Jump to content

Talk:Rudy Giuliani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arydberg (talk | contribs) at 14:32, 6 March 2021 (→‎Up To DFate: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Mentioning Rudy's work for Trump in First Paragraph?

Currently, there is no consensus to call Rudy a conspiracy theorist in the first paragraph. However, shouldn't we make at least an anodyne mention of his work for Trump? This word is notable and widely covered in RS. We could say something inoffensive like: "More recently, Giuliani has drawn attention for his legal representation and political advocacy on behalf of President Donald Trump." CozyandDozy (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Conspiracy allegations.

This is absurd. The article you have to back your conspiracy claims is from a very well known “radical leftist” news site. Who has been known to twist the truth to fit their narratives. Mhurst140 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation is factual, and The Guardian is a highly respected RS. If you have a problem with it, then take it up at WP:RS/N. There is a discussion above about this matter. -- Valjean (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the conspiracy theory nonsense. CNN breaks news to Reuters, of course it's left leaning. Breitbart and Newsmax covered the press conference, and I'd link here, but Wikipedia is blacklisting the links. Regardless, none of these claims are factual. It's all editorial preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.98.106 (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CNN and Reuters are both considered, by consensus of Wikipedia editors, to be generally reliable. Newsmax and Breitbart are both deprecated sources: that is, "The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited." If you would like to argue about the descriptors, I would recommend using reliable sources. WP:RSP is a handy guide if you're unsure if a source is reliable or not, and if it's missing from there you can do a search in the discussion archives of WP:RSN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know who everyone can agree is nonpartisan and objective? C-SPAN. Look at their description: The Trump campaign provided an update on its election legal challenges from the Republican National Committee. Rudy Giuliani, personal attorney for President Trump, said the campaign would likely file a lawsuit in Georgia and was looking into filing lawsuits in New Mexico and Virginia. https://www.c-span.org/video/?478246-1/trump-campaign-alleges-voter-fraud-states-plans-lawsuits No mention of "conspiracy." He made allegations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegation). Spinning it as a conspiracy is misleading and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.98.106 (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He alleged a conspiracy, with no evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles reflect the weight of views published in reliable sources. We do not model articles after a singular, cherry-picked source, and the lack of mention of conspiracy theories in the C-SPAN article does not contradict the many reliable sources that support that Giuliani has promulgated conspiracy theories. If you have reliable sources that contradict that Giuliani has spread conspiracy theories, please present them and we can certainly discuss them, but a source that doesn't mention that the sky is blue does not contradict sources that do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia now judge and jury?

This last sentence in the lede: "Following the election he represented Trump in many lawsuits attempting to overturn the election results, making false and debunked allegations about rigged voting machines, polling place fraud, and an international Communist conspiracy.[22][23]" Since when is it up to Wiki to determine what false and debunked? Ridingdog (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ridingdog Wikipedia is not a judge or jury. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and many if not most of them call Trump's claims false. If you disagree with what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them. If you have evidence that the allegations Trump and/or Mayor Giuliani make are true, you should give it to them so they can publicize it and get reliable sources to say their allegations are true. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think "making false" is too POV. I would prefer "making unproven claims" Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22 "Rudy Giuliani baselessly links new election fraud claims to 'communist money' from Venezuela" -nothing said about " debunked allegations about rigged voting machines." That's WP Not Reuters, not WashPost. If the Wash Post and Glenn Kessler can determine truth then who needs a court of law? Who needs SCOTUS when we have the Washed-upPost? And Wikipedia is not SUPPOSED to be Judge and Jury but it is when they don't tell the truth. These sources do not say what you CLAIM they say. They have not debunked allegations about rigged voting machines. [1] Ridingdog (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ridingdog, The Epoch Times is not an acceptable source. See WP:RSP. We summarize reliable sources, and there is no evidence of any of the conspiracy theories pushed by Giuliani. Notably, he doesn't push the same ones in court that he does from a press conference podium. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ridingdog Wikipedia does not make claims about truthfulness, as truth is in the eye of the beholder. See WP:TRUTH. You are free to believe what you wish, but if you only want to be told what you want to hear or what fits with your worldview, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. WP is only the place for 'certain people' that think a 'certain way'. Otherwise all your edits get reverted. A waste of time for thinking individuals. Ridingdog (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ridingdog, all of your edits that are based on conspiracy theories will be reverted, yes. Any constructive contributions you would like to make will be welcomed. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking individuals recognize reliable sources which have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-small-world-of-voting-machine-certification_3587972.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-11-22-3&fbclid=IwAR3VLuMxiCfcx2ZB3p1cqtb3evTz8NqJjxdMT4ltYCu46F0EYhDiZ61kMiQ

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2020

This wikipedia entry says: "Following the 2020 election, he represented Trump in many lawsuits attempting to overturn the election results, making false and debunked allegations about rigged voting machines, polling place fraud, and an international Communist conspiracy."

I take issue with the words "false" and "debunked" NOTHING has been proven as false and NOTHING has been proven as debunked. This statement may have come from a reference such as the Guardian or the Washington Post or other left-wing outlets with an ax to grind. This is irresponsible and is propaganda.

Also, Giuliani did not make claims of an international Communist conspiracy. There is a conspiracy but to call it a Communist conspiracy is so general and vague as to insinuate false information.

Please don't tell me that Wikipedia is the mouth piece for false information. Theknuckleshuffle (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From Rudy Giuliani's Wikipedia page: "Following the 2020 election, he represented Trump in many lawsuits attempting to overturn the election results, making false and debunked allegations about rigged voting machines, polling place fraud, and an international Communist conspiracy."

It has not been proven that Rudy's allegations are false. It has not been proven that Rudy's allegations have been debunked. Furthermore, an "international Communist conspiracy" is a vague statement that is somewhat meaningless.

