Talk:Controversies of Rudy Giuliani

POV tag

I placed a tag on the article, because, mostly this is the section that needed it anyways and not the Giuliani main page. The main page still has problems, but most of the major ones have been just moved to here. As I see it, the big problems have to do with some of these controversies having either undue weight or one-sidedness. We need to put the proper rebuttals and other such statements to make the one sided criticisms neutral. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly isn't neutral -- _the whole page_ doesn't much cut it because you aren't identifying a problem area.. Please be more specific in the future. EvanCarroll 01:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You need to be far more explicit when claiming that the article is one-sided. You have supplied virtually no evidence that the controversies covered are one sided. Those sections without proper rebuttals are probably so because the Giuliani campaign haven't given any official reply regarding them. If they have, kindly insert them in. Thank you. Having said that, I see no reason why the POV tag should be placed there, especially since no one since July 2007, when your last post was dated, have pointed out evidence that the article is biased against Rudy. Ethereal 04:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding section

Dogru144- please see the full context of what Giuliani said regarding waterboarding below. Please not that he did not say that he believed waterboarding should be used in the course of general interrogation. Your edit takes his viewpoint out of context.

HUME: Mayor Giuliani, the former director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, the current head of the CIA have both said that the most valuable intelligence tool they have had has been information gained from what are called enhanced interrogation techniques, to include, presumably, waterboarding.

What is your view on whether such techniques should be applied in a scenario like the one I described? (earlier he described a scenario that involved a very accurate intelligence report that stated that the detainee was a terrorist who knew about an impending attack)

GIULIANI: In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes that we know that there's going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. Shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of. And I would...

HUME: Waterboarding?

GIULIANI: Well, I'd say every method they could think of.

|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the name from Al Queda to terrorist since that more accurately reflects what Giuliani was talking about. Also, I added more context in for Giuliani's other quote.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dogru, again your edit[1] makes it sound like Giuliani supports waterboarding in all interrogations, and justifies it only by pointing to this radical scenario. In Giuliani's own words he said, In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes that we know that there's going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. Shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of. And I would... This clearly shows that Giuliani only supports waterboarding for detainees who know information that would prevent a definite impending attack, not for interrogations in general.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not "clearly show" any such thing. Sophistry has been reverted. --Eleemosynary 10:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What Rudy does clearly say is that one should "use every method they could think of [besides] torture". In the waterboarding article, the first sentence claims that "Waterboarding is a form of torture". If Rudy claims that one "Shouldn't [use] torture", how would he support waterboarding? The article completely contradicts Rudy's actual quote.  hmwith  talk 13:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words, he's for torture except when he isn't. --Eleemosynary 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood the quote, as I see. He clearly says that he's against torture (which includes waterboarding) in the statement. The interviewer asks if he supports and Rudy doesn't answer. A non-answer doesn't mean "support". He just avoiding the question. What one editor feels that someone implied in a conversation cannot be added to an article, in my opinion. It's just not fact, and per WP:BLP, all information of that sort should be kept out of the article. I, personally, don't know whether or not he supports waterboarding, but I can say that the quote does not claim that he does. If you feel it should be in the article, we need an indisputable source, with a quote by him claiming that he undeniably supports it. No WP:OR or opinion here, especially not in an article of a living person.  hmwith  talk 15:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Eleemosynary, your continued accusations of sophistry are becoming personal attacks. And, yes, it clearly does show such a thing because this is Giuliani's statement on the matter. What you are doing is deleting what he says about waterboarding and replacing it with weasel words, twisting Giuliani's actual position on the matter.

And on another note, you have a history of harrassing me which is well documented with Chaser. I'm nice enough to give you a warning. Do it again and you will be reported. Wikistalking is going to get you blocked for a much longer period of time. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah... more idle threats. Report away. You continue to accuse me, and several others, of the exact same violations you yourself commit. This doesn't even rise to sophistry, it's junior-high-school level debating. And your actions need to come to light. Please, please ask some admins to take a look at this. I thank you in advance.

I have no history of harassing you. I did accuse you of being a meatpuppet for a user fond of making death threats. And now that you've full-throatedly embraced that user on your talk page (in no less than two of his sock ids), I see my suspicions were well-founded.

