Talk:Rudy Giuliani/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

No, it shouldn't be - its only correct to call someone with a knighthood "Sir" if they're British Jonmseymour 21:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so no "Sir", but what about the KBE suffix? Cohen the Bavarian 13:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely not part of his name---American politicians never use KBE as part of their name or ID, Rjensen 08:33, 6 November 2006 (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

I added Giuliani's position that the exhibit amounted to a government-funded attack on a religion; The legal reason for Giuliani's actions should be included in any discussion of Giuliani and the Brookly Museum. 69.143.31.101 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Marsh

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)

Salinkis 14:16, 12 October 2006 (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)

I like the chart. it tells the story well, that Rudy's policies may have helped, but so did a big economic upturn which took place when he was in office. And look at Newark's drop! Maybe we should nominate former Newark Mayor Sharpe James for President! Salinkis 14:20, 12 October 2006 (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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.107.244 (talk • contribs)

decline of the mafia

how come it is not mentioned once that giuliani severely crippled the mafia and new york, that's one of his biggest achievments and it's not mentioned here? I think his "War" against the mafia should be much more detailed and given more detail than this.

Second Cousin

Giuliani married his second cousin--why does this keep getting removed? Seems like those opposed are guilty of a pov issue. Giuliani married his second cousin, I included it in the intro as part of hi relationship history. It was important to him when he got the divorce. Menkatopia 07:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Menk

I just want to ad, while I am not one of them, there are thos who are quite proud of this fact and se Giuliani as a kind of role model. Menkatopia 07:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Menk

I don't think this fact needs a citation--it is stated on the WP cousin couple page with no additional information, or citation. Of course it is offensive to some people, but is a fact and should not be repeatedly eliminated because of someone's POV. 24.116.209.57 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OR

The presidential campaign section contains lots of speculation and OR about his campaign prospects. WP is not a crystal ball. Editing. Kaisershatner 21:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Does he still reside in NYC?

My question is not directly related to the article, but of interest to me nonetheless: I was wondering if Mr. Giuliani still resides in the NYC area or has he relocated? Regards, 199.29.6.2 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Added Tv movie info

I added some information about the 2003 made-for-tv movie since I think it deserved to be metioned somewhere in the article.204.80.61.10 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Jury foreman

I added a bit about his serving on a jury, but I can't find any information about how that suit was resolved. Anyone know? Stilgar135 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikicheck

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

Fresh eyes

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

Yeah, a number of my cows are gone. I and some others spent a fair effort trying to convey how Giuliani fit into the tangle of New York politics; in order to understand that subject, you have to get into detail and discuss other people at times. And why things that happened before 1990 are unimportant is a mystery to me; recentism is a good thing? Oh well, no matter. That's the Wikipedia way; there's a reason I picked my username. For the record, [10] is the article before this purge; future editors can retrieve material from there without having to rewrite it from scratch. Wasted Time R 12:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Many of the chopped details are already on subpages or other people's pages, so it's not like they're gone, they're just not on the main Giuliani page. Trying to fit everything on one page does a disservice to readers, as it turns it into a book rather than a WP:BLP. Other chopped details had been cited as needing facts for multiple months. I think the only pre-1990 section I removed was about Marc Rich and Pincus Green, which seemed like they jumped to notability because of Mr. Clinton's 2001 pardon, rather than having been notable at the time. My judgment may be sketchy on this one because I was just starting to read the paper in 1984, so please restore the section if you think it's appropriate. Giuliani's life from 1983 to 1989 is not skimpy and still has 8 paragraphs in it, though, and it doesn't seem like we're skipping over his rise to fame. Perhaps this calls for a subpage, "Public prosecutions of Rudy Giuliani", for the Marc Rich, Pincus Green, and details of the five families trials? Pro crast in a tor 19:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to take one example, you excised two things from the section on the 1997 mayoral campaign: the Messinger-Sharpton contested primary, which rendered the Dems even weaker than they were going to be and helps explain Giuliani's victory margin, and his remarkable acceptance speech quote about trying to be less divisive in his second term, which was much commented upon at the time. These bits are not in the Messinger or Sharpton articles, and there is no dedicated article to the 1997 mayoral race (as there is, for example, for the New York City mayoral election, 2005). So in fact, these details are indeed now down the Wikipedia memory hole. Wasted Time R 19:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a subpage is called for on the 1997 mayoral race, too. The contested primary doesn't explain why he won, just by how much he won, which is why it didn't seem notable enough given the length of the article already. The acceptance speech quote, though nice, seems like pure puff to me: it has little to do with what he's done, rather, it addresses what he says he'll do in the future, which has already happened. Pro crast in a tor 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Page on the 1997 mayoral race now created. Wasted Time R 03:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call on most of your deletions. The only thing that I think should be put back is the fact that he believed that the city couldn't survive without him as mayor. As a New Yorker, I can assure you that it was truly significant, because it seemed to many New Yorkers that he had lost his marbles. (I know it's covered in Controversies of Rudy Giuliani, but I think it's important enough to be included here as well.)

Wasted Time R, I don't agree that the acceptance speech was "remarkable". It seemed like a typical acceptance speech, with the added twist that he had alienated practically every Black and Latino voter in the city. "Hey Blacks and Latinos, I know I won despite the fact that only white people voted for me, but I'm going to reach out to you anyway". Gee, that's very white of you. His behavior over the next four years proved that it was nothing but hot air, but that's all we thought it was in the first place. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It seemed like another episode of "lots of talk, but nothing happened", like the section how he said he wouldn't run for public office in 2005, everyone expected him not to run, and then he actually didn't run, which I certainly didn't find notable. I was glued to the news around then, and remember a few comments about the sought-after extension, but it was drowned out by all the other post-9/11 news. I also left NYC in '99, so I wasn't paying as much attention to local NYC politics. I could see perhaps 1-2 paragraphs instead of the original 3, but given all the other coverage between 09-2001 and 01-2002, I could also see still leaving it out. Personally, I think WTC location, FD/PD radio frequency issue, and the air quality controversy are more noteworthy, as they are all garnering coverage to this day, unlike the extension issue which pretty much died in 2002. Pro crast in a tor 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

More consolidation

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

Keeping "Controversies" section on a separate page

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

I agree. The man has been nothing but controversial. If we are going to break something out of this article, why not his personal life? Haiduc 22:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored the September 11th section to a form I find more appropriate. As it is now it completely duplicates the Rudy Giuliani during the September 11 attacks article, which should be deleted. I should add that I do agree that some of the content in the Controversies article had the character of a diatribe, and I chopped down many of the things I brought back to keep closer to the facts at hand. I think that one of the many problems with a Controversies section/article is that it gives editors a sense of license - that to present a point of view is actually the purpose of the section. Also I should say that there is still quite a bit missing from this article, especially about the events of September 11 itself. I'd like to see something about the decision to close escape routes from New York, and the process by which gold was recovered from the site, for example.

