figures and references. Pdbailey 15:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Rudy 2008 Presidential Election

I was in the front row on March 21, 2006, during a RG speech in Las Vegas, where the first question from the audience was "Will you be running for President in 2008?" He had a multi-part answer:

• I'm going to wait until after the 2006 elections
• It depends on what the polls show in eary 2007
• Some of the other possible candidates are well-qualified (and my friends)

He also speculated that the Democratic nominee will be Hillary Clinton, who's "a New York Yankees fan." RG quipped that he didn't understand how Hillary could do this "while she was living in Chicago."

Rudy 2008 and the abortion question

If you want to make that point that the consensus of pundits are wrong and that Rudy will do well in the 2008 presidential primaries:

• because the Republican voters in these states are not actually pro-life
• or because the Republican voters in these states are pro-life, but don't care that Rudy opposes restrictions on partial-birth abortion, for example.

Please cite the polls and integrate it the section already in the article refuting Rudy's weakness attributed to his pro-choice position.

Regarding "may be an obstacle", it certainly is an obstacle -- the problem is for Rudy to overcome the obstacle. patsw 05:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

POV in article?

This phrase, found in the intro, seems to be POV:

Conservative commentator John Podhoretz, in his newly released book, "Can She Be Stopped?" about New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, names Giuliani as the best chance for the GOP to hang onto the White House in 2008.

Many people do not see Hillary winning the Presidential election. Furthermore, I really do not see how it is about Giuliani in any way, but instead is about Hillary Clinton and/or the 2008 Presidential election.

petition to Pope Benedict to excommunicate or deny Rudy communion

I created this petition and would like to add it to the Giuliani article. I don't think it should be deleted by the administrators.

• [9] Petition to Pope Benedict to excommunicate Rudy Giuliani and withdraw the papal nuncio from Washington D.C.

Pistolpierre 22:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless this is truly noteworthy I don't think this should be included in the article. By this user's own admission there has been no press coverage of this, and wishes there to be. This is a backward approach to this encyclopedia. First something is noteworthy and has been shown to be noteworthy, using reliable sources. Then it is included in the encyclopedia. Not the other way around. Mak (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories: District Attorneys vs. Prosecutors

Category:District Attorneys DOES NOT apply to Giuliani, as is the case with many prosecutors. Giuliani was a prosecutor with the United States Attorney's office, which is separate and very distinct from being a District Attorney. I therefore deleted the District Attorney category, correctly replacing it with Category:Prosecutors. 21:02, 6 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.120.195 (talk • contribs) .

Quotes Section

I think the quotes at the end of the article should be moved over to wikiquotes. Deputydog23 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Seinfeld

Should we put "seinfeld Actors" in the category list?