But to the matter at hand... Bellowed, as usual, you are stating the opposite of the truth. Giuliani "posed" no hypothetical situation. It was posed by Hume. Read the transcript again. And know your campaign to inject POV into political articles is a fool's errand. --Eleemosynary 00:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right it was posed by Hume. Your edit makes it sound like it was posed by Giuliani. Nice to see reasoning from you at the last hour. I would like to report that actual, non personal attack reasoning only came after I told you I was going to report you for a WP:HARASS violation, and yet your reasoning still does not add up. So you're reverted again. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 01:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Name

Not concerning the POV tag but rather the name of the article, may I propose that it be renamed "Controversies Surrounding Rudy Giuliani"? My reasoning for this is that most controversies are not "of" one, but rather around or surrounding one. Zchris87v 07:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal to move the article, except that it would be "Controversies surrounding Rudy Giuliani", as surrounding isn't a proper known.  hmwith  talk 08:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so aside from the capitalization, is there any objection to moving the article? Zchris87v 21:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I don't see any.  hmwith  talk 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

POV to NPOV on this page

There is an apparent effort to place the POV language of Giuliani into this article. We should bear in mind, that however much one might agree with Giuliani, there is no way that we can claim to have the ability to forecast actions by persons in the future. Keep in mind that in democratic societies the people frown upon actions that follow from suspicions of suspected perpetrators' anticipated or suspected actions. Hence, preventive detention of suspects or malcontents or what have you or prior restraint [governmental suppression of newspapers or other media outlets prior to publication, are actions that democratic-minded persons of the public frown upon most solemnly. Dogru144 05:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We, as editors of an encyclopedia, must refrain from adopting, wholesale the conjectural and forecasting language of people. We cannot say that we know that a terrorist or anyone else will do something. We can strongly suspect, but it is a little wreckless to say that we know that someone will do something in the future. We are mere humsns, not God. Therefore, I have modified the words prior to the quote of Giuliani regarding what he suspects suspected terrorists will do. Dogru144 05:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In societies that follow the rule of law we do not a priori suspect someone as guilty before they have committed the act, no less before we have evidence of the person is plotting an act. Much as someone likes the thinking or the rationales of Giuliani, we as editors cannot suspect before an act has been committed. Therefore, and in the same consideration, we cannot echo his language and assume that the language is NPOV. Leaving his language unedited in the encyclopedia is in itself POV. Dogru144 05:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger: time Giuliani spent at Ground Zero 'pile' and his being "one of them"

I thought that the first section affirmatively included his claims to spending as much time or more than the recovery workers, so I considered the "one of them" section to be redundant. Some IP address editors seemed bent on using the latter phrase so I incorporated the latter section into the former section, along with the citation. They should not remain separate. Making two separate sections would be redundant. Dogru144 11:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

President of 9/11

The Onion reported that he is "President of 9/11." How shall we present this additional facet of his accomplishments? Whoops, I forgot, he is just running for this position. Here's the reference: [2] Dogru144 21:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad sources

Some of this article has sources that need to be checked.

A safety professional who worked at Ground Zero added, "I was absolutely aghast at the refusal of the workers at ground zero to wear the personal protective equipment. All of my efforts to convince these guys to wear the masks was for naught."

— Joe from New York, MSNBC's First Read

Would be a good example. Joe does not leave enough information to be presented as a factual safety professional, we only know he claims to be one. His very name Joe can not even conform to WP:Attribution. This can at the very most be given as much weight as a discussion board, which is not looked highly upon, but it surely shouldn't be cited as if it came from the article. EvanCarroll 02:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits on love for wife

There are edits on Giuliani's professed love for his wife (third, i.e., Judi Nathan). This is extraneous material, too tangential for encyclopedia. Dogru144 19:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

POV nature of removal of references

It is rubbish to reject youtube as a reference. The youtube references in question are iron-clad proof of facts asserted prior to the youtube references. When you see someone say or do something on TV or youtube, 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the time or better, said event did happen. You are cheating and doing a sleazy act by removing youtube references. Dogru144 00:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudy does not cross dress for the heck of it

Brownbuttons 02:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani does not cross dress simply for fun. Republicans are bashing him for anything and everything. Rudy must have a great sense of humor and be very comfortable with himself to be confident enough to dress as a woman and appear on stage with actress Julie Andrews as well as dress as a woman for a skit on Saturday Night Live. The way this information was presented seemed like Rudy was cross dressing because he actually liked it and did it regularly. Check the following link http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3041187&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 Brownbuttons 02:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Donna Hanover