If the article is too long (and I can't say I helped with that at all), I think that it should be split into Personal and Politics articles: the one covering his childhood, work as a prosecutor, private firms, divorces, etc. and the other dealing with mayoralty and presidential campaign. If need be those last two can be split from one another at January 1 2002, though I wince to think of it (too much dispute about where to put events that occurred before 2002 and were reported afterward) Mike Serfas 23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Based on several recent requests and comments, and my stronger view than when I wrote the above that controversies sections are in violation of WP guidelines, I went ahead and dismantled the controversies page and disbursed and integrated its legitimate contents into the other Giuliani articles. See Talk:Controversies of Rudy Giuliani for the full story and the destinations of the former contents. [[Controversies of Rudy Giuliani]] itself now redirects to the main article, as you have discovered. Wasted Time R 02:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There should at least be a brief summing concerning the controversies - including a link to the Giuliani-Controversies-Site. Everything else isn't truthful at all. - Oliver, Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.169.89.43 (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Actually read this article and its subarticles, then come back. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I came here specifically looking for the controversies in which Giuliani has had a role. I did not want to read about his entire history, or read a dozen articles. I specifically went looking for why people find him controversial. This is a perfectly valid topic to discuss, and at *least* merits a sub-section of this article which references other articles or sections. I am perfectly capable of parsing a controversy and deciding for myself whether it was acceptable or a witch-hunt. - BalthCat 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Given WP:BLP and other guidelines, this is not a service that Wikipedia seeks to provide. However, I am confident there are many other websites out there that are only to happy to supply what you seek. Wasted Time R 02:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not a "service" but a collation, by theme, of notable events in a person's public career. I do not wish to view "many other websites", or I would be there. I wish to view a list of controversies explained objectively. Do you suggest there are actually "many other websites" that describe his controversies objectively? Any time an article, or a biography section, becomes long, I find it sensible to collect particular aspects together, this is one theme, despite the sensitive nature, as far as I see it. I remain in disagreement. - BalthCat (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my previous response was a bit flip. While we will have to agree to disagree on whether WP policy permits separate controversies pages, there is no doubt that having the ability to "collate by theme" subject matter would be a huge benefit, as you say. One of my great frustrations about WP is that it's all just raw text subject only to brute force text search; it lacks any semantic tagging or structure. Maybe someday something like Semantic Wikipedia will be in place and we can choose among multiple semantic perspectives on a subject, such as the one you want. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention that there used to be a "list" of Hillary Clinton controversies. However, it was deleted.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

SAT scores

I don't think this material is notable:

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

Ufwuct 17:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think GPA or where he graduated are appropriate, but this seems too detailed to me, too. Perhaps just "He was a B student, graduating in the top 1/3 of his class"? The SAT scores are almost useless since the scoring system has changed over the past 30 years. Pro crast in a tor 04:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not meaningless. 569/504 are mediocre scores in any era of the SAT. Wasted Time R 05:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, meaningless, because he's not known for his academic achievements, nor has he (or anybody else) made any claims about them that need to be supported or refuted. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Those numerators are only useful if provided with the denominator. A 569/569 would be a perfect score, for someone who took the test thirty-odd years ago, what were the top possible scores?Steven (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Look Alikes

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

Show it to me

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

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

Section: "Cleaning up" the city

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

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

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

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

Height and other vital stats

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

Giuliani and LGBT unions

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

Crime data

I'm examining the crime data found here[[11]] out of curiosity. The national data are available from the given source[[12]], but I can't seem find the individual city data. The FBI has years of crime data available, but they do not provide the city points, only the national ones. I'd presumably find the 1995 New York City statistics under "Crime in the Unites States" and Table VI, but a search for "New York City" in the 1995 PDF[[13]], for example, yields nothing. From what I can see, the individual city statistics in Table VI relate to the number of law enforcement personnel and not to crime rates. Can someone please explain where the city statistics are to be found?

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

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

Crime Data and National Trends

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

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

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

Guiliani's "Knighthood"

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

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

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

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

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

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Congress merely has to give its consent, for someone, like Giuliani, to receive a Knighthood from a foreign nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGrupp10799 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Knights and Dames Grand Cross and Knights and Dames Commander who are not subjects of the Queen (i.e., not citizens of the United Kingdom or another country ruled by the Queen) are not entitled to the prefix "Sir" or "Dame", but may still use the post-nominal abbreviations.

Ergo it is indeed proper to place the KBE post-nominal after his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGrupp10799 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

General Negative Tone

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

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

You are quite correct. The Giuliani articles have been dominated by Giuliani-haters for some time now. Wasted Time R 04:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Everybody's free to edit. Add what you think is appropriate and delete what you think is unnecessary, but keep in mind that Wikipedia articles should be neither "laudatory" nor "hatchet jobs". — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Italian Ancestry

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

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

a few challenges to the article's neutrality

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

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

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

The Giuliani articles have had problems with skewed, anti-Giuliani editors, but I don't think they come from other campaigns, rather they are from the Village Voice/Wayne Barrett school of Giuliani hating. Wasted Time R 13:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not overlook the school of Giuliani whitewashing -- the editors who, for example, sanitized the article of any mention of the Louima/Diallo/Dorismund cases or of the legal troubles of Giuliani appointees. The simple fact is that articles of prominent candidates are constant battlegrounds. So it was in 2004, so it shall be again this year. JamesMLane t c 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Indeed, Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 currently seems to have some sanitizing forces at play. Wasted Time R 14:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

An error in the article

The author states that

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

(Emphasis is mine.)

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

Here is the site of the picture.

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

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

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

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

Rudy in DRAG with TRUMP!

