Talk:Rudy Giuliani/Archive 3

How can your score a 504 and 569 on the SAT?

I know the source is cited, but this seems fishy.

=== If you take the SAT twice ===

SATs used to not be multiples of fives, like my mom recieved a 761 on math, and 467 on verbal Skislope15 23:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

if he only took it twice his average would end in either 5 or 0. Ending in a 4 or 9 suggests that he took the SAT 5+ times.

(500 + 510)/2 = 505

(500 + 500 + 500 + 510 + 510)/5 = 504

I think it should just be cities as mid 1000s.

I think they used to score it down to the last digit, instead of rounding off to tens. Wasted Time R 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He married his second cousin. That is relevant. Why do people keep reverting that fact?

Why do changes reflecting this fact of his life keep being reverted? It's amusing that it's being reverted to a version which goes so far as to describe the marraige as one between people who have known each other since childhood...and bore no children...whomever's comfortable with that version is absolutely aware that he was married to his second cousin, and they both tried to deny that later. We have a page here describing married cousins, this bio should at least link to that page.--Woody Taylor 13:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not reading the article carefully. Later in the Personal life section, it says: "[an] annulment of the Giuliani-Peruggi marriage was granted at the end of 1983[96], according to Giuliani, because he discovered after fourteen years that he and his wife were second cousins[100] and they did not have the Church dispensation thus needed." So it definitely is mentioned. And then in the Controversies section at Rudy_Giuliani#Annulment_of_first_marriage, a whole subsection deals with whether he did in fact know she was his second cousin when they married. What's being reverted is the label of 'second cousin' when the Peruggi marriage took place; to put it there implies that they knew they were second cousins at the time, which is disputed by them. Wasted Time R 13:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There's considerable controversy around the notion that they did not know they were related. Giuliani has made many conflicting statements about the duration and nature of that marriage, what you are referring to...that they "discovered' it...is POV. It's much simpler to state it as it is rather than get caught up in any notions of how two people from a close-knit family could know each other their entire lives and not realize they were related.--Woody Taylor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.228.76 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

More specifically, it should be stated "as is" in the marraige section. Notions about how they didn't know they were related are best left to the controversies section, IMO.--Woody Taylor

OK. No one disputes that they are in fact second cousins to each other, so I've restored that on the first reference to her. What's in dispute is whether Giuliani knew at the time of the marriage that they are second cousins, and/or whether he knew that he need a Church dispensation for a second cousin marriage. That, as you say, can be left to the Controversies section. But note that the description of the annulment needs to come later than your last edit put it, since the Hanover relationship had already started. Wasted Time R 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That works, thank you. I do think it's biased to quote Giuliani in that initial section as saying "overwork" was the reason why the first marraige ended. Obviously his reasoning might have been more grounded in political expediency (which is the controversy, which is why I'd prefer any rationale on why the marraige ended to be in the controversy section). Plus, the citation there is from the Hong Kong Sunday Morning Post...in that same article, per The Smoking Gun documentation, indicates that Giuliani stated that marraige lasted six years. That's either a lie on his part or a typo on the part of the reporter (or I guess the person that compiled the document at TSG).

OK, I removed the 'overwork' bit. It was out of balance with the rest of the section, which just gives event timelines and not reasons. As for the length of the marriage, I think in that context Giuliani was counting the length until it was emotionally over. However, if you read the Barrett biography, during the time he was living in New York Giuliani was giving everyone the impression that the marriage was completely over except on paper, even while he was still living with Peruggi. Weird if true ... or did Barrett just talk with people who had axes to grind? Who knows. You'd need a squad of detectives to sort out all the twists and turns of Rudy's personal life. Wasted Time R 18:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It actually was his second cousin once removed.

Judith Nathan

" a twice-divorced sales " - edit by AuntJennifer. Is it really necessary to add Judith Nathan is twice-divorced? That information is found on Judith Nathan's page. Jmegill 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't necessary. Aunt Jennifer is obviously a prude. I've reverted. Wasted Time R 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the interest in this topic has anything to do with prudishness for most....rather, the question at hand is whether this is yet another example of Giuliani's lack of concern for the truth. The allegation is that Nathan's first marriage was covered up by Giuliani....141.155.63.6 16:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Show me a serious cite that accuses Giuliani of covering up Nathan's first marriage. All I've seen is that Nathan simply never mentioned it before to the press, which is quite different. Wasted Time R 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please leave your bias out of wikipedia Dabomb691 07:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

giuliani moved the emergency services bunker from the basement of a city owned building were it payed no rent to the 23rd floor of 7 WTC a privately owned builiding were it had to pay rent and a known terrorist target. He did this against the advice of the police and fire department. The August Vanity Fair says he did this so he could have trysts with Judith Nathan at a place within walking distance of City Hall. The building burned to the ground on 9/11 because the bunker contained 40,000 gallons of deisel fuel.Chacherenyc 02:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Kerik controversy

On the last edit, is "police commissioner" capitalized or not? and also, "from his Corrections days" ? Also, this addition, "As Giuliani campaigns in his bid for the White House, he has faced repeated questions about Kerik -- and what his support for the disgraced former driver and police commissioner means about his judgment. Giuliani told voters in one New Jersey appearance that he should be judged by his success and his mistakes" has POV problems. I think that last part should be removed. Jmegill 05:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved that bit to the campaign article, where it was more appropriate. Wasted Time R 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Refusal of Saudi Donation

This anecdote really seems out of place in this section. Would be more appropriate in a subsection on his views re Israel and the Middle East conflict or post 9/11 controversies if anywhere. But in general it seems like gratuitous POV (as the act seemed particularly politically motivated at the time to many...) and probably should just be removed from the article...71.125.218.31 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It belongs where it is. This was a very notable act that got a lot of attention at the time; it's mentioned in the Time Person of the Year article, it's mentioned in Adam Sandler's heavily-cheered Operaman routine at the time, and so forth. It helped define the framing of how 9/11 was viewed in the U.S. Giuliani's exact motivation for the act is ultimately unknowable and immaterial. Wasted Time R 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should be there. However, what makes you say the reasons for his act are ultimately unknowable and immaterial? Directly after, he states his frankly straightforward reasoning for refusing the donation. Dabomb691 01:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous edits

the anonymous edits done to the page over the past couple days have POV problems. requesting semi-protection. Jmegill 20:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How this guy is leading in the Republican polls is a bit of a mystery. 95% of Wikipedia editors who work on this article obviously hate him and try to stick in anything negative they can get away with. Wasted Time R 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really a mystery....most folks outside of NYC know nothing about him. He was disapproved of by nearly 2 out of 3 NYers prior to Sept. 11 (and truly despised by a large fraction of those...). His bounce in popularity after the attack was indicative of the level of shell shock and the desire to unite prevalent among us while the smoke and smell of death still filled our nostrils, but didn't reflect any widespread re-evaluation of his administration or character. As for the article - Rudy's record speaks for itself; the article was a puff piece a few months back but as long as his record is brought forth objectively the rest of the nation will be able to judge. And believe me....what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg....141.155.63.6 19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a huge opinion based oversimplification. I'm from California and could not care less about a divorce or any other problem he's had in the past, as long as his problems aren't too serious and they aren't. What makes you think a president has to be an altar of perfection? What if other's definition of a good leader is someone who isn't perfect, and acknowledges this?Dabomb691 01:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Altar of perfection?? No worry about Rudy being confused with anything close....But I'm not sure what you're responding to...The guy was just pointing out that very few people outside of NYC know much about him, that he was massively unpopular in NYC before the attack (look at the polls or read some press clippings) and that his surge in popularity here lasted only as long as we NYers were still shell-shocked and eager to put aside differences in the interest of healing, etc (again, look at the polls and press). As for the rest, when has Rudy admitted his failings? Most of the scandals have been dragged out into the public light forcibly and he (to the best of my knowledge...) has acknowledged or accepted blame for very few. As for the future, all you have to do is come here and hang out at a bar with press, cops, court people, or anyone else in a position to know and you'll get a sense of some of what's waiting to come out.....But if none of the dirt bothers voters and they don't mind putting a guy in the white house who's never been elected to a position higher than mayor then I guess they'll get to know him like we did....Veritas23 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Chavez trivia

I removed the statement that Hugo Chavez called President George Bush "the devil." He did do so, but it is unrelated to the Giuliani firm's representation of Citgo and is already included in the Chavez article. 67.101.243.74 03:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Including title in main name section.