I am wondering if there should be a section for Donna Hanover. I know some material is on the main page. But the divorce was front page news when it was happening. It may have played a role in Giuliani dropping out of the run for Senate. Jmegill 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there should be. I have added some material. Dogru144 20:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, the mess probably was the reason for his dropping out of the Senatorial race. Dogru144 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd to duplicate information from the main article into here. I've removed it. If you want to expand on the Senate race decision, add it to United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2000#A_change_of_Republicans, that article needs a better analysis of why Giuliani quit. Wasted Time R 19:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Time To Hillarize this article and dismantle it

After reviewing the Hillary Clinton article, and the now redirected Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, I feel the goal here should be to bring this article fork, as well as the parent article up to the same standard as the HC article.

Material in this article should either be scrapped or condensed into the parent article in an NPOV manner.

So the question becomes, what to do with the plethora of subsections:

• 1 Annulment of first marriage

Roll into Personal Life

• 2 Conduct as federal prosecutor

Roll into public prosecutor

• 3 Promotion of figures
• 3.1 Bernard Kerik

Already present in main article

• 3.1.1 Briefing of Giuliani
• 3.1.2 Marc Mukasey and Giuliani campaign
• 3.2 Russell Harding

Already present in main article

• 4 Alleged free speech abridgments

Roll into main article if appropriate

• 5 Reaction to firing of teacher who made religious comments in class

Memory hole, not significant

I've removed this one, the cite given didn't support the claim that Giuliani at first criticized the teacher. Wasted Time R 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 6 Racial profiling

Main Article

• 6.1 Peter King and Giuliani

Memory hole, not significant

I've removed this, the cite supplied didn't support the claim that Dems had requested Giuliani drop King, and this is a policy/campaign not ethical/legal issue anyway. Wasted Time R 20:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 7 Position as mayor toward illegal immigrants

Main article, already present

I removed this, the material is related to policy, not ethics, and is well covered in Mayoralty_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Immigration_and_Illegal_Immigration and Political_positions_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Immigration. Wasted Time R 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 8 Relationship with his second wife

Roll into Personal Life

I removed this, it was a duplicate of what's already in the main article's personal life section! Ridiculous. Wasted Time R 19:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 9 Representation of City finances

I removed this. The history of the city's finances under Giuliani belongs in the mayoralty article, and any debate about his Iowa ads on this belong in the presidential campaign article. The cite given shows that the subject is much more complex than the simple statement made here, so there was nothing useful to move anywhere. Wasted Time R 19:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 10 Criticism surrounding the 9/11 attacks

Main article, already present

• 10.1 2001 Mayoral election controversy

Main article, already present

• 10.2 Lack of preparedness before the 9/11 attacks

Main article, already present

• 10.3 Handling of Ground Zero air quality issue

Main article, already present

• 10.4 Aftermath of Ground Zero recovery effort

Main article, already present

• 10.5 Claims as to time spent at the Ground Zero "pile" and to being "one of them"

Main article, already present

• 11 Claims as to being an expert on Islamic terrorism

Memory hole, not significant

• 12 Allegations of not having read 9/11 Commission's Report

Memory hole, not significant

I removed this. The debate exchange with Paul is already covered in Rudy_Giuliani_presidential_campaign,_2008#May_15_GOP_South_Carolina_debate, and much of this material was Paulites arguing the merits of blowback theory, which is off-topic here. Wasted Time R 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 13 Membership in the Iraq Study Group
• 13.1 Resignation

Main article

• 14 Giuliani Partners business deals
• 14.1 Conspiracy

I've removed the 'conspiracy' section, it was poorly written and had nothing to do with Giuliani. Belongs in Bracewell & Giuliani if anywhere. Wasted Time R 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 15 Bracewell & Giuliani

Main article, already present

This part was only discussing the electability of someone with energy industry ties. Moved to Rudy_Giuliani_presidential_campaign,_2008#Ties_to_energy_industry. Wasted Time R 19:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 15.1 Lobbying efforts
• 15.1.1 On behalf of Venezuelan oil company Citgo

Memory hole, not significant

• 15.1.2 On behalf of the makers of Oxycontin

Memory hole, not significant

• 16 New York bus scandal

Memory hole, not significant

I removed this one, it was utterly incoherent. Wasted Time R 19:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 17 New York Yankees gifts