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

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

Positions

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

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

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

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

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

See, and edit if desired, Political positions of Rudy Giuliani. Wasted Time R 18:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Political Positions section was still lousy, so I cleaned it up. It also seemed NPOV to choose abortion and gay rights as the only two issues to mention on this page, so I removed them. They are covered on the Political_positions_of_Rudy_Giuliani page.Paisan30 (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the history of his party affiliation switches didn't belong here either; it's basic biographical info that intertwines with his job history of the time, so I moved it into the appropriate mainline sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Errors

It is correctly spelled as 'Giuliani'

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

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

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

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

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

Campaign add

Anyone seen the fuss over Giuliani's racist campaign add? It states 'a people perverted' in refrence to all muslims, not to mention one of Rudy's subodinates told Muslims to 'get back into their caves'. The video is on youtube but I got it off the islamophobia watch site, a POV site I know, but as it directly quiotes it is reliable.86.138.116.141 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/category/resisting-islamophobia

perhaps this racism deserves a mention in the article? Or his campaigning?86.138.116.141 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Media Coverage

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

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

What are everyone's thoughts?

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

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

Possibly biased statement

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

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

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

You are correct about the tone of the article. It used to be the subject of heavy edit wars and a nexus of anti-Giuliani editors. But now that his presidential campaign has spectacularly fizzled out, nobody pays this article much attention. Go ahead and make changes as you see fit. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a simple factual statement, albeit one worded a bit inappropriately. It is hard to argue that Rudy hasn't profited tremendously both politically and financially from his high media exposure following the attack. We'll see how his earning power does following his humiliation and withdrawal from the 2008 race in a couple of weeks.Veritas23 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of like saying FDR profited politically from the Great Depression and World War II. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all...FDR saved the country from the Great Depression, maneuvered us into WWII, won that war and put the US into the position of global top dog for the next fifty years...and accrued no personal benefit from his genuine leadership while alive....only the gratitude of the nation following his all too early death. Rudy merely temporarily deviated from the nasty and divisive behavior for which we knew him well and acted human for a few weeks while the media of the world focused on him intensely. Since the attack he has tried to sell himself to a country not previously familiar with him - selling himself almost entirely on claims that he 1) "cleaned up NY" and 2) did something undefinable but unbelievably heroic during the attack. I would argue that the former claim is demonstrably spurious, but certainly it is a claim on which reasonable people can disagree. The latter claim however, is simply fantastic - as ludicrous as it is deliberately vague and aggressively promoted by Rudy. Had New York City not been attack in September of 2001 Rudy would have left office with opinion polls running 2-1 against him and would never had acquired the wealth or (now squandered) political capital he did. However, in the end, once America got to know the Rudy Giuliani we here in New York knew all too well, the myth was shown for what it was... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas23 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Chopin-Ate-Liszt!, now you can see the mindset of the main editors of this article. My point about FDR was that had he lived slightly earlier and been elected president in 1920 not 1932, it's highly unlikely that he would be considered one of the greatest presidents (as there would have been nothing severe enough to test him) and certain that he wouldn't have gotten third and fourth terms. Both his power at the time, and his reputation since, benefited from his being historically coincident with tragedy and suffering. That's the way it goes. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, but you cannot deny that Giuliani profited financially from his public persona in response to the 9/11 attacks. His speaking tour(s) netted him millions. FDR certainly didn't profit personally, financially, from the Great Depression. It's appropriate to note the financial profit that Giuliani realized as a result of the tragedy, but the fact needs to be worded carefully in order not to make him out to be a profiteer from the terrorist act.--HughGRex (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Misleading sentence

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

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

Much better. Thanks. Happyme22 (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please edit the first paragraph

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

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

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

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

Current components of the Giuliani biographical series are

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

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

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

Equal treatment in candidate biography articles

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

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

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

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

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

Lateral lisp

I wanted to know what there was to the strange way the man speaks so I looked here. Nothing. Apparently, he has [14] a lateral lisp. I wanted to put this in the article, but can't seem to find the right place. Any suggestions?--Loodog (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess a sentence or short paragraph in the Early life and education section might be appropriate, with a brief mention and source citation. —Adavidb 04:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with that. It isn't that noticeable, or remarked upon, or important; it hasn't hindered his life or career. Lots of people don't speak the way diction teachers would have them, it isn't a big enough deal to warrant its own paragraph right near the top of our article. I've removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's being at the top is simply a matter of the way the article is arranged. It's not in the lead, so how is it too prominent? Where do you think would be more appropriate in the article? It is notable, and remarked upon, for example, in the source you removed. "If he's elected, he will be our first President with a lisp."--Loodog (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Most blogs are not acceptable for citation as sources on Wikipedia.—ADavidB 10:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The New Yorker is not a blog.[15]--Loodog (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The "source" link provided above is a blog. —ADavidB 23:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It also appears in the New Yorker, which meets WP:RS.--Loodog (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "nyt101997" :
  • {{cite news | url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E4D61E3FF93AA25753C1A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=6 | title=RACE FOR CITY HALL: The Republican Candidate; A Mercurial Mayor's Confident Journey | author=Barry Bearak and Ian Fisher | publisher=The New York Times | date=1997-10-19 | accessdate=2007-05-16}}
  • Barry Bearak/Ian Fisher, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E4D61E3FF93AA25753C1A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=6 "RACE FOR CITY HALL: The Republican Candidate; A Mercurial Mayor's Confident Journey"], ''[[The New York Times]]'', October 19, 1997. Accessed May 16, 2007.

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. —Adavidb 05:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Prostate cancer

Is he now cancer-free? If so, he should be added to the cancer survivors category. Werdnawerdna (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a keyn aynhoreh. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit run for post-presidential-election perspective

I've done an edit run through much of the article to fix up problems that occurred from the original text being written in 2007 during the presidential campaign. Some material was repetitive beyond reason, or was stated in a political context that no longer exists, or was slanted or distorted to make a political point at the time, or was overly specific in terms of giving precise dates and publications in the main text. I've given specific reasons for each of the changes on its edit summary. I ran out of steam before I could give much attention to the 9/11 sections, though.

In any event, this article is still mediocre at best; it couldn't come close to GA status in its current shape. I'm kind of embarrassed to see from stats that I'm the #1 editor on it. Hopefully some other editors will give it some positive attention. If he does run for gov, it will soon get all the wrong kind of attention.... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

seperate early life and/or legal career article for Rudy

Notice how Obama, Bush, McCain, etc have their own early life articles, Rudy def deserves on. This article is way too long to begin with.--Levineps (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Two of them are presidents and one was a presidential nominee. Rudy's just a mayor. Moreover, unfortunately, nobody reads those biographical subarticles. Per http://stats.grok.se/ for December 2008:

• Rudy Giuliani: 30,397 views
• Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani: 672
• Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001 attacks: 289

The same approx 100:1 ratios hold true across all our biographies, because Google doesn't show them and readers don't click through. If Rudy runs for governor in 2010 and gets elected, then yes something will probably have to be done, but for now, I'd just let this article's structure stay the way it is. But we can see what others think. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I should also note that at 51 kB (8346 words) readable prose size, the article current fits within the guidelines of WP:SIZE. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This article seems extremely biased..