I realize that this quote is based on references from the Guardian and the Washington Post but this doesn't prove that it is correct nor does it merit the claims and statements are worthy of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theknuckleshuffle (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please review any of the many discussions about describing these claims about the election as false, including at Talk:2020 United States presidential election, Talk:Donald Trump, and elsewhere. This has been asked and answered over and over again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)  Not done. I agree with you in part, but this is what WP:RS are saying so that's what we have to go with for now. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theknuckleshuffle You are free to stay in your bubble and believe what you are told unquestionably; Wikipedia makes no claims as to what is true, only you, the reader, can decide what is true. If you choose to believe that claims dismissed by judges of all ideological stripes as lacking evidence and merit, that is your choice. See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and they all state that the claims are false. If you have reliable sources with a reputation of editorial control and fact checking that say the claims are true, please offer them (and you might want to give Rudy a call too). 331dot (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "You are free to stay in your bubble" sounds like WP:PA violation to me Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tondelleo Schwarzkopf That is not a personal attack. Personal attacks are name calling/insults. People are allowed to stay in bubbles and hear only what they want to hear if they wish to. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot How is it not an insult for you to insinuate something against another editor? If you say someone lives in a bubble, you are implying that nothing to the contrary of what they already know/adhere to, can penetrate. Myself, I think such an insinuation is deeply insulting. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing someone of being in a bubble is the personal attack in question; whether someone can choose to be is not. —ADavidB 17:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tondelleo Schwarzkopf It is not a personal attack, it is my opinion based on their comments here. They are free to prove me wrong by demonstrating a willingness to listen to what judges of all ideological stripes have said about claims of fraud having no merit, and retract their claims above. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expression of one's opinion can still constitute a personal attack. The receiver's option to respond is not the issue in question. —ADavidB 17:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expressions of personal opinion, if they imply something derisive about the object of the opinion, are indeed a personal attack. It would be far better to say "I feel you are ignoring the facts, here's why...[explain]", than to say "you are in a bubble", which implies they are a blockhead. The former implores someone to reconsider; the latter implies they are incapable of such. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I believe that Giuliani's role in inciting the mob ("trial by combat") should be mentioned in the first paragraphs of the article. This is the material that people are going to see. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think this is lead worthy? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
not lede worthy Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it should be included, but is not lead-worthy.Lindenfall (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the event results in his disbarment then that's when I'd say it's lead worthy. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 1992 Giuliani egged on "the most unruly police demonstration."

I was surprised to find information about this 1992 incident missing from Rudy Giuliani's Wikipedia page. It was well known, well documented, and well remembered by many New Yorkers. This information should be included under "Mayoral campaigns/1993". Here are some information sources you can use: [1] [2] [3] Liberte595 (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The original 1992 NY Times reporting on the incident.
  2. ^ A 2016 Washington Post article that looks back at the incident.
  3. ^ A 2021 article connecting the 1992 incident to the Jan-6 2021 storming of the Capitol.

Is nobody updating this Wiki page any longer??

A group of prominent attorneys last week asked New York’s judiciary to suspend Giuliani’s law licence because he made false claims in post-election lawsuits and because he urged Trump’s supporters to engage in a “trial by combat” shortly before they stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. https://worldabcnews.com/torontos-dominion-voting-systems-sues-rudy-giuliani-for-1-3b-us/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dominion-voting-giuliani-trump-1.5886273

Dominion Voting Systems sues Giuliani over election claims ... The lawsuit seeks more than $1.3 billion in damages for the voting machine company, a target for conservatives who made up wild claims about the company ... for defamation for frequently claiming to the public that the machines falsified results. https://apnews.com/article/dominion-voting-sues-rudy-giuliani-e104c6bde1c51bb5f614760a7bfc0c45 Peter K Burian (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter K Burian The article(not just a "page") is not protected from editing at this time, so you are welcome to edit the article. If you don't feel comfortable doing so, you may propose changes as a edit request. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Peter, not sure what you mean because both of those points are already in the article. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Vaselineeeeeeee Those items are covered? The article is SO long ... I do see a lot of space devoted to Awards and Honors... hmmm, may take a lot more searching that I had expected. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter K Burian: See Rudy Giuliani#2020 election lawsuits and allegations. I agree, it is an extremely long article, though with someone with a career as long as Giuliani's, who has been very involved in many high-profile events, I suppose it is to be expected. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Work for Trump belongs in first paragraph

Apart from his mayorship, Giuliani is most notable (in terms of his media or "reliable source" coverage) as Trump's political advisor, attorney, and court conspiracy theorist. Giuliani's work in this regard is much more notable (in terms of what WP:RS consider to be notable) than his work as a prosecutor and assistant attorney general. Since those things are mentioned in the first paragraph, Rudy's work for Trump should be too, in keeping with WP:RS and WP:GNG guidelines. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think the last three lines in lede as it stands this date should be moved to the sections, if they are kept at all. Activist (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2021 storming of the United States Capitol

Vaselineeeeeeee, maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t understand the rationale for removing this. Rudy spoke at the rally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudy_Giuliani&diff=1006911954&oldid=1006903954

soibangla (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no template expert but it seems UNDUE to have a large template about something halfway down an article about a BLP. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

Add additional links & reference as follows:

Maintains a Podcast titled “Common Sense” & website at https://rudygiulianics.com/ JJ Cunning (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Fails WP:INHERITWEB. Melmann 19:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Up To DFate

Who exactley is keeping this article up to date. Here is another source to be considered.

Why are they not included????

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/ny-murder-convictions-vacated-24-years/2021/03/05/d4b2ef16-7db7-11eb-85cd-9b7fa90c8873_story.html

Arydberg (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rudy_Giuliani&oldid=1010637037"