Memory hole, not significant

• 18 Fox News conflict of interest

Memory hole, not significant

• 19 Radio Comments to Parkinson's disease patient

Memory hole, not significant

• 20 Giuliani's view on freedom

Memory hole, not significant, not even a controversy really

I removed this, it's already in Political_positions_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Freedom_vs._Authority where it belongs. Wasted Time R 18:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 21 Crossdressing

Memory hole, not significant

• 22 Support for waterboarding

Campaign article

I removed this. This is a policy issue, and the same material about Giulinai is already in Political_positions_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Waterboarding_and_interrogation_methods, where it belongs. And the McCain material belongs in the McCain articles. Wasted Time R 19:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 23 Relationship with alleged pedophile priest

Memory hole, not significant

• 24 Reference to "Islamic terrorists"

Memory hole, not significant

This is debatably a controversy, but to me it seems very campaign-specific, so I moved it to Rudy_Giuliani_presidential_campaign,_2008#Reference_to_.22Islamic_terrorists.22. Wasted Time R 20:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 25 Speaking fees

Memory hole, not significant

I've removed this - section didn't describe any controversy. Lots of well-known figures get high speaking fees. Wasted Time R 20:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 26 Calls from wife

Memory hole, not significant

It's a valid campaign story, but nothing unethical and so doesn't belong here. Moved to Rudy_Giuliani_presidential_campaign,_2008#Calls_from_wife. Wasted Time R 18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 27 Accusations of money laundering

Memory hole, not significant and poor sourcing

• 28 9/11-Centric Candidacy

Campain article, already mentioned

• 28.1 Fundraising

Campain article, already mentioned

• 28.2 September 12, 2001

Memory hole, not significant

All items of 28 a pure campaign story, don't belong here, but I didn't see them mentioned there, so I moved them to Rudy_Giuliani_presidential_campaign,_2008#Criticism_of_a_9.2F11-centric_candidacy. Wasted Time R 18:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 29 Sexual assault

Memory hole, not significant and poor sourcing

I removed this, was already covered in an earlier section. Wasted Time R 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 30 Having no knowledge about Islamic terrorism

Memory hole, not significant

I removed this, was already covered in an earlier section. Wasted Time R 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• 31 Joe Biden Attack

Memory hole, not significant

I removed this, not even remotely a controversy, just normal campaign back-and-forth. Wasted Time R 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments? I would like to wrap this up ASAP. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support such a move. I believe controversies sections/subarticles are a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. The current Controversies of Rudy Giuliani article is especially bad, an embarrassing dumping ground of legitimate material, anti-Giuliani vitriol, and incoherent editing. The dismantling of the Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies article has worked out well since we did it, with the exception of people expecting to see one because they see them in other candidates' articles. The obvious solution for that is to fix the other articles. To those who argue that controversies sections/pages should exist, I suggest you look at comparable Featured Articles of political figures, the best WP has to offer. Look at Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Wesley Clark, Barack Obama, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Theodore Roosevelt; none of them have Controversies sections. Indeed I haven't seen any FA biographical articles that do have one (although I certainly haven't looked at them all). Wasted Time R 18:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That said, I am not so sure about all of TDC's proposals above. There are a variety of destinations in a dismantling: main article text, main article footnote, subarticle text (such as presidential campaign article), other article text (such as a company article, or an article on another person), new article dedicated to a controversial matter, or junking the material altogether. Well-cited material of some importance usually belongs somewhere; I suspect there are too many "memory holes" in TDC's proposal. Wasted Time R 18:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are too many "memory holes" correct that and add a note to those that you dont think should vanish .. I just want to get this ball rolling. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To get a better handle on things, I'm pruning out some sections that just plain don't belong here, even if the controversies article is kept — duplicates, pure policy statements, obvious campaign banter, etc. Wasted Time R 18:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've finished at least one pass through of that. Comments above indicate where the material was moved to, or where it was already a duplicate of, etc. The only material removed outright were items where the cites supplied didn't support the claims made, or where the material was incoherent. Wasted Time R 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actual dismantling

Regarding what's now left, here's what I would propose so far in terms of dismantling:

• 1 Annulment of first marriage → main article, as footnote to what's already there done, reworked a bit
• 2 Conduct as federal prosecutor → main article, as footnote to what's already there done, in main text not footnote
• 3 Promotion of figures → main article, Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani depending upon timeframe and importance all Kerik material moved into new article Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik controversy
• 4 Alleged free speech abridgments → Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani done
• 5 Racial profiling → first part Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani done, second part Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 removed, cite didn't support
• 6 Criticism surrounding the 9/11 attacks → Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001 attacks done
• 7 Claims as to being an expert on Islamic terrorism → Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 reduced and done
• 8 Membership in the Iraq Study Group → main article, maybe partly as footnote done, in main text
• 9 Giuliani Partners business deals → main article, maybe partly as footnote moved to Giuliani Partners where there was already similar material
• 10 Bracewell & Giuliani → main article, need to look at OxyContin one more closely for validity Citgo material was already in B & G article; Giuliani's role in OxyContin reworked and merged into Rudy_Giuliani#Bracewell_and_Giuliani
• 11 New York Yankees gifts → Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani done
• 12 Fox News conflict of interest → first part Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 done, second part Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani done and improved once there
• 13 Radio Comments to Parkinson's disease patient → Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani done
• 14 Relationship with alleged pedophile priest → not sure, lots of WP:BLP issues turns out everything here is already in Alan Placa and Giuliani Partners; merged in one bit to the latter about why not dismissing him
• 15 Accusations of money laundering → Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 deleted; later newspaper reports indicated multiple backers donating to multiple campaigns, not Giuliani-specific; see [3]

In many cases, material will have to be merged in with what's already there. Wasted Time R 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As a perfect example of why we currently have a POV Fork, look at Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001 attacks and Controversies_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Criticism_surrounding_the_9/11_attacks. Two sides of the same coin; the material needs to be merged and dealt with in one fair, coherent article. Wasted Time R 21:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved here from User_talk:Wasted_Time_R in response to question Please discuss general principles on [[Talk:Controversies of Rudy Giuliani]]. Do you think there should be a controversies page, or do you think the controversies should be integrated into the mainline texts of the various Giuliani articles?:
Now, as to your point: I can see the point of keeping the item in a certain article. And I was impressed by how you laid out your points on the Talk page of the RG controversies.

However, that said, only a number of people are wiki-universalists (keeping a keen eye on all pertinent articles). Most of the lay public are just stumbling across things in one particular article. So, while I concede that there is overlap, this is not bad, these points of overlap/ repetition / what have you are not in and of themselves out of line. Just imagine where certain points (e.g., an unflattering point re something Bill did or some part of the B-H relationship) may appear in several articles:

• Bill-Hillary relations
• Hillary Clinton article itself
• Hillary 2000 candidacy
• Hillary 2008 candidacy
• Hillary controversies

I hope that this addresses your concerns. Regards, Dogru144 04:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just by the normal course of editing, some items do get repeated across multiple articles. But that doesn't mean that we have to intentionally do it, other than is called for by WP:Summary style. What Dogru144 seems to be proposing is that yes, we add all of the legitimate material in this controversies article into the mainline texts of the pertinent Giuliani articles, but then we keep the controversies article intact with the same material in it, in order to reduce the risk that readers might miss it. While this might solve half of the WP:Content forking issue, it just makes the existing WP:NPOV and WP:Criticism problems twice as bad. I don't see any justification for this approach in WP guidelines. Wasted Time R 14:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The dismantling is now complete. The page has been redirected to the main article; this talk page will be left unredirected as a record of what was done. Wasted Time R 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Terminating of page is vandalism

The article was effectually deleted. This was done without proper protocol. It was undertaken by one person, in a short window time of discussion. Many of us put much time into it. It is frustrating to see it deleted in such a cursory fashion. Dogru144 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully, and contest the deletion of this page. I think making a series of {{main}} might be called for in light of this work. It would appear to me as if these actions were more so done to decentralize the criticisms of Rudy Giuliani than to benefit wikipedia. Controversies on... seem to very much be the wikipedia convention as well. EvanCarroll 06:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, while the article was indeed effectively deleted, its contents were not. Its contents (except for a small amount of material that was uncited or incoherent) are still in Wikipedia somewhere in the Giuliani-related articles, in the appropriate place according to the material's context, and often completely unchanged. None of the work that was put into it is lost. For example, the largest piece of content here was the material on Giuliani and 9/11, and that is now present in Rudy_Giuliani_during_the_September_11,_2001_attacks with not a word changed. The second largest piece of content here was related to Giuliani and Kerik, and that is now in a new article of its own, Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik controversy, with almost nothing changed but some other material added. And so on. In the sections above I documented carefully where every bit of the old article ended up; you don't have to guess where to find material. In cases where material was removed from Wikipedia altogether, I explained why above.