The parts regarding his enforcement of law and "cleaning up NY" seem very biased. I will read more and try to edit out some of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.231.244 (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani's mother born in a place called Brooklyn, but ironically not in New York City

http://www.gedview.com/giuliani/pedigree.php?rootid=I1

Look at this link above. I googled Rudolph Giuliani genealogy search and I found this. I figured this would be an interesting tid bit of information.

At first, I questioned if there actually was a Brooklyn, in Upstate New York, but I've found several sources that prove it to be so, one in which was already on Wikipedia. I'll provide the resources to show this place exists though, because I know they'll be a couple people out there who may just think that person got the information confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Otto,_New_York#Communities_and_locations_in_East_Otto

Here is that Wikipedia link.

Brooklyn -- A hamlet on Route 12 in the north-central part of the town, and north of Otto village.

http://www.brooklyn.net/other_bklyns/other_bklyns_02.html

http://www.roadsidethoughts.com/ny/brooklyn-xx-cattaraugus-nearby.htm

Brooklyn is located in Cattaraugus County.

This is a map of where it actually is, along with some other useful information. It says there's a population of 1,069, sourced by the U.S. Census. What should be noted though is that this place is technically not it's own town, but is more of a neighborhood, or division of a town, which is why the Census hasn't that specific of information on Brooklyn, Cattaraugus, New York.

http://www.roadsidethoughts.com/ny/brooklyn-xx-cattaraugus-census.htm

Here is the Census tab.

So I'll be interesting the following quote below, following this quote, in the early life tab:

Rudolph Giuliani was born in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, the only child of working-class parents Harold Angelo Giuliani and Helen C. D'Avanzo, both children of Italian immigrants.[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.230.11 (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, likewise to her son Rudolph, Helen C. D'Avanzo was born in a place named Brooklyn, in Cattaraugus County, New York, which is a hamlet in the north-central part of East Otto and is 31 miles south of Buffalo. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC).

I'm somehwat new to adding information onto Wikipedia, so I wasn't sure if I correctly put the links on the web-site, like with the '' and ;;. The sources are good though. If there's any problem with it, let me know, but I don't believe there is. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC).

No, that initial source is not what would be considered a reliable source, and the information does not appear to be correct. On page 18 of Rudy by Wayne Barrett, for example, it is quite clear that the D'Avanzos were married and lived in the NYC borough of Brooklyn, where they raised their seven children, including Helen. Tvoz/talk 03:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If I may ask, why would it not be a reliable resource? The other thing I was going to ask is do you know where his mother was born? Although I may not agree, I could see where you're coming from on the issue of the reliability. However, why would you believe the information is not correct?

I am not concerned about where the D'Avanzo's were raised, married or lived. You can marry and live where ever it is you want, and raise as many children as you want. That's not necessarily relevant. Actually, Helen's parents, from what I've read, were Italian immigrants, therefore, they couldn't have been born in neither Brooklyn, Kings, New York nor Brooklyn, Cattaraugus, New York. I don't know where Helen sits chronologically to his six siblings, nor do I know if they had children out of wedlock, prior to getting married. Do you know this for certain? It's possible that her parents immigrated to Brooklyn, Cattaraugus, New York, where Helen may have been moved and later moved to Brooklyn, Kings, New York, for work or what ever reason.

I don't dispute that his mother grew up in Brooklyn, in New York City. What I'm talking about is strictly where she was born, which at this point, seems debatable. Unlike anyone else on this issue though, I've provided a source, that may be correct. If you could provide one, I'd at least like an explanation as to why you believe it's not reputable. This is a Genealogy search. It's not some random person typing in what ever he wants. It had to have come from some where. The other thing I was going to ask is, why would this guy lie? Or where could he get Cattaraugus from? The fact is, it's confusing, being that he was born in Brooklyn, New York, and his mother may have been born in another Brooklyn, also within the state of New York. Perhaps if it said her mother been born in East Otto, which she technically was since Brooklyn's apart of it, you may feel differently.

Unless you find a reputable, detailed source (ex. Rudy Giuliani interview saying where she was born or a copy of his mother's birth certificate) that shows where Giuliani's mother was born, assuming it's not Brooklyn, Cattaraugus, New York, you can't deny the possibility of it. Besides Giuliani directly answering this question or seeing a birth certificate, the next reliable source is a Genealogy search. If we're to ignore that Genealogy search, which is quite useful, all we know to this point is that she was born in the United States, because it's been stated that Giuliani's born to American parents, and all 4 of his grandparents were Italian immigrants. Tom

When you get the chance, please look back in that Rudy book, on p.18, by Wayne Barrett, and see if there are any mentionings about where specifically Helen, or any of the D'Avanzo's were born. Also, if it's possible, since you're referring to p.18 in that book, you could put the specific quote or paragraph on here. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk)

72.73.230.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC).

[edit conflict] Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources - we don't allow original research here, so we'd not be looking for a copy of her birth certificate. What we need are third party sources - journalists or writers who do research and confirm their claims with multiple sourcing and publish in books or publications with editorial oversight. The website you provided has no sourcing or indication of where its information comes from, and this is likely just an error. Since a reliable source (the book I listed above) tells us that the parents were married in Brooklyn NYC, owned a house there, and raised their seven children there, it is not credible that Helen was coincidentally born in a small place upstate named Brooklyn rather than the much more likely Brooklyn NYC. But note that we don't make any claim as to her birthplace in the article - without a reliable, explicit source for it, we're better off not stating it. No one said anything about lying - the genealogy chart appears to be mistaken. However, if you find other reliable sources for this, please share them here - but please don't add it to the article until we can confirm this anomalous and not credible claim. Tvoz/talk 04:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Barrett book - [16] - scroll down to pages 18-19. As I said, the book says that Adelina and Luigi D'Avanzo, Rudy's maternal grandparents, were Italian immigrants - Adelina grew up in Brooklyn (NYC); when they married they lived on Jackson Street in Brooklyn, where they raised their seven children including Helen, Rudy's mother. There is absolutely nothing there about a sojourn to an upstate NY town named Brooklyn, and it's frankly an absurd suggestion. No, as I said, that book does not explicitly state where she was born, and that is why our article does not explicity state where she was born. But the genealogy chart is not a definitive source and is likely in error. Tvoz/talk 04:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And finally, here is her obituary from the New York Times which says she was born in Brooklyn. I can assure you that when a New York City newspaper says "Brooklyn" they quite certainly mean the borough across the river, not an obscure upstate town. Tvoz/talk 05:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(Tvoz) Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources - we don't allow original research here, so we'd not be looking for a copy of her birth certificate.