KBE or Knight of the British Empire is often included following the name of an individual who has been so dubbed. However, American political figures and many other non-Britons tend not to favor using titles of knighthood in their formal name. Consider President George Herbert Walker Bush, who is a "GCB" or Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, another British knighthood order; he does not use the title except on relevant occasions. As such, his Wikipedia article does not include it (at most points in time, when it has not been recently added by an editor and before its usual subsequent removal). I will remove it from this article in keeping with precedent in about three days if there are no objections that show cause for keeping it there. Thoughts on keeping or removing it from the intro paragraph's bold-face name? 67.101.243.74 23:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed previously at Talk:Rudy_Giuliani/Archive_1#Knighthood and it was decided that the KBE usage was inappropriate. But this being Wikipedia, decisions have no lasting effect and the whole thing gets re-discussed all over again. Wasted Time R 01:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Three days have passed and, pursuent to the discussion above, the KBE notation is now removed. 67.101.243.74 22:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rudy's Mafia Ties

I don't understand why this section was excised. Regardless of whether or not Giuliani is in fact linked to a particular branch of the mafia as has long been rumored, the allegations are long-standing and there is plenty of 'smoke' long discussed in the media. This article is going to need a section to address this topic eventually...141.155.63.6 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the section was a pile of crap. Here were the supposed "ties":

• His father was a criminal, which is already covered earlier in the article. But that doesn't say anything about Rudy; those sins are not visited upon the son.
• He convicted "Fat Tony" instead of "The Chin" as head of a Mafia family, already covered by a footnote in the article. So what? Maybe they missed who the real head was, and only got the consigliere, but that's hardly evidence of "ties".
• After all the Mafia convictions, a different family became the strongest. So what? There's always after-effects of putting guys in jail, that doesn't mean you stop doing it.
• D'Amato leaned on Giuliani to give leniency to a Mafia guy. But the cite given showed that Giuliani rejected D'Amato's move, disproving the alleged point.
• The Kerik mess. Already covered in the article. Doesn't show that Rudy had ties to anyone, just that he exercised really bad judgement in behalf of misguided loyalty/cronyism.
• Rudy's done an impression of The Godfather in public. So what?

The simple fact is, your attempted sliming is absurd. No matter what else you think about Rudy, he did in fact go after the mob big time. It's clumsy character assassination attempts like yours that give Wikipedia a really bad name. Wasted Time R 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Wasted, thank god you're here protecting this page from the godless hordes, but can you tone down your self-righteous martyr act? You're acting like a jackass. We get it, you want final say on this page, we get it, you think it's under attack, we get it, you're paranoid enough to watch it 24 hours a day. So take the high road when and if someone might just have a different viewpoint from you. It's silly.

OK, I get it, I'm being accused of violating Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Perhaps so. I will back off here. Enjoy yourselves. Wasted Time R 01:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please contribute. The page is going to be attacked repeatedly a lot more in the future...if you have knowledge of this subject, help well-intentioned people better clarify it. But you're only fanning flames when you respond to edits with quick reversions, insults, and condescension.

The reason John Gotti is called the teflon Don is he beat two indictments brought against him by then US Attorney Rudolph Guiliani. He wasn't even a very good lawyer.Chacherenyc 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Family included firefighters, police officers and criminals?

Haven't all of our family's included criminals in some way or another? This is biased and should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.183.105.59 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

I've restored this, since it's in many Giuiliani biographical accounts from the last decade and since it is invariably(*) taken to Rudy's credit that even though he was exposed to criminality in his childhood, he chose the righteous path and became an effective prosecutor of criminals. Wasted Time R 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC) *Of course the editors here who do not come from the reality-based community, see it otherwise.

This is spoken about in other sections of the page. The way it's phrased seems biased to me because he is of Italian-American heritage.

Wait a minute....the source for that early addition wasn't 'slanted'...it included links to the primary source documents, which is more than most cites in most wikipedia articles do. But beyond that, you removed the long standing reference to Harold's post-prison career as a collector for his loan shark brother-in-law, a man who was a known mafia associate. I understand the deletion of the 'controversy' section referenced above, but this seems like whitewashing of important biographical material. Veritas23 21:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Step 1 was to find the Barrett article online and to cite that, since that's where all this stuff comes from. Clearly Harold was serving as muscle for an organized criminal activity, and I've restored that. I'm leery to call this 'Mafia', because Barrett doesn't; he just has a single quote of a female relative using that term, which isn't very conclusive; Leo may simply have been too small-time or on the periphery to warrant that label. Since Veritas23's agenda is quite suspect, I'm going to leave it as just 'organized criminal activity', which is all that Barrett states himself. Wasted Time R 22:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no independent gambling or loansharking in NYC in those days, but it's true that I've yet to see which crew/family the D'Avanzo/Giuliani family was 'on the record' with....Still, it will all come out before long. Nothing suspect about my motives by the way...I may be new to Wikipedia editing but am interested only in seeing this article become more accurate and comprehensive. Thanks for being reasonable.Veritas23 11:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani moved in with two gay friends

An anon deleted the "gay" reference, without discussion on the talk page, offering only an ES: "no idea why it was in there to start with". It was in there because it's mentioned reasonably often, especially by some of the conservatives explaining why they had reservations about Giuliani:

• "Conservatives might be put off by Giuliani's decision to live with two gay men while estranged from his wife, Donna Hanover." [1]
• "Further down in the column, Tabor attacked Giuliani's pro-gay history and scoffing at the fact that the former mayor stayed with two gay men when he was ordered out of the mansion by a court." [2]
• A use by a Democrat: "'His wife kicked him out,' Sanders said of Gotham's former mayor, 'and he moved in with two gay men and a Shi Tzu. Is that South Carolina values?'" [3]

I personally believe that focus on this "issue" reveals only the intellectual poverty of the proponents, but the issue for the article isn't whether the point is valid but whether it's notable. I'm restoring it. JamesMLane t c 06:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He also likes to cross dress noted in this video on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8&mode=related&search= Other photos are known to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyBobdontsaythosewords (talk • contribs) 20:20, 16 May 2007

"likes to cross dress" for charity. Good for him.

"New York's Tormenter"

Are you kidding me? This section adds nothing besides an uncited smeer at the end ("By rights he was "New York's Tormenter.")And confusing syntax. Someone seriously needs to delete it.

That may be easy for you to say. I was working in the Nightlife Industry when RG was Mayor and his reinterpretation of the 80 year old Cabaret Laws (meant to reduce "hooliganism" associated with jazz clubs but was really a wasy to keep white musicians employed before black musicians, I beleive.) These laws made it illegal for people to dance. Thats right, HE made it illegal to move your body rhythmically to music. Sound crazy? Yes, it does. I am new here and still learning the rules, but this was a very important TORMENT that RG punished New York City with. Prozizzle 21:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree he really ripped into the Clubs in NYC. It needs to be addressed, but this section could use a rewrite by someone who knows more about the situation than I do. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

agree as well, it need to be added somewhere that he shut down many clubs because people were dancing in them. It needs to be added here, or controversy or mayoralship. That was a very bizarre time. Here is an article by CNN on it. http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/04/dancing.ban/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybee123 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to the Crime Reduction

I read in either Time or Newsweek that part of the successful reduction in crime during Guliani's term was due to the large number of police officers that were hired during the term of Mayor Dinkins. So the crimer reduction story has two parts:

     More Police - Mayor Dinkins
     Better Police Tactics - Mayor Guliani

Currently this article and the Dinkins article fail to join the two mayors together in this story about crime reduction which is overly simplistic. I know the article mentions federal fuding for more cops - but no credit is given to Dinkins for getting them hired. I don't live in NYC, never have, so I don't have an agenda in pointing out that simplistic (Guliani Good / Dinkins Bad)POV of the Gulian and Dinkins articles

FYI, I live in L.A. and Bratton is begging our Democratic city government to hire 3,000 more cops to clear the gangs from our streets. However, our leaders are terrified of raising taxes or cutting services to do this - the conservatives are 'lurking' just off stage in case they do.