The dismantling and disbursing was indeed done per Wikipedia guidelines. "Controversies of ..." articles and sections are, it is true, a Wikipedia practice in places, but they are a bad practice. They are in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. The best articles in Wikipedia, those that have achieved Featured Article status, do not have such sections or subarticles, yet still manage to deal with controversial aspects of their subjects. See Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Wesley Clark, Barack Obama, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Theodore Roosevelt for such FA examples.

What was deleted here was Wikipedia having a "one stop shop" dumping ground for every negative thing editors could come up with about a political figure, out of context with the circumstances that the negative thing happened in. It's that that is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and rules.

There is no hidden or overt political agenda at play here. I did the same dismantling some time ago to the Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies article (see Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies). The same should be done to John McCain#Controversies, Al Gore controversies, Fred Thompson controversies, Mike Huckabee#Controversy, etc. And note that many of the other 2008 presidential candidates' articles are doing fine without controversies sections or subarticles, including (in addition to Obama, Clinton, and now Giuliani as already mentioned) Mitt Romney, John Edwards, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel. I have seen many comments in various Talk pages as to why some candidates' articles have controversies sections or pages and some don't, and theories about the agendas of editors that led to this. The current situation does indeed make Wikipedia look bad, but the solution is simple: continue to dismantle and disburse the controversies sections and articles that are still here.

I am accordingly reverting the restoration of this article. Wasted Time R 12:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with deletion and NPOV merge of useful content per due weight. Wasted Time R asked me to weigh in here as we have crossed paths on numerous politician articles of differing ideologies at WP:FAC. Wasted Time R points out the applicable policies, guidelines and essays (including quotes on the matter from Jimbo) at WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. Criticism/controversy articles are a POV fork, become a dumping ground, and are a strong indication that the original article isn't balanced; criticism and controversy should be woven seamlessly into the main article according to due weight. I've taken this position on politicians from both the right and the left: see Hugo Chávez—where editors have succeeeded in attaining a whitewash by pushing anything they perceive as unfavorable out of his article via a POV fork to criticism. We should not have separate criticism articles. If a specific issue, controversy or point of view is so significant or notable that it warrants its own article, that article is linked within the main article. If the controversy is so minimal that it doesn't warrant a separate article, its inclusion anywhere should be accorded due weight. Controversy/criticism articles turn into unbalanced attack magnets. Allowing controversy articles is a slippery slope: anyone who disagrees should spend some time seeing how the Chávez article became a POV-driven whitewash via content forking of criticism to a separate article, supported by the article owners who oppose any representation of the significant unfavorable views of Chavez in his article. I have seen Wasted Time R's careful work on featured articles of politicians from the right and the left, and I believe a balanced Guiliani article can be attained via dialogue and careful construction. If agreement can't be reached, the alternative is to AfD this article and let the community decide. (By the way, I haven't read Giulian's article, but I wonder if his firm's support of the Chávez administration is mentioned, and how that has worked out.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments SandyGeorgia. To address your specific question at the end, the lobbying-for-Citgo issue is primarily covered in Bracewell & Giuliani#Client base. It is sometimes also mentioned in Rudy_Giuliani#Bracewell_&_Giuliani, although currently it isn't there. The boundary line between what B&G issues are discussed in the Giuliani article versus the B&G article isn't very clear right now ... Bracewell & Giuliani is a law firm with a substantial history and that article is in danger of being overwhelmed with Giuliani-related material at the loss of due weight. Wasted Time R 16:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the wikipedia policies mentioned deprecate the use of Controversies on.... And, while I don't necessarily believe you are backing a political agenda, I do believe you took this route to decentralize criticisms which you believe are a POV fork. As I see it, articles that contain controversies are necessary by utility. The main article on Rudy does not contain these attributed controversies, only his successes -- which are fairly balanced. (There is nothing on the MA that even mentions Placa.) Likewise, it wouldn't make much sense to call the MA a POV-fork and bloat it with the controversies, even though per your argument it invariably is. In my eyes, 9/11-centrism and calls from wife says a lot about Rudy's personality and the gimmicks he is immersed in, and yet the main article is totally devoid of this. Could this be a pov-fork? Seems as if with both pages linking to each other, and both maintained by people passionate on their side and you get a nice more balanced effect. Granted, both sides still have to maintain WP:A, and neither side can bar attributed refutations. My goal isn't to slam Rudy on wikipedia, but rather to provide a mechanism that indexes his darker--lesser known side. EvanCarroll 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the WP policies listed don't explicitly state "Thou shalt not write 'Controversies on ...' pages," but if you understand the principles behind them, that's the conclusion you come to. As for what the main article contains, it does include the most important controversies, around his mayoralty, around 9/11 preparedness and the aftermath, about his recommending Kerik, about his quitting the Iraq Study Group, and so forth. Placa is a tough one, gets into WP:BLP considerations quickly. 9/11 centrism and the cell phone calls from Judith are items that are worthy of mention in the presidential campaign article, but may not make the grade for the main article. Illustrating Giuliani's personality is a worthy goal, but hard within WP's NPOV constraints; it's an area that conventional book biographies are much better at. But the main article is not frozen in stone; it's certainly possible to reach new decisions about what controversies should be mentioned in it. The model that you seem to support if I understand correctly — pro-person P editors maintain one article, anti-person P editors maintain another article, together you get balance — is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia:Content forking, and leads to very bad presentation, as Sandy's comments above indicate. Indeed at one time the Hillary Rodham Clinton articles were organized this way, and no one was happy with it except for one very pro-Hillary editor. And just to reiterate, I don't claim that the Giuliani main article or other subarticles currently have the seamless weaving of content that Sandy indicates should be our goal, but that's the goal we can work towards. Wasted Time R 19:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia protocol for this matter. Wasted Time R should permit the process to progress; he should not post-haste execute the blanking action on his own. Otherwise, this blanking constitutes POV vandalism. Dogru144 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not "blanking", since almost none of this material has been removed from Wikipedia. I am not engaging in "vandalism" either, as anyone can see. I welcome people examining my record of following Wikipedia protocol and guidelines compared to yours, especially with regard to balanced, neutral editing. Wasted Time R 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, looking at the edit history of this page shows that you did indeed blank this page, and that you then redirected it to Rudy Giuliani; 2) cheated, and bypasseed the discussion process of Articles for Deletion. Let's not flip flop on the facts like a certain Republican does. Blanking is blanking. This is like arguing what "is" is. Dogru144 04:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-Republican/Catholic stance on social issues