Okay, that's fine. However, you can't deny that if Rudy Giuliani said where his mother was born in an interview, it'd serve as a credible source. We don't have this though. Therefore, a Genealogy search is the next best thing we got. What other way would you suggest?

What we need are third party sources - journalists or writers who do research and confirm their claims with multiple sourcing and publish in books or publications with editorial oversight.

I don't disagree with that. However, as you know as well as I know, that most information on Wikipedia is not sourced by published information. If all quotes that weren't sourced were taken off of Wikipedia, you'd suddenly see like two-thirds of the Rudy Giuliani article evaporate. Meanwhile, I'm producing a resource, that while it may be in the gray territory, it's still more than what many have posted on this article. I'm sure you know that it takes lots of time to produce published articles. Honestly, I get the feeling that Wikipedia's goal is to collect as much information as it can, right or wrong. It seems like it's more about making money than it is providing useful information, like getting people on and reading this site. In that Genealogy search that person did, they had to pay for it. Typically, most information that is retrieved in genealogy searches are government documents, such as Census recordings.

The website you provided has no sourcing or indication of where its information comes from, and this is likely just an error

Okay, I'll give you one obvious example of how sources on Wikipedia don't always tell where their information comes from, yet it mysteriously stays on here. If you'd like, go on the Wikipedia page Jay-Z. The page is locked, so I can't edit the page. The reason why I bring it up though is in the article, it states that Jay Z attended Trenton Central High School. There were a source tagged to it, yet it never said anywhere in the article that he ever attended the school. Has Wikipedia taken the label off though? So I go on the Trenton Central High School Wikipedia page, and it says Jay Z went to the school, although he didn't graduate, which seemingly came from the Jay-Z Wikipedia page. It said no citation above it and it was there since October 2007, so I recently deleted.

Nonetheless does much not get sourced on Wikipedia, but many of the sources that are used are not always credible. Therefore, in many ways, Wikipedia feels like more of a Gossip site than an information site. For what it's worth, I think it's fair to say it's a mix of both. In this particular case I'm showing you though, the information is not gossip. I respect the fact you're questioning it's credibility.

Therefore, I'll continue to research this. If I'm able to provide multiple sources that say Giuliani's resources that show his mother was born in Brooklyn, Cattaraugus County, New York, would that serve as some credibility? Better yet, what I'll do is try to contract the person who did the Genealogy search and ask them where they retrieved this information from.

Since a reliable source (the book I listed above) tells us that the parents were married in Brooklyn NYC, owned a house there, and raised their seven children there, it is not credible that Helen was coincidentally born in a small place upstate named Brooklyn rather than the much more likely Brooklyn NYC.

I never said your source wasn't reliable to proving that his parents were married, resided in Brooklyn, NYC, owned a house and raised their seven children there. That's not the argument. What that article doesn't state is where Helen, nor to my knowledge, where any of the other six children were born. To our knowledge, all we know is that Helen was born in the United States, because multiple sources have said she's not an immigrant. Regardless of whether his mother was born in a place called Brooklyn, Cattaraugus County, New York has nothing to do with Brooklyn, New York. No one's ever said she was born in Brooklyn, New York. Now, if we were saying was she born in Brooklyn, New York City or anywhere else in America, or the state, there'd be a considerable change that's possible.

So if she was born in some random town in Ohio, couldn't you also say what's the change she was born in a small town versus the place where her parents lived most of their lives? Yeah, but that small town has to be some place, and why can't it be Brooklyn, Cattaraugus County, New York? Like I said, the fact that the word Brooklyn is there could be confusing you. If it said she was born in East Otto, New York, which Brooklyn is a portion of, you may see this to be more believable. Because that source said she was born in Brooklyn, Cattaraugus County though, it's the same thing as being born in East Otto.

But note that we don't make any claim as to her birthplace in the article - without a reliable, explicit source for it, we're better off not stating it. No one said anything about lying - the genealogy chart appears to be mistaken.

If you'd rather leave it off, for the question of reliability to the source, that's fine, but to say that it appears to be mistaken is incorrect. What you're basing it off of is assumption. You're basing it off that because she and her six siblings were raised there, they must have been born there. However, what you're not realizing is her parent's were not native to Brooklyn, and just like in today, immigrants who move to our country spread all over the place. In 2009, one Indian immigrant may move to California and their sibling or cousin may move to New Jersey. That can influence them to move there. Similarly, to Giuliani's mother who was born in 1909, when Italian immigration to the U.S. was at it's highest peak point, it's possible one person in the family could have moved to Brooklyn, while the other moved to Upstate New York. Both are places where Italian immigrants commonly went.

However, if you find other reliable sources for this, please share them here - but please don't add it to the article until we can confirm this anomalous and not credible claim.

I appreciate your care for the topic, because the truth is, most Wikipedians, and people who work for the site, would just let it go. I will definitely look for more sources and I will do my best to contract the person who did the genealogy search.

As I said, the book says that Adelina and Luigi D'Avanzo, Rudy's maternal grandparents, were Italian immigrants - Adelina grew up in Brooklyn (NYC); when they married they lived on Jackson Street in Brooklyn, where they raised their seven children including Helen, Rudy's mother.

Did it say that Adeline grew up in Brooklyn, NYC? Or that she initially immigrated to the United States? That quote probably didn't too long, it's like only a sentence or two at most. I don't have access to that book right now, but I will try to get them. Unfortunately though, most people who participate in this discussion likely won't though. If you could provide that on here, it'd be useful in the discussion.

As I've mentioned though, immigrants spread out. She could have been with family during her pregnancy. Her husband may have had to temporarily take a job in that area, which at the time, was prone to working class immigrants. For as sad as this sound too, there are actually people out there, who move to a place, just because it has the same name as the place where they're from, especially if that's the reason why it's a sister city. I spoke to someone recently who moved from Naples (Napoli), Italy to Naples, Florida recently, which they said they became acquainted because of the name. Also, another example, although I forgot the name of the town, but there was this town in Connecticut that had the same name as a city in Louisiana that was hit by Hurricane Katrina.

Besides the aid and shelter that community provided to those Louisianans being generous, the reason why that town, unlike nearly all towns in Connecticut, offered help, is because of this sister-city type bond. I don't know if there actually is this between Brooklyn, NY and other Brooklyn's nation wide, such as this part of East Otto, but this can be an idea.