Re: Crime Reduction Every year from 1990 to 2001, more cops were hired. Giuliani likes to take credit for the reduction in crime. The controversy is: how much credit is due Giuliani vs. the his police chiefs vs. other factors. Jmegill 00:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

in addition to hiring 2000 additional officers who were commisioned the second month of giuliani's first term, he also initiated the comunity policing program. He took cops out of cars and put them back on the beat. Giuliani's claim to fame is comstat, a computerized analysis of crime by precinct. This was more about real estate and gentrification. Guliani was mayor of New York during the greatest economic boom in American History. All he had to do was to show up.Chacherenyc 01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Add Virginia Trash Controversy section

Giuliani obviously made a political gaffe when he said it. This incident is important because it shows that Giuliani has a sense of being culturally suoperiority because he is from New York and thus looks down on rural states. Jmegill 00:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 2

I recently read an interview (you'll need to scroll almost halfway down) in which Giuliani was said to have "a very strong authoritarian streak," and that after 9/11 "He wanted to be granted emergency dictatorial powers." I came here to try to find some sources to confirm or deny these claims. The source indicated by footnote 2 looked like it would be relevant, but I don't see anything about Giuliani's alleged authoritarian tendencies in it. Am I missing something in that source? Or does anyone have a better source? Veatch 15:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
After 9/11, Giuliani proposed that he remain mayor for an extra ninety days. NYC Constitution limits the mayor to serving a maximum of eight years. Mark Green, the Democrat candidate for Mayor, lost the 2001 Mayoral race in part because he said he would be willing to allow Giuliani to have more time in office. As for being called "authoritarian" - this is the opinion of many journalists. Look at specific incidents like denying parade and/or protest permits, frequently siding with the police, evicting people from the city gardens, evicting squatters, cracking down on porn industry in Times Square, controversy over the Brooklyn Museum, personality clashes which led to his subordinates quitting their jobs, etc. Observing all of this together leads many journalists to a judgment that Giuliani is "authoritarian". Jmegill 02:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of journalists have a bias (mostly liberal) as well. It's really hard to get a straightforward and fair report these days.Dabomb691 08:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Journalists or columnists? I am not a big fan of 'emergency powers' but having relatives who survived 9/11 and two friends who died in the towers, I would have had no problem with him having an extra 90 days. I don't consider that, or siding with the police etc, to be authoritarian tendencies. If it was, there are a lot of mayors who would fit that bill. I consider that claim POV and I'm as liberal as they get.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Magna Cum Laude"

Does anyone know if Giuliani graduated "magna cum laude" from either his college or his law school? The biography page on the NYC archive suggests that Giuliani graduated "magna cum laude" from NYU law. Conversely, Wayne Barrett suggests that Giuliani claimed to have graduated "magna cum laude" from Manhattan college when in fact he did not. Giuliani's campaign website does not mention "magna cum laude". This discrepancy can not be resolved by online sources because the online sources may not have the right information. This discrepancy may also be extremely important going forward. Jmegill 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements about destroying the Board of Education

Surely, someone must have found his statements advocating that someone "blow up" the Board of Education offensive and reckless, at the very least, on the heels of the Columbine massacre. Has anyone a reference to reaction to his statement? Dogru144 11:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe look in the archives of the New York Times to see what they say. Or do a search on "randi weingarten" who is the head of the teachers' union. Just my suggestions Jmegill 15:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs to be removed or rewritten with a neutral point of view. In its current state it is simply inflammatory. 66.188.28.26 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk of "blowing up" institutions of the public trust, rather, the government, are irresponsible statements for anyone to make. It is even more disturbing if a public official is making such a statement. The public should know that this is how Rudy Giuliani speaks. It is POV to shield the public from such information. Dogru144 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is POV to give any point of view, especially one as radical as yours. Dabomb691 08:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bd of Ed in those days was a half-billion $ a year monster. Most people welcomed his comments. Haiduc 11:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

hagiography in the intro

the drop in crime through 2005 is strongly disputed by writers such as Nicholas Stix and Paul Moses. They object that the statistics do not match reality. In either case, a claim that New York City is the safest city should not be put into the intro because reported crime continued to drop under Bloomberg. Jmegill 05:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

JamesMLane: I don't object to the phrasing you used (the revision was subsequently reverted by someone else). However, I feel it is more accurate to say that he has taken credit for the drops in crime rather than saying that some credited him with the drops in crime. The reason being that the mayor himself is the biggest promoter of the "Giuliani causes crime to drop" theory. The next sentence in the paragraph mentions that he does have detractors and the controversy section goes into more detail of it. Jmegill 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In terms of what's important to his bio, the widespread acceptance of his alleged role in reducing crime deserves to be mentioned. Lots of politicians try to take credit for lots of things. Especially with Giuliani running for President, it's significant to his bio that he has a widespread image as a crimebuster, because that's a major factor in his popularity. If you have suitably encyclopedic references to his own role in promoting this image, that could certainly go in the article, but probably not in the introductory section. (I don't think that the image is solely because of his own manipulation of the media, though he is good at that.)

The editor who reverted my change wrote in the ES, "it is not at all objective that believing it was 'falling' for it, nor that it was just self-aggrandizing PR". That would be relevant if I had edited the article to state as a fact that Giuliani's admirers are deluded. That happens to be my personal belief, but I didn't put it in the article; I wrote only that he has admirers on this score, which of course is an objective fact. I'm restoring my wording. JamesMLane t c 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The last line of the intro "If elected he will be the [...]" is a horrible piece of political prediction. It is hardly important or useful and reads more like his campaign director's words than any biographer. 99th Percentile 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism in the Lede

No other major presidential candidates have critical statements in the opening section (see Hillary Clinton. This should be removed. Judehaz 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone curious on the usage of Lede and not "lead" (E.g: Dogru144), can check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_style#Terms_and_structure Judehaz 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Hillary Clinton page is remarkable in that major, damaging criticism has been kept off the main page and place in 'Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies'. The question should be not about the Giuliani page, but rather how the Clinton page is got to be so sterile. Jmegill 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

By consensus of editors on Hillary Rodham Clinton, the lede is indeed kept quite sterile, sticking to just unassailable biographical facts. This is because trying to do more than that has always gotten into hopeless edit disputes. Whether the Giuliani article adopts the same approach is up to the editors here, of course. The segregation of controversies into Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies was done for size reasons; there are a number of such subarticles, in order to keep the main article length manageable (and if she gets to be president, there will have to be even more such subarticles). The major controversies are all wikilinked to from the main article; no one is hiding them. Wasted Time R 12:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Cross-Dressing?