Both Republicans and practicing Catholics I know have criticized Giuliani for his stances on certain social issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage), to the point that they will not vote Republican in the election if he is the candidate. I notice none of this is on the current page; is it at all wide-spread, or am I just in contact with a narrow fringe over here? -BaronGrackle 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT EvanCarroll 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How lovely/irrelevant. If you were referring to WP:SOAP, then read the end of my message; I wish to know if the criticism is widespread enough to have relevancy. I have heard this particular one from a number of hard-line conservatives as well as dogmatic Catholics (sometimes the same people, but not always) on my public college campus. Regardless of whether this page survives deletion proposals or not, the criticisms of Giuliani will end up somewhere—on his standard article, if nowhere else. It is probably not noteworthy if just Catholic media refers to it (which it does), but if Republican-dominated media does, then it might be. -BaronGrackle 22:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant, it goes to underscore your weak understanding of Wikipedia. No offense is to be taken from the following: If the whole world secretly criticized Giuliani about being a weak conservative, it would still not belong here unless a reputable news outlet covered it. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if you heard it from a hard-line conservative, or a 5yr old retarded child because **you** (and me) have no credibility, and you and I are not a valid source for attribution. Lastly, this isn't the correct the medium to find out what the state/nation/world's consensus on Giuliani, nor is it a place to conduct or publish original research. EvanCarroll 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a valid topic, and the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 article is the place for it. If you search that article for "catholic", you'll see several mentions of it in one context or another. Wasted Time R 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The article survives!!

"The result was no consensus for deletion, at least, so default to keep. Merging and redirecting this article does not require deletion and can be done independently of this AfD if there is consensus for it. Sandstein (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)"

This AFD vote WAS a vote on merging and redirecting the article!! Except that it had already been merged! Except that half the voters did not understand what was going on! There is no consensus for anything! This is a Wikistalemate!! 159.250.32.2 (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest we remove all of the controversies from the main Giuliani article, since there is no reason to have it in both places. Horologium t-c 16:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Too late!! They have moved on. The die is cast, what's done is done. @@@@

The amusing thing is that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore controversies, which was up at the same time, got decided the other way, as a merge-and-redirect. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that, too, but only a handful of people participated in that AfD, none of whom were opposed to merging and redirecting this article. It is worth noting that the people who participated in both discussions managed to maintain a consistent position, FWIW. Horologium t-c 13:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Even if one considers the two "Support" opinions that are in favor of merging, but also in retaining this article, as "Oppose" it seems clear that general opinion is to merge the article (which has already done by Wasted Time R) and turn this page into a redirect. If anyone objects to me closing, feel free to re-open the discussion and then ask for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion on WP:AN. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Since the AFD results seems to be more in favor of merging this article into the Rudy Guiliani and his sub articles rather than keeping it, I'm starting this Merger discussion here to get the official community consensus for the merger. Rather than repeat the work of Wasted Time R I'm just going to link to the two sections on this talk page. Please review the two sections linked below for the proposal of where each "controversy" should be merged.

• #Time To Hillarize this article and dismantle it
• #Actual dismantling

Thanks to Horologium for reminding me to add this. Wasted Time R has already completed this merger, but after the merger was completed, other editors reverted his merger and repopulated the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss the merger proposal here

• Support Obviously I support this. As I stated on the AFD, controversy articles and sections are little more than trumped up trivia section/articles. Like trivia sections they become crap collectors for every minor issue and give those minor issues undue weight that the issue would normally not afford. They also result in content forks with the main article, or sub-articles that the controversies would normally be in and ultimately result in an overly positive biased main article and an overly negative biased controversy article. All in all, controversy articles are the sign of a poorly written encyclopedia and it is better to merge the controversy articles into the appropriate articles. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Support. I fully agree that it should be merged; the problem is that after it was merged, a couple of editors started squawking over the redirect. Their opposition appears entirely to be rooted in a dislike of Giuliani, rather than any substantive reasons why a separate article is needed. If this article is retained in its current form, I strongly suggest removing all of its content from the articles to which it was originally merged. Horologium t-c 20:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Support. I support the merger, but don't support the redirect. I think Controversies of is a legitimate article, and needs to be nothing more than an index of {{main}} accompanied by short descriptions. EvanCarroll (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• By it's very definition, a merger would require that this article be turned into a redirect. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• The Discuss tab on the page links to the page, not the talk page. I have not checked the others. Kablammo (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I fixed the link. Horologium t-c 21:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support I support the merger; I oppose the redirect. Also, as with the early editor's comment: the Controversies article has many matters of serious import. This article is not a matter of opposing Giuliani. It is a matter of documentation of serious matters of great relevance to his mayoralty. Wikipedia is not a mere resume. It has matters of controversy. As wikipedia is a cooperative project, various parties have the opportunity to vet articles for balance. In this cooperative project, we ensure that claims are referenced. Dogru144 (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment You and Mr. Carroll above are missing the point; see WP:MERGE. You don't understand the term, or you are willfully misconstruing it. By definition, merges end with a redirect. From Help:Merging and moving pages:

“ Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from. Superfluous redirects do not harm anything, and can be helpful in finding articles, e.g. from alternative names. ”

What you want is to have the material in as many places as possible, which is POV forking, a no-no on Wikipedia. Horologium t-c 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• (EC) Just to be clear here (again).. When articles are merged, the result is that the article that the information is being merged from will no longer exist as an article. An opinion in support of merging this article into the main article and the appropriate sub-article is also an opinion in support of turning this article into a redirect or deleting it after the merger is complete. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It is already obvious that this "vote" will end in a Wikistalemate, just like the AFD did. There is no agreement about what this vote means, there will be no consensus what it is done, no admin will be willing to close it out in any definite way. There will just be this. 12.118.190.10 (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support per WP:SUMMARY. нмŵוτнτ 06:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support per all my arguments above. A merge (already done) followed by a redirect is always what I intended; framing it as an AfD seemed to confuse the issue for some. If there is consensus on this and an admin takes the action, a redirect-with-protect may be warranted, to ensure this doesn't end up in reversion battles. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support The main article is currently an advertisement for the man, with little or no controversy or discussion. It's as if neutrality is non-existent. Quanticles (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense to divide this up between the various articles. Plinkit (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.