There is absolutely nothing there about a sojourn to an upstate NY town named Brooklyn, and it's frankly an absurd suggestion.

Than what's even more absurd suggestion is someone actually paying to do a Genealogy search on a public official and putting it on their site. An absurd suggestion would be why would anyone want to do this to begin with. If I didn't provide this source to you, than it would be an absurd suggestion. The reality is though, whether you like or not, there is a source out there, that someone probably paid for, that states that Rudy Giuliani's mother was born in Cattaraugus County. For what it's worth too, Italians immigrants would have been more likely to have children be born in Cattaraugus County, rather than Kings. According to the Census, by percentage, Cattaraugus County (8.2%) has more Italian lineage than Brooklyn, Kings County (7.5%).

http://censtats.census.gov/data/NY/05036009.pdf (Cataraugus County)

http://censtats.census.gov/data/NY/05036047.pdf (Kings County)

No, as I said, that book does not explicitly state where she was born, and that is why our article does not explicity state where she was born.

If your rationale as to why it doesn't explicitly state where she was born on here, that's fine. However, the fact is, outside of your hunch, or what ever it may be, you can't solidly say for certain that she wasn't born in Brooklyn, Cattaraugus County, New York. I'll continue more on this in the next quote.

And finally, here is her obituary from the New York Times which says she was born in Brooklyn. I can assure you that when a New York City newspaper says "Brooklyn" they quite certainly mean the borough across the river, not an obscure upstate town.

Do you know that for certain though? Even though I'm sure you likely know this, I'll mention it anyway. When author's write articles, they write them as if they're a lawyer. They specifically write it an exact way to perpetuate their view on dominant culture. New York papers, the New York Times and New York Post being prime examples, tend to push the New York dominating view on everyone.

I can show you what I mean. If you'd like, go on Google write now. In what ever way you want to type it, look for articles about American's, excluding African-American's in the Great Migration, who who've moved to New York City. Don't look up immigrants moving there. The New York papers wouldn't be against immigrants moving there, because in their eyes, it's molding into the identity of the city. And whether they like it or not, there's nothing they can say to deny that most African-American's in New York, as well as the entire North descend from southerners, because the facts are too obvious.

If I'm wrong, than I gladly encourage to prove me wrong, even if it's for your own reference. When you're done looking up that, and eventually realize there's not much, not from New York papers at least, type in New Yorkers moving to other places. I remember reading about the ridiculous assertion that New Yorkers were moving to the Lehigh Valley once. Down below, I'll provide some links of Pennsylvanians who moved to New York City, from the Staten Island Advance (a newspaper from one of the boroughs of NYC), who'd get little attention.

http://www.silive.com/obituaries/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/1223643603299250.xml&coll=1

http://www.silive.com/obituaries/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/122078071627310.xml&coll=1

http://www.silive.com/obituaries/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/122122440516400.xml&coll=1

http://www.silive.com/obituaries/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/1222947920327640.xml&coll=1

http://www.silive.com/obituaries/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/1225284317197940.xml&coll=1

http://www.silive.com/obituaries/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/12259764175740.xml&coll=1

However, this New York article, made a ridiculous assertion, that Staten Islander's would move to Pennsylvania, arguably, one of the most economically depressed places in the country.

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/report_more_us_born_residents.html#post

If you'd like, please find me something that shows Pennsylvanians moving to Staten Island, or any borough of New York City. It'd be some task. Look at how many links you'll see about New Yorkers leaving. Now are the two really that disproportional to each other? No, they're not, but the truth is, the New York Times wants to press it's pro-New York or New Yorker-izing onto others.

Helen D'Avanzo was born on Sept. 26, 1909, in Brooklyn, one of seven children.

http://www.brooklyn.net/other_bklyns/other_bklyns_02.html

If you don't believe me about the New York Times bias nor non-sourcing, please show me where there's a source in the following statement in this article below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/nyregion/05festival.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This article can actually be found on the Italian Harlem Wikipedia page. But here's the quote:

They moved away decades ago to leafy cul-de-sacs on Long Island and in the suburbs of New Jersey. And these days the 100 burly young men who hoist the platform onto their backs and dance it down the street have to be imported from elsewhere.

Where is the source that ever proved anyone moving to a leafy cul-de-sac on Long Island, or even more disputable, New Jersey. What made the author believe that the people in these neighborhoods could afford ridiculously expensive real estate and property taxes? Are their any statistics or Census findings that'd support this? No. All they have is one guy who moved to some random place in New Jersey. They didn't even say if he was the one who said leafy cul-de-sac. So why would it be okay for a New York Times author to talk about people from a cheaper part of Manhattan moving into overwhelmingly expensive population-decreasing New Jersey town? Yet so little about the New Jerseyans and American yuppies who flood TriBeca and entire lower Manhattan? To a logical person, there's none. That's bias. To the author of this article, and to the company, who want to please their reads, it makes all the sense in the world, because they want to perpetuate this view.

Mind me, this is the New York Times, the same paper that literally made up that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, only after endorsing him, of course. This is coming from someone who voted for Obama, by the way. But the tactic was obvious. They were looking to support Barack Obama, by tying McCain to some type of cheating propoganda, similar to Bill Clinton. There attempt was obviously to hurt McCain and Hillary's names in the process of doing so, indirectly improving Obama's name. Although many later took exception to this article, the fact that this gossip was already out there, left it's mark and certainly helped Barack.

Now you're probably think why did I say all this? I showed this to you so I could explain why the author of that article that says she was born in Brooklyn, yet didn't mention the state nor city. There are 35 Brooklyn's in the United States. To my knowledge, there's just two in the state of New York, that being in Kings and Cattaraugus County, so we can just cut it down to these two. As I mentioned, author's, specifically for high-profile papers, are smart people, who know how to use their words carefully, to portray the image they want and to protect themselves at the same time. Hypothetically, if we knew for certain that Giuliani's mother was born in Cattaraugus County, and this received attention, either from this author's editor or the media, it'd be embarrassing. The resources they have available to them to find information are better and more expensive than ours, so I can guarantee you, not just have they seen that same simply googled genealogy link before, but they've seen the source where it may have come from, such as a birth certificate or census recording.

My other point in showing you those other examples were that even papers like the New York Times aren't sufficient, if they don't say where it is they get their information from. In that leafy cul-de-sac example, I can guarantee you they'd probably even admit they made it up, and would try justifying it with some nonsense like common sense or their interviewee said it, even though they didn't say he did. Think of it this way. While the Times is a reputable paper, Anderson Cooper or Larry King on CNN seems reliable for credible information too, right? Well, if they said there were burning trees in California, and they didn't show you footage, pictures or interviews, would you believe it? So why would you be any more likely to believe the leafy-cul-de-sacs? Simply because it's the New York Times? It'd sound easy just like believing Anderson Cooper, and it may be likely, but without evidence, it can't be proven. Typically, Americans are used to being babied out of laziness when it comes to their mainstream media, which is another influential tactic papers like the Times or TV stations like CNN.

Now you believe out of probability that they meant Brooklyn, in Kings county, right? Well, the fact is, it doesn't say the words New York City, nor even the words New or York in that quote, therefore it's not evidence. Like I said, I'll try to contact the person who did the genealogy search. Keep an open mind to this. With all due respect, you seem really inclined to shutting the door on this possibility. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC).

72.73.230.11, your long rants against the New York Times and other Wikipedia articles are irrelevant. As Tvoz said, the Rudy Giuliani article doesn't say where his mother was born nor does it need to. But if it were to, the New York Times obit that says she was born in Brooklyn (and yes it obviously means the Brooklyn in New York City, it's a New York City newspaper) is a reliable source by the definitions of WP:RS and WP:V and could be used in this Wikipedia article. The website gedview.com is nothing more than a hosting site where anybody can upload anything about their own families or other peoples' families. It is not a professional genealogy site writing about a famous person's ancestors (like this NEHGS article about Hillary Rodham Clinton for example). Thus, gedview.com is not a WP:RS, does not provide WP:V, and you cannot use anything from it in a Wikipedia article. It's that simple. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, I'll try to contact the person who retrieved this information. I'll ask him where he got this from. He had to have gotten it from somewhere. Could you think of a better reason why someone would make up the word Cattaraugus. Ironic coincidences happen. I understand it's not a source though, so I accept that, but if he has either a Census recording or a legitimate source, I'll provide it. As for the Times, I'm not saying they're not a reputable paper, although they've had messed like John McCain and the lobbyist before, but if there's another paper, like a Buffalo newspaper, that says this about Giuliani's mother, and it explicitly says in East Otto, Cattaraugus County, than there's nothing to deny such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.230.11 (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations.

This article need more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.155.22 (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And also better formatting of the ones that are there. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Italian orders of merit

Hi, someone could add this honor in a correct english? Giuliani was nominated "Cavaliere di Gran Croce Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana" in 2001, from the italian President of Republic.

some links: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Giuliani - http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordine_al_merito_della_Repubblica_Italiana

My english is not good so I'm asking you to write it, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fungoh (talk • contribs) 09:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Italian Wikipedia (or any Wikipedia) is not a WP:RS. I can't find any source to support the September 2001 awarding in Rome of the Italian orders of merit#Order of Merit of the Republic (Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana) Cavaliere di Gran Croce Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana. I did find a source for the December 2001 awarding in New York of the Order of Merit of Savoy Cavaliere di Gran Croce (Motu Proprio), here, which I added to the article. Maybe these are the same things? I'm very confused. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very very sorry, I'm not an expert on the Wikipedia world, anyway this is another source, unfortunately is only in italian: http://www.quirinale.it/onorificenze/DettaglioDecorato.asp?idprogressivo=45755&iddecorato=45299

That is the Quirinale's official website, you can search in the database who had an award, here there is the search page: http://www.quirinale.it/onorificenze/onorificenze.asp I hope I'm useful for you :)

PS: Order of Merit of Savoy is an other thing! Savoy (I believe) in italian means Savoia, there was the kingdom of Savoia here in Italy and Savoia is the surname of the king family, they are alive, so probably they give to Rudolph that award. I'm sorry if my english is too bad, I hope you could understand it!

EDIT: I visited the web site http://www.savoydelegation-usa.org/ and yes, Savoy means italian Savoia, the ancient family who governed the old kingdom! So, they are two different awards, one was assigned from the Savoy Family, now they are normal people without any power, and one was assigned from our President of Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fungoh (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Details of Giuliani's Gay Roommates

User:Wasted Time R in this edit deleted the details and nuked reputable citations for details about Giuliani's widely covered arrangement of living with gay roommates during the divorce (made relevant by the fact he declined to attend their recent marriage). This really smacks of censorship and attempts to cleanse this biography of details that don't fit cleanly in the Republican mold. Even the New York Post won't sink to such censorship on the subject! So much for being bold on Wikipedia! For the record the deleted section is below: Americasroof (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Giuliani then moved out of Gracie Mansion and into an East 57th Street apartment belonging to two gay friends Howard Koeppel (born 1937) and his domestic partner, Mark Hsiao (born 1960). Koeppel who owns Koeppel Automotive Group which sells Volkswagen, Nissan, Hyundai and Mitsubishi cars in Queens. Guillinai was described as a good roommate who made his bed but squeezed the toothpaste tube in the middle. Koeppel selected his ties in the morning and Guiliani called him "mother." Guiliani was invited to their wedding in Connecticut on May 2, 2009 but did not attend. Guiliani said he supports gay civil unions but not gay marriages.

No censorship, just attention to biographical significance and narrative coherence per WP:BLP,WP:WEIGHT, and other criteria. That section of Giuliani's biography does not need to stop in its tracks to include mini-bio's of Koeppel or Hsiao (if they are notable, create new articles for them), nor does it need to discuss Giuliani's grooming habits (never discussed anywhere else in the article), nor does it need a flash-forward to a wedding many years later. However, I have included his non-attendance at the wedding in Political positions of Rudy Giuliani‎#LGBT issues, where it has some marginal relevance to his position on same-sex marriage. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The section is WAY TOO VAGUE simply saying "gay friends." I put specific names and occupations (it is interesting that he would be staying at a car dealer!). The comments about what kind of roommate he was was done in an affectionate manner showing a domesticity that he was comfortable with. Burying the fact he did not attend the wedding in the "issues" section is definitely a way of hiding it. The area of interest on these articles are always the personal side not the issues. Americasroof (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

'Gay friends' is succinct and descriptive. This is a relatively minor episode in Giuliani's story. The main article is a fairly quick once-over of Giuliani's life. If you look at Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani, you'll see a number of important policy issues and Giuliani governing characteristics that have been relegated to it and are not in the main article. If we're going to expand the level of detail that the main article covers, some of those deserve promotion first. And if you want to get into the "personal side", Giuliani's three appearances in drag while mayor (which I researched and wrote up the details on) got put there, instead of in the main article. Now if we're going to add back some personal side material into the main article, I'd suggest the drag appearances are much more illuminating of Giuliani's character and attitude and nonconformity than how he brushes his teeth or the occupations of his gay friends. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Republican vs Republian/Liberal

I think that is appropriate to indicate in the lead paragraph that, as a mayoral candidate, Giuliani always ran on the Republican and Liberal lines, as this fact was central to winning the mayor's race, AND to his defeat in the quest for the US presidency. NathanZook (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly part of the story of his mayoral elections, but it had nothing to do with his losing the presidential nomination campaign. Who gets the Liberal and Conservative Party lines have much to do with the byzantine world of New York state politics, and not so much to do with ideology. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Transvestism

Why is there no discussion of his history as transvestite? It is not common for American politicians to be public transvestites and seems noteworthy. 66.65.49.220 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That was akin to a Halloween costume if I remember correctly, but IAC pls provide a ref.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The introductory section of this article is pretty average. 9/11 ocurred at the tail end of his last year in office, yet it dominates the introduction. It's like George W. Bush's article starting with "George Walker Bush was the President of the United States during the War In Iraq. France condemned the invasion." I think it needs to be more detailed and less focused on 9/11. --58.170.100.72 (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone messed up the introduction. It is way too short for an article like this. Golfcourseairhorn (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sidebar nav aid

Although there is no separate article on Giuliani's early years (yet), a "series" navigational template has been added to this article just below the infobox template. (Also: See my comment at Talk:Public image of Rudy Giuliani#"Part of a series on" navbox.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Times Square effort?

How does this article not even mention his effort to clean up Times Square, turning it into what it is today?CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur. It is remembered among new Yorkers almost as much as 9/11. Plus, millions of people see/have seen Times Square; the description of it before and after (it is frequently said that Guiliani "Disnyfied it." of course before it was a pit of porno films, prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. it is perhaps the most famous destination in the Western world

A link to the main article to Times Square as Main article could be inserted. Shlishke (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Additions pertaining to Rudy Giuliani's support of the FTO PMOI/MEK

At this point, I feel the section is well-sourced and written in a neutral manner. I have revised the content multiple times and have received only removals stating the content was NNPOV or utilizing politicized sources. As this has been remedied, I fail to see the current complication with the content. I am perfectly happy to revise it, but I do not feel that a person whose background that matches Mr. Giuliani's support for a terrorist group that killed Americans on a paid basis both before and after the de-listing is a subject that ought to be entirely ignored. Doubly so when they attacked in NYC immediately prior to his election of mayor and put forth as a champion of the war on terror.

As there have been no suggestions or improvements, I fail to see an adequate method for dispute resolution.

172.56.3.194 (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions. 1) Don't use Wikipedia or Youtube as a source. 2) When someone reverts your bold edit, you do not revert back, but you should discuss on the talk page. 3) Use Neutral Point of View at all times. You probably do not see it, but your point of view entails having sources that are not related to Giuliani, but to the group. You are off-tangent there; the only source worth saving is NY Times.

You did not do any of these. Therefore, you are liable to Edit Warring sanctions. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Also,, don't get to the point where you are reported for edit warring. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you still don't seem to understand. Your sources are not up to speed as far as WP:RS. Some of them are used as WP:SYN for original research. The section is not neutral in tone. You are pushing a non-neutral POV and have stated under other IPs that you seem to be on a mission to insert this information. There is no consensus to add this information at this time. EricSerge (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You realize you're still edit warring, right? Using a different IP, 172.56.3.190 (talk · contribs · 172.56.3.190 WHOIS), is not going to hide the fact that you are still reverting without discussion on this talk page. – 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

References

NEWS, for future editing

Giuliani was defending Netanyahu coming to Congress, before American Iranians.

Headline: A Raging Rudy Giuliani destroys Obama’s feckless Islamism and Iran Policies

• http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/02/13/a-raging-rudy-giuliani-destroys-obamas-feckless-islamism-and-iran-policies/

QUOTE: "At times screaming with rage, Rudy Giuliani excoriates Barack Obama for his weak and feckless policies toward the global threats of radical Islam and a nuclear-armed Iran. This powerful speech was delivered at the Iranian-American Community of Arizona symposium “Countering Islamic Fundamentalism and a Nuclear-Armed Iran,” February 13, 2015, Phoenix, Arizona." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing consideration.

Citation jumbled up

Hello - Could someone more familiar with this article take a look at the text below? I am not sure what is supposed to be going on with the Seifman reference.

* [[Ed Koch|Koch, Edward I.]] (1999). ''Giuliani: Nasty Man.'' Barricade Books. ISBN 1-56980-155-X. Reissued, 2007.<ref>David Seifman, "Railing at Rudy", "New York Post", May 13, 2007, 9</ref>

Thanks KConWiki (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

William Bratton.

Since you noted that Bratton went to work in Los Angeles, you might also want to note that he returned to NYC as Police Commissioner. From his Wikipedia article:

"On December 5, 2013, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that Bratton would return to the post of Police Commissioner in New York City.[10]

On August 2, 2016 it was announced that Bratton would step down in September 2016 as commissioner of the NYPD.[11]"

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This is Giuliani's article; in what ways would mention of Bratton's subsequent return (and departure) as commissioner improve this article? —ADavidB 02:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Claims of voter fraud.

Mr Giuliani claimed that there were cases where "the dead" cast votes against him. This is not mentioned anywhere in his named article or in his various campaign articles.

If true, wouldn't this be valuable information to include in one of those places? And with his history of being a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, what did he then do about it? How did he find out about this to begin with? Was he successful in exposing the wrong-doing and correcting the situation? He further alludes to have prosecuted voter fraud cases. Is that true? So far, I can't find a contemporaneous account of the situations that he described.

"Giuliani on rigged election: 'Dead people generally vote for Democrats'" - http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/rudy-giuliani-rigged-elections-donald-trump/index.html

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that FactCheck.org was on the job. The organization has made an evaluation about these claims and the further Giuliani claim that there were "busloads of people voting numerous times in some big cities."

The FactCheck.org report, in part: "Allegations of “busloads” of people going from polling place to polling place — such as Giuliani described — is a common urban myth, [Lorraine] Minnite said. She has heard tales of busloads of college students coming into New Hampshire to vote, and about busloads of Mexicans from Oklahoma voting in Kansas. And in every case — including Giuliani’s, she said — there is no evidence for them."

Incidents of 2016 election misinformation by Giuliani should be noted in this article. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/ Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)