Why is cross-dressing so important? It takes up almost the entire "Media" secton, with three pretty long paragraphs. More detail is given on his clothes than other important points. All those paragraphs should be taken out.--Gloriamarie 10:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The drag appearances are important because they got a lot of attention then and now, and they are something almost no other major politician has ever done. They indicate Giuliani is comfortable enough in his own skin to do something like that ... most politicos would just cower in fear at the very idea. If the material is taken out, others will put add it back in, only without the researched accuracy. If there are other points that should be added to the "Media" section, then by all means do so, but the drag appearances should stay. Wasted Time R 11:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point, but it just seems too detailed. There is very little mention of Amadou Diallo and yet multiple paragraphs on cross dressing? It just seems that those instances can be summed up in a few sentences. --Gloriamarie 11:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found that with potentially controversial material, having a sufficient level of detail and citations is important. If you feel that there isn't enough material on Amadou Diallo, then the solution is to add more material there, not remove material elsewhere. Wasted Time R 11:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe I've just been hanging out in some long articles lately, where editors are intent on removing anything but the most important info. I was surprised there wasn't more on Amadou Diallo since that was a pretty big national story at the time. Would that fit best under "Controversies" or "Crime control"? ---Gloriamarie 01:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing that keeps getting to me is how so many keep asserting that it is a fact that Rudy dresses as "Rudia" "only for a lark", etc. How anyone not intimately involved in his life claims to know his motivations is beyond me. Seems to me all we can do is report the publically recorded facts as accurately as possible and let history be the judge of "why". Whether or not any of this "matters" in a moral or psychosexual sense, the fact that not a single other candidate in any recent presidential election (ever??)has repeatedly dressed in drag combined with the focus on Rudy's tangled personal life and standing with conservative voters pretty much mandates that this issue is fully explored. Just wish someone would contribute a public domain photo of Rudia.... 141.155.63.6 16:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One has been the above discussion about whether his drag appearances have too much coverage, the other has been whether he belongs in the Category:Transgender people and behavior]] category, which has been edited back and forth several times. If you look at what else is in that category, it's pretty clear that Rudy doesn't belong. Otherwise you'd need to add in every actor who's ever done drag, from Jack Lemon and Milton Berle to half the cast of SNL. Wasted Time R 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Artist issues

I removed certain stuff that is irrelevant at best and slanting the section at worst:

• it is irrelevant for the issue that the artist in question has won awards (maybe we should then add how many votes Giuliani got), unless one wants to argue that such a renowned artist is unassaible
• it is irrelevant for the issue that the artist is Catholic - the piece was/is still offensive to Catholics
• it was not considered an attack on "religion" but an attack on Christianity - I see no Buddhists being attacked by a depiction of the Virgin Mary

I agree about the Ron Paul stuff, reverting this was unintentional. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Occupation

The article says Ron Paul cited "occupation of Saud-Arabia" as a reason for 9/11 - what did Mr Paul actually say. "Occupation" is a problematic term, as the US does not occupy Saudi-Arabia (though Bin Ladin sees it that way) but only stationed troops there. Any alternative suggestions? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I believe he mentioned that after the debate with Sean Hannity, and certainly the next day with Wolf Blitzer. During the debate, I think he may have only mentioned the IRA removal of an Iranian leader and the 1990s Iraqi bombings.

Videos here:

• Debate Clips
• With Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room 5/16
• With Hannity and Colmes after the debate 5/15
• --Gloriamarie 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about ron paul - I think that the material justifying Paul's comments does not belong here. Tvoz |talk 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I can live with the current wording, though it is still very long. Except for one detail: "some reports mention" violates NPOV as this endorses a) the view that these reports support Paul b) the conclusion of the report itself. I will tweak this.

I also will tweak the sponsorship cruft. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and I think IRA above should be CIA, shouldn't it? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha! i was wondering how the IRA got involved ... Tvoz |talk 07:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes! That should be CIA. I guess I was combining "CIA" with "Iran". I do think that the assertion that some media reports have said the facts were on Paul's side should be included-- both sides are included in all the other controversies on the page. I'm not sure how to word it, so I won't be doing it, but someone could add something about how many people thought that Ron Paul was somehow implying that America deserved the attacks or something and supported RG for interrupting. I'm not sure how to go about that. In looking for media reports, I'm seeing a bit of a backing off from initial AP reports that Ron Paul "suggested" America was responsible and that sort of thing. Andrew Sullivan says that Giuliani was outright lying and I've seen some other sources, such as Accuracy in Media, which say the same thing. It's a current event, so it's a bit difficult to write about.--Gloriamarie 16:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Ron Paul had only said that US foreign policy in general was a basis for the attacks (but still, the responsibility for attacks always lies with the attacker) - but he mentioned examples, the two apparently confirmed ones being the deposition of Mossadegh in 1950 and the 1990s Iraqi bombings. However, these two are also nonsense as Mossadegh was toppled a long time ago and Bin Ladin did not even claim to be concerned about the Iraq bombings. Giuliani of course picked on these examples (instead of the overall point) but that is a legitimate thing to do in a debate. I haven't read that 9/11 report but from what I heard I doesn't confirm Paul's examples.

As for including Paul's side ... mentioning what he said is already including his side. The previous include of "some reports" violated NPOV as it endorsed Paul's point. And please, restrict this to serious commentators. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for mentioning it in the presidential campaign article rather than here-- that article is sorely lacking in content. All the above commentary is original research. The 9/11 Commission Report does mention Osama bin Laden's fatwa and his three reasons included for attacking, which include the 1990 bombings against Iraq, the occupation of the Middle East in general (such as Saudi Arabia) and Palestine. Mossadegh was toppled a long time ago, yes, but that began a series of modern Middle East interventionism that led to the Shah of Iran kidnapping Americans, which led to us arming Saddam in his war against Iran in the '80s, which led to Saddam having WMDs and large amounts of armaments, which led to him provoking the Persian Gulf War, which led to the 1990s bombings and sanctions, which apparently contributed to Osama bin Laden's grievances and fatwa, which led to him planning the bombing of the USS Cole and 9/11, etc. For further discussion on these points, see CNN commentary or NPR coverage.--Gloriamarie 00:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "restrict this to serious commentators".--Gloriamarie 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would delete the Ron Paul paragraph entirely. We have a separate article on the campaign, which is where this belongs. The campaign material in the main article should be only a summary of the most important points. This one brief exchange in a debate doesn't qualify. JamesMLane t c 22:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Social Liberalism

In my opinion, Rudy's socially liberal views should be acknowledged in the introduction to the article. It seems pretty important considering that he could be the first pro-abortion Republican to win the nomination. --BlarghHgralb 21:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles Section

Do not remove information about Giuliani from the page. If you wish to add links to articles, then do so. Of course, there is A LOT written about Giuliani. So the articles section will necessarily grow in length. Jmegill 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly encourage people to add articles to the articles section.Jmegill 19:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Mayorality Info

Giuliani's time as mayor is pretty much his whole resume. The removal of this large section of the article to a separate article seems completely inappropriate. Please revert!66.65.5.98 09:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this change is for the best either, especially with no disussion beforehand.--Gloriamarie 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely...how do we restore it?Veritas23 12:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond

I'd like to write a section on the deaths of these two individuals. Would it be best placed under "Mayoralty" or "Controversies"? ---Gloriamarie 21:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge of WTC collapse

Giuliani has flip-flopped on his story of whether he knew of the coming collapse.

Editor User:DBaba gutted a bona fide statement by a commenrcial newspaper and by a commercial TV station. Such gutting of documented statements is POV. Dogru144 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dogru144, you are one sick tick. If you actually believe 9/11 conspiracy theories, I feel sorry for you. But I'm happy that I stopped actively editing this article, otherwise I'd spend all day reverting the crap that you put in here. Wasted Time R 00:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you read http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Rudy%20Giuliani and http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/06/alex-jones-or-someone-did-doctor-tape.html you can get some sense into your head about "knowledge" that the towers were about to collapse. Yes, right before the South Tower collapsed, various fire and engineering personnel had concluded there was a good chance it might. The knowledge did little good, as it collapsed quite soon after that. When Giuliani has subsequently responded to questions about whether the knew the towers would collapse, he was no doubt thinking that the question was coming from the wacko conspiracy brigades, and answered in the negative. No flip flop, no controversy, no nothing. Wasted Time R 03:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The personal slurs are unwarranted.Veritas23 12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the topic can be discussed without personal attacks.--Gloriamarie 21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

CBE

ISN'T he a CBE of whatever the hell if he was knighted - that should follow his name.

Please sign your comments with four tildes. No, the CBE designation only follows the name if you are a British citizen-- it's an honorary designation for those who are not British.--Gloriamarie 21:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was a KBE, and it does follow his name. He cannot use the title Sir but he is entitled to the post nominal letters. 81.156.194.254 23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Length

Maybe it's just me... but isn't this article a bit long? Can we split it up? Idono 05:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's working well as is....recent unilateral decisions to split off segments raise POV issues to my mind. Article needs some consolidating/reorganizing, but I think the bulk of what's here now belongs here....141.155.63.6 13:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Splitting out large articles into sub-articles is the way this problem is corrected. I don't see how you are going to cut out 60KB from the article just by consolidating or reorganizing. If there are any POV problems with the sub-articles, fix them. 150KB articles are not appropriate; there should not be a noticeable pause while loading the page on a fast computer with a fast connection, and it should not take someone on dial-up a minute to load an article. —Centrx→talk • 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that rather than being condensed, it should be split off. But what section will be split off? The most obvious seems the Mayoralty section, which twice in recent weeks has been split off and then reverted. It is a very long part of the article. But when taken out, a large and important part of the article is missing. So, I wonder what others think about this. --Gloriamarie 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that it was split without further discussion. I don't think the September 11 attacks should be split into a separate article; it dilutes the article quite a bit.--Gloriamarie 01:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So split it in a different way, but simply letting the status quo be is not the solution. —Centrx→talk • 01:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Mayoralty section is split off, so I don't see what you are saying. —Centrx→talk • 01:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The current article is 1/3 biography, 2/3 diatribes against Giuliani. If you split the latter out, you've got a much shorter article. If you're worried that it lessens the impact, you can put in a summary section that states that Giuliani was without question the most miserable mayor any city ever had. Wasted Time R 02:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you see POV 'diatribes' I suggest you flag them as such. I see a lot of facts. My biggest objection to the splitting off of the Mayorality info was that that basically represents Giuliani's whole public record. Personally I don't see the need to shorten the piece appreciably and don't see why it matters if it takes 1 second or 2 seconds to load, but hope that if breaking it out is the consensus that it is done in a way that maintains the factual essence of each sub-article as a summary in the body of the main article.Veritas23 17:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

On dial-up, which 20% of people still do have, both worldwide and in the United States particularly, it takes 30-60 seconds to load. It is also extremely slow to edit the entire page (e.g. the introduction), on Firefox at least, because the amount of text in the edit field is so large; it takes a long time for characters to even appear on the screen after typing. It also takes a long time to submit edits, even on a fast connection, and I have had the connection simply time out at times, probably when the Wikimedia servers were taxed. See also Wikipedia:Article size. —Centrx→talk • 04:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Shortening an article by splitting off a section is OK but a summary should be left behind. We can't have an article on Giuliani that provides no information about his mayoralty or about criticism of him except for a link. Of course, writing the summary is generally harder than writing the section itself. It entails deciding what's important, a question that's difficult to analyze in terms of NPOV. JamesMLane t c 17:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, writing a summary is difficult. I don't object to the Mayoralty section being split off into another article, but I do prefer it the way it is now. I understand that long articles are to be avoided, and I wasn't aware of the problems editing-- that's a serious issue and it seems that there must be a split. My objection to the latest split was that it simply reverted an old split and did not include information that had been added to the page and corrected on the page since the previous splitting. If it is decided to split the article, the version moved to the new page must include any recent changes to those sections. A significant amount of information was lost in the last splitting and did not appear in the new "Mayoralty" article. It cannot simply be reverted from when the split was made before, it must be done with the current version. Also, an alternate suggestion: for those who object to the Mayoralty section being spun off, perhaps the Federal Prosecutor section could be split? I can't really see any other part that could be moved.--Gloriamarie 19:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The surest way to reduce the article size is to separate biography from commentary. For example, take this section:

Public Schools

One of Giuliani's three major campaign promises was to fix public schools. Giuliani cut the public school budget in New York City by $2 billion from 1994 to 1997 and trimmed the school repairs budget by $4.7 billion. Test scores went down during this time. His successor Michael Bloomberg later said, "Giuliani never got his hands around the school system. There is no question that it's gotten worse the last eight years, not better."[22] Giuliani has been accused of diverting funds for school repair from poor districts to middle-class ones. A large debt left after the Giuliani administration has resulted in less money to spend on education, according to some sources.[22]

Giuliani supported a for-profit privatization plan for public schools that parents voted against. During his tenure, three school chancellors of color left office.[22] Chanceller Ramon C. Cortines, Mexican-American and gay, resigned after a spat in which Giuliani told the press Cortines shouldn't "be so precious" and called him "the little victim."[65] Cortines said that Giuliani was intolerant of ideas other than his and demanded total conformity from those he worked with. After Giuliani disparaged his leadership abilities, Cortines said, "He's made it very clear that no matter what I do or say, unless I acquiesce to all of his wishes, that I am not a good manager and I am not showing good leadership."[75] After the resignation, many felt that there had been a gay-baiting tone to Giuliani's comments to Cortines.[22]

Cortines and Giuliani had come up with a plan to privatize maintenance and repair on city schools that earned praise from the New York Times.[76]

Cortines' replacement as schools chancellor, Rudy Crew, (see above Race Relations section) was close friends with Giuliani for years, but their relationship soured over the issue of school vouchers. Giuliani had said in his 1993 campaign that parochial school vouchers were "unconsitutional."[22] In 1999, he placed $12 million into the budget for parochial school vouchers.[22] Their relationship soured, and Crew felt that Giuliani immediately began pressuring him to leave. The same day that Crew was to attend the funeral of his wife, Giuliani leaked a letter to the tabloids, and Crew fielded press calls before he went to deliver his wife's eulogy. Crew later told a Giuliani biographer: "This is a maniac. On the day I was burying my wife, I have these people concocting this world of treachery.... When Rudy sees a need to take someone out, he has a machine, a roomful of henchmen, nicking away at you, leaking crazy stories. He is not bound by the truth. I have studied animal life, and their predator/prey relations are more graceful than his."[22]

Of Giuliani's disagreement with Chancellor Crew, former Mayor Ed Koch said, "It's like his goal in life is to spear people, destroy them, to go for the jugular. Why do this to Crew? And I'm not a fan of Crew."[77] Some speculated that Giuliani was pursuing the issue of vouchers at the expense of his relationship with Dr. Crew because he was looking towards an upcoming Senate run.[78]

When the city's five-year contract with schoolteachers ran out and negotiations with the city had not yet begun, teachers' union president Randi Weingarten said that a strike was not off the table if the city didn't offer a contract. Giuliani told the press that he would put Weingarten in jail if she led a strike; under New York state law, government employees could not strike. Weingarten said that she would lobby the state legislature to allow employees to strike if the government had refused to negotiate in good faith. Giuliani objected to the teachers' request for a pay raise to align their salaries with those of the city's suburbs. Teachers pointed out the city's then-budget surplus and the number of teachers leaving the city. Giuliani called for merit pay based on student test scores, a plan which was derided by teachers as ineffective.[79]

The main article could reduce this to:

Giuliani cut the public school budget in New York City by $2 billion from 1994 to 1997 and trimmed the school repairs budget by $4.7 billion. Giuliani supported a for-profit privatization plan for public schools that parents voted against. During his tenure, three school chancellors left office. Cortines and Giuliani came up with a plan to privatize maintenance and repair on city schools. In 1999, he placed $12 million into the budget for parochial school vouchers. Giuliani objected to the teachers' request for a pay raise to align their salaries with those of the city's suburbs and threatened to jail their union leader for striking against the law. Giuliani called for merit pay based on student test scores.

and everything could be relocated to a section of the One-sided arguments against Mayor Rudy Giuliani article. Wasted Time R 23:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

While it could be trimmed to the type of section you describe, I would prefer it be moved to a separate article than be cut out. Giuliani's relationships with fellow officials, such as Cortines and Crew, are interesting and have received much press. Perhaps in the separate article they could receive their own section along with other officials. How would you edit the current section to make it more neutral? The quotes could be summarized with the person's opinions and perhaps the Ed Koch one taken out? I do find that it is an interesting quote, though.--Gloriamarie 00:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, if you were around for Ed Koch, you know he wasn't the easiest person to deal with either. Anyway, Giuliani's style in working with other officials is certainly an important topic, but the presentation here is quite one-sided. There are two sides to every issue and every personality conflict, and the Giuliani side goes unreported here. All NYC mayors have encountered frustration with the city's public school system bureaucracy, the teacher's union, the social conditions that undermine attempts at improving public education, etc. — it's one of the classic big headaches of the mayor's job. The results of the school system need to be viewed in the context of before Giuliani's administration, after it, and against other large city schools systems during his time in office. Even the sources that are referenced, such as this NYT one, are more even-handed in their writing than the selective use of them in this section. And this section is not an exception; the whole article is currently like it. Wasted Time R 02:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Care to take a stab at rewriting it? I don't think that Bloomberg has gotten in such public disputes with the unions and I'm not familiar with the NYC mayor administrations before that, so I thought it was unusual. Another factor is that Giuliani rarely gives his side of the story on anything: as referenced in the Media section, he rarely gave interviews as mayor or talked about these sorts of things. So that makes it more difficult to write about his side. I agree, an attempt should be made if the sources are out there.--Gloriamarie 04:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to present a summary of the notable opinions concerning Giuliani. That necessarily requires some selectivity. I wouldn't omit the Bloomberg quotation on the basis that all mayors have problems with the schools. The point about that quotation is that Bloomberg was Giuliani's endorsed successor, quite possibly one who owed his election to Giuliani's support. That he's criticizing Giuliani makes it notable, more so than Koch's observation, which I'd be inclined to relegate to a daughter article. (Whether Koch is being hypocritical in his criticism isn't relevant. We have to select the points being made based on notability and on fairly representing the universe of opinion, not based on how much merit we think the statement has.) JamesMLane t c 05:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I found this recent New York Times article that states, "Mr. Giuliani has often been faulted for the turmoil and lack of progress in the New York school system during his years as mayor." I think that the points made in the section above are for the most part valid and as seen in the Times one week ago, still talked about. It could be written in more of a summary fashion, perhaps. The condensed version giving bullet points of proposals wouldn't give the same story.--Gloriamarie 06:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first point above, yes the article has to be selective in noting opinions about Giuliani, but how about including some that supported Giuliani, not just ones that opposed him?

Regarding the second point, do you really think that Giuliani's years were the only ones where the NYC public school system had turmoil and lack of progress? Here's a NYT article that shows the system was a mess in 1993, after four years of Dinkins as mayor. Here's a NYT article that depicts the schools health programs as having been bad from the mid-1970s to mid-1980s, during the Beame administration and early Koch. Here's a NY Sun article about how the system has been in bad shape ever since World War II. I could go on ...there's a reason that Bloomberg took control of the whole system from the Board of Education when he became mayor, the whole thing had long been an impossible beast to control, and that started long before Giuliani's time. And the system still isn't peaches and cream ...

Indeed one of the faults of this article is that its authors don't seem to realize how rough-and-tumble NYC mayoral politics are. It's true that Bloomberg has been fairly smooth, but that's been an exception to the rule. Mayors like John Lindsay and Ed Koch were large-sized personalities that found themselves in constant battle with all the different power factions within the city. Dinkins wasn't as big a personality but also found a tumultuous time. Ditto Beame. Yes, Giuliani was combative as mayor, but by tradition it was a combative job.

So, if you want Wikipedia to contain a critical analysis of Giuliani's time as mayor, to do a proper job of it is going to take substantial space, and such analysis needs to be in a split-off article. Wasted Time R 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think a number of editors besides myself are native New Yorkers. Whether he was right or wrong, justified or not, Giuliani was certainly the most combative and divisive mayor this city has had in my lifetime (Starting with Wagner). It wasn't just his policies, it was his authoritarian manner and personal vindictiveness that stood out and have been commented upon by pundit after pundit....141.155.63.6 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this article needs to explore the "right" and the "justified" sides of the debate more. Oh well, everything in Wikipedia is out of balance. There's about 10 times more on Giuliani's mayoralty here than there is on Koch's in Ed Koch, and Koch was in office 50% longer. Hell, it seems like Koch shows up more here than he does there. Giuliani may have been a "nasty man", but Ed Koch was no pushover himself. Wasted Time R 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

By all means attempt to document the argument that Rudy was "right", but your objections to the preponderance of facts and accurately quoted comments painting another picture seem rather POV as the polls clearly demonstrate that most New York City residents disapproved of Rudy and his policies prior to the shocking attack and do not think much of either today. As for Koch's article, he left office long before wikipedia began and is not running for president, but as a former mayor and one time supporter of Giuliani's it seems to me his current thoughts on the man are quite appropriate for this article.Veritas23 18:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Veritas for your ringing endorsement of WP:Recentism - if it didn't happen before Wikipedia began, it didn't happen at all! And I suppose Giuliani only won re-election as Mayor by a large margin because Wikipedia and you weren't around to tell all the voters how wrong they were. Wasted Time R 19:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Your misdirection is amusing, but not compelling. If I didn't know better, I'd say that you were validating your username. Your exaggeration of Veritas' argument as bald-faced "Recentism" is silly, but it's not nearly as funny as your pretending that Giuliani's 1997 re-election apparently proved that he was still popular in 2001.

Me, I'd like to see a reference that either proves or refutes Veritas' assertion that Rudy wasn't popular as his second term was coming to a close.--HughGRex 00:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That Rudy's poll numbers were bad as his second term wound down pre-9/11 is true and not in dispute. Koch's popularity also went down at the end of his third term, causing him to lose. Both were oversized personalities that the city eventually grew tired of. That doesn't negate the fact that both were quite popular for much of their terms, as Rudy's one-sided re-election win demonstrates. The current article makes Rudy's mayoralty seem like a horrorshow right from the start, which would leave the uninformed reader puzzled as to how he managed to maintain popularity for most of the two terms and get re-elected. And yes, Veritas' argument that Rudy's mayoralty should be covered in much more depth than Koch's is recentism, pure and simple. From a historical point of view Koch's mayoralty at least as important to the course of New York City. Wasted Time R 01:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought Veritas's point was that recent matters tend to get more detailed coverage, not that they should get such coverage. Koch's article is longer than LaGuardia's, and both are far longer than that on Majorian, who was merely Emperor of Rome. If you think there's more material that should be added to one of those other articles, go add it, but that's no basis for removing information from this article or trying to limit its length. JamesMLane t c 02:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's just a component of Wikipedia that more recent events get more coverage. Look at Clark Gable's article compared to George Clooney or Brad Pitt. They're all about the same length, even though most everyone would agree Gable is an incomparable legend, and Gable's article is about his entire 40-year career whereas the other two have articles which are so far devoted to careers of only about 15 years or so and which will inevitably get longer as time goes by.--Gloriamarie 08:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was only pointing out that the difference in article lengths was merely a result of timing and circumstances, not a conspiracy of wikipedians to deny the country President Rudy at the expense of Mayor Ed's legacy.....As for Wasted's other point, it should be noted that a very large minority of New Yorkers DID perceive Rudy's mayorality as a horrorshow from the start - most of us who lived in Harlem/Washington Heights, the West Side, or the Lower East Side, most in the Bronx, and large parts of Brooklyn. The Upper East Side, Staten Island and Queens didn't start to come around until after the '97 election, but before the attack changed everything Rudy was disapproved of by a ratio of nearly 2-1. And it was the _depth_ of that disapproval that is historically notable. One doesn't find an extensive collection of images and writings portraying other mayors as Adolph Hitler or other fascist heroes, but Rudy inspired such comparisons from jump....Again, you might argue that NYC _needed_ such a fuhrer to get the 'trains to run on time', but it would be disingenous to pretend that that wasn't how he was perceived by more and more NYers as we got to know him and that he left a unique (for recent decades at least) bitter taste in the city's mouth....Veritas23 11:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting aspect and perhaps when the new mayoralty section finally gets split into a new article with all the updated information included, more can be devoted to New Yorkers' views of him and how those changed over time, if they did.--Gloriamarie 01:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been seven days ...

OK, it has been 7 days since this discussion began and the bulk of the debate has had very little to do with the thesis: shortening the article. The Mayoralty section should have its own article as should the the criticism of him and he response to 9/11. Doing so would greatly reduce the size of the article and allow for future grow in their own right without bogging down the main article. On the other hand, a reasonable summary should be left in their places as to provide some detail with a link to the new article page for more in depth information. This should be done as soon as possible. 74.195.184.47 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This IP address is the same as User:Rougher07, who has now done another split-out of the mayoralty section. Problems:

1. Rougher didn't refresh the split-out article with the latest text from the main article.
2. The other editors here will go batshit when they see Rougher's "reasonable summary". Wasted Time R 00:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned above that the previous split-offs did not include updated information to the article; again, the article must be put back together and a new split created. I don't know how to do that or I'd do it myself. Please revert. How long is the article with just the mayoralty section removed vs. with both that section and the 9/11 section removed? I would prefer the 9/11 section stay and just the mayoralty be split out.--Gloriamarie 01:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done the refresh. The Mayoralty article now has the last contents before the split out. Wasted Time R 01:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the summary as it is: no citations and it sounds like it's lifted directly from a campaign page. I preferred it the way it was before, when no summary was given and just a link. The summary should only say something like he was mayor from __ to __, I don't think it should go into too many details as of yet until someone can handle it in a more NPOV fashion.--Gloriamarie 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Rudolph, not Rudy

Obviously "Rudy Giuliani" should be directed to this page, but shouldn't the official entry be "Rudolph"?

Agreed.....appropriate change.Veritas23 14:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The longer and more obtuse the article name, the better. And there are now so many double redirects to the article, most people will give up and not read it. Wasted Time R 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Calling this article Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III goes completely and utterly against naming guidelines - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The article name should be Rudy Giuliani or Rudolph Giuliani. Tvoz |talk 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I assume it should be "Rudolph Giuliani" unless WP permits "Rudolph 'Rudy' Giuliani"66.65.5.98 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The rule is to use the most common form of the name -- thus, William Jefferson Clinton redirects to the article at Bill Clinton. (William Clinton is a dab page.) More people would search for "Rudy Giuliani" than for any other form of the name, so the article should stay where it is. JamesMLane t c 02:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to make the Controversies Section its own page

As everyone knows, the article is way too long. I propose that we add a few things to the controversies section, such as some of the criticisms in the 9/11 section. Then we make the controversies section it's own page--much like what is currently done on Hillary Clinton's article. This would drastically reduce the length of this article. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Wasted Time R 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Controversies really belong inside the article, ideally not in a separate section if they're related to something else. For example, the annulment of the first marriage belongs in the "personal life" section, not in the "controversies" section, in my opinion. Similarly, lobbying efforts for Citgo belong in the section about the lobbying firm, if at all (because I see no explanation of why it's a controversy; has Giuliani pledged to have as clients only boycott-free companies, or is this merely a place to take a slam at Citgo)?

If the article is too long, the solution is to reduce the length by selective editing. Or to spin off a part of the article that can truly stand alone - for example, Giuliani and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Or both. Plus, the section on the 2008 presidential campaign should be about TWO paragrahs long - it's supposed to be a succinct summary of another article, not a rambling rehash.

Which isn't to deny that the approach of a separate controversies article has been taken elsewhere, as with Hillary Clinton, but the other approach - for example, see George Allen (politician), is (in my opinion) significantly better. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I for one don't "know" that the article is too long, though if that turns out to be the consensus I would merely hope most sections could be split off rather than only "controversies", etc. One thing that should definitely NOT occur is the "selective editing" of facts....If WP's material on Giuliani is to be balanced and comprehensive it should certainly include reference to whatever issues are being reported in the national media. I agree some material could be re-ordered, but would rather not see any factual, documented material excised. The Citgo story is certainly relevevant as are any other business relationships of companies associated with Giuliani, but such stories dealing with ongoing national security issues are clearly important when discussing a presidential candidate....Veritas23 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article is much too long--much longer than other comparable articles. There's no way to shorten it other than to make a section it's own article; I proposed the controversy section because the same thing has been done with other candidates. Plus, the controversy section is only going to grow since Giuliani is always causing trouble somewhere; most other sections, other than the 2008 election, are capped out. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article text which constitutes its own article or articles should be split into respective articles, whereas "early life" cannot be split into another article. Portions of controversies should be split, but the basic facts surrounding the controversies should be stated (as well as whether or not a subject is debated). Zchris87v 07:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already proposed two ways to reduce the length of the article:

• Spinning off "Giuliani and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", into a separate article (covering what he did before, what he did immediately after, and what his relationship with the attacks has become in the past six years).

• Sharply reducing the section on the 2008 presidential campaign, which should be about TWO paragrahs long since it's supposed to be a succinct summary of another article, to which the reader can go for details.

I'd like to get some response to those two proposals before editors keep suggesting that the (only?) thing to do to shorten the article is to spin off the controversies section. In fact, I'm going to add a third proposal:

• Spin off "Giuliani Partners" as a separate article, with a two-paragraph summary in this one.

Also, it is NOT true that the standard for controversies is to spin them off; that has been done in some articles, while in others, they've been integrated. I personally think it serves the reader poorly to read an article where every section but one is positive about a person, and then (if so inclined) the reader can go to an article that seems simply an assortment of attacks on the person. Virtually everyone is a mixture of good and not-so-good; is there a proposal somewhere that the standard at Wikipedia is to be that the good goes into the standard biography and the not-so-good, if more than a few paragraphs, goes into a separate article? (Three are certainly a lot of living folks who would appreciate that; feel free to pick the person you like least and consider what his/her biography would look like if everything negative were moved to a separate article.)

Finally, a new point: separate out "controversies" from other info and putting it into a separate article makes life MUCH more difficult for editors, since they can't simply read a section in the main article, say "aha, that's missing X", and add X. Rather, they then have to check the controversies article and see if "X" is there. Really good (compulsive-obsessive?) editors might, but the Wikipedia norm is to be bold, and "editing by anyone" is encouraged, so what's likely to happen is that negative material will be added to the main article, all the time, and then other editors will remove it as duplicate, a waste of everyone's time. Why not just put everything related to a particular part of Guiliani's life in a single section, rather than in two separate places? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now split the Giuliani Partners material out into a separate article. As a company of its own it merits an article, and most material about it should go there. Wasted Time R 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That is the best idea; I don't think the controversies section should be its own page, even in Hillary's article.--Gloriamarie 23:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved the Controversies section to its own page. At over 41 Kb long, it is longer the average biographical article of many other politicians. However, with the page still at 77 Kb long, it could still stand to be shortened. Rougher07 23:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. For what it's worth, over in Hillaryland we've decided to dismantle the separate controversies page, due to editor comment and to my doing a closer reading of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. Wasted Time R 00:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Thompson controversies, where they are debating this question as well. Wasted Time R 12:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Subscription required for ref

Footnote 152, the new york times link, requires a subscription to read. remove?

No. There's nothing that requires source material to be online. Some WP editors even reference books, imagine that. However the cite in question is faulty, since it doesn't give the date the story appeared in the NYT, only the date the editor read it. Wasted Time R 19:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The references may have been renumbered since then, because 152 is now to the New York Daily News and doesn't require a subscription.--Gloriamarie 23:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have placed a Neutral POV tag on the article because of the recent addition of a controversy section within the "Mayoralty" section. There is already a controversy section on the article (and I might like to add that on Hillary Clinton's page the controversy section is its seperate page). There is already claims of the article being too long, yet it recently became expanded. Furthermore, almost every section in the article contains some sort of criticism; it is not contained within the controversy section. The article has many weasel words, there is a total unfairness of tone, several of the criticisms are given undue weight and worst of all it has non-neutral article structure. In my opinion, this article is shamefully biased. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 06:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed some problems, but many, many remain. Please see what I did in removing some weasel words from the article as well as editing the pov problem on the waterboarding controversy section. These are the exact type of problems I'm talking about that make the article very biased. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just realized something else in the waterboarding section that makes it biased. McCain's actual position is not that waterboarding should never be done, but that the U.S. Govt should not permit its use. As stated in the cited article, McCain believes that the law could be broken in a scenario where an interrogator is trying to prevent a terrorist attack. This context also needs to be added, but I'm at a loss for ideas as to how to do it right now. Any ideas?|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole waterboarding section doesn't belong there. It's not a legal or ethical controversy on Giuliani's part, it's just a policy disagreement that many people have with many other people. The Giuliani article should not be used to debate policy differences. Wasted Time R 01:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion of the pros and cons of a policy issue doesn't belong here, but Giuliani's positions on policy issues are relevant. It's also relevant to identify significant differences between him and his GOP rivals, although only the major ones should be here in the main bio article. The campaign article should note that he and McCain disagree about waterboarding. The bio article should report Giuliani's position without getting into McCain's disagreement with him. What about this for the bio article:

Giuliani has supported "waterboarding", a controversial interrogation method that induces fear of drowning. He approved of it in a hypothetical situation where "we know that there's going to be another attack and these people [Al Queda] know about it." More generally, he said that, in interrogating terrorists to prevent an attack, he "would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of."

(I haven't checked the referenced links; they're copied from the earlier text. The links are from this version of the article.) JamesMLane t c 16:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it rises to the level of importance to go into the main bio article. It's a narrow issue related to one particular form of interrogation, and it hasn't been a focal point of the campaign or of public perceptions of Giuliani. He's never had to cast a vote regarding it, or act as an executive regarding it. The political positions articles were created to supply a place put all policy issues like this, why not put it there? And if you really think the debate with McCain on it has been important, you could put it in the campaign article too. I just don't see it belonging here. Wasted Time R 17:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Because, as far as I know, only McCain was objecting to it, and, at least, this is all the article reflected. I am unaware of any other major criticism that Giuliani recieved about his statement. Therefore, the only proper place for it would be in political positions.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved what were criticism sub-sections within the 9/11 section to the controversies section because of the un-neutral article structure they create in the 9/11 section. They have little place in a 9/11 section since they deal exclusively w/critcism; furthermore, they are written in a non-neutral tone. Most criticism needs to be contained within the section for it.. otherwise we have non-neutral article structure.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the criticism section has been removed from the Mayoralty section, perhaps the NPOV tag should come off? I don't believe the 9/11 criticisms should be moved from that section to the Controversies section, because the controversies are usually more appropriate placed within another section. Many of those controversies could be moved elsewhere. I don't support this change. What parts of the sections are written in a non-neutral way? Please give specifics so it can be improved.--Gloriamarie 23:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gloriamarie. Thanks for participating in this discussion. The sections pertaining to 9/11 criticism were moved for a couple of reasons: The first reason was due to issues of weight. The sections were larger than, say, the section "At the scene", and the sections were very large considering that they are not nearly as important as many facts that aren't even represented: like Giuliani's role in the rescue and recovery efforts that day, or his attendance at the many funerals, or his speeches. In other words, there is more criticism than there are facts about Giuliani's actions that day and thereafter.

The second problem with those sections is their unfairness of tone. Little or no rebuttal is present and this makes the sections slanted.

Perhaps evertually it might be appropriate to re-insert them into the 9/11 section. But not until the 9/11 section contains more facts about larger issues, like emergency response, and not until the subsections are neutral in tone. This is going to take some time. Meanwhile, their appropriate section is in the controversies section.

And there's alot of work to be done before the neutral tag should come off. Let's first work on the controversies section itself. Let's add in the proper rebuttals to the criticisms so as to not make it one-sided. Let's remove any more weasel words from the article and fix any other issues that other editors may have. Then, we should proceed to changing the tag to the "POV-check" tag and get some experts to ensure that it is neutral. Remember, I only put the tag on there yesterday and the article was in very, very bad shape then. We still need to give it some more time and work. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added just one "rebuttal" into one of the 9/11 criticism sections. I hope this provides a good example of the need to provide viewpoints from the other side. This section still needs more work though, and the other sections need almost a complete overhaul as they are nothing but one sided as well as bloated. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 04:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to remove or attempt to bury valid information because you think that there's other information that should also be added. Go ahead and add material that you think meets Wikipedia standards, but we don't deprive readers of information while we wait for everyone to agree that the article is perfect (or even good). As for the issue of placement, significant material concerning his mayoralty should be in the mayoralty section. That's where readers would look for it. It's absurd to have a section on his mayoralty that omits any mention of most of the important actions he took as mayor. JamesMLane t c 13:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm down for just a minute James. I think you might have misinterpreted what I did. Nothing has been buried, only moved to a more appropriate section on the same page. There were subsections on the 9/11 section that needed to be moved for violations of WP:Weight. Further, these subsections were also unbalanced and are more appropriate right now in the controversies section. Once they become more balanced we might consider moving them back into the 9/11 section as long as their weight merits it. And regarding what you said about the mayoralty section, nothing has been moved, only material from the 9/11 section. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you think I'm insufficiently calm, I can tell you that I have good reason. I don't remember ever seeing a Wikipedia article about a major American politician that was in worse shape than this one currently is.

You contend that information has merely been "moved to a more appropriate section on the same page". That's precisely where we differ. My view, as I said, is that "significant material concerning his mayoralty should be in the mayoralty section." That's where a reader would look for it. (Incidentally, your assertion that nothing has been moved out of that section is not correct. You weren't the one who moved it, and it was moved before you began editing this article, but it was moved. See, for example, this version from mid-June, which is far superior in structure to what's now in place.)

There is no basis in Wikipedia policies for saying, "Once [those sections] become more balanced we might consider moving them back into the 9/11 section as long as their weight merits it." You're putting way too much weight on "undue weight".  :) Its primary meaning is that we don't overemphasize the views of tiny minorities. That consideration obviously doesn't apply to the criticisms of Giuliani that are involved here. It also means that all sides of a controversy should be presented. It does not mean that we move or remove valid, properly sourced information just because there's other information that could also be provided but that no one's gotten around to writing up yet. The proper remedy, instead, is to add the missing material (such as Giuliani's response to a criticism). Also, of course, criticisms should be reported, not adopted, so it's always proper to reword a presentation of a controversial subject so as to respect that rule.

Several recent edits have improperly scrubbed this main bio article of all information on a topic area. The applicable guideline states: "When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template under the section title." Accordingly, this article should have a section on Giuliani's mayoralty that presents the main points, with fuller detail left to the Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani daughter article.

You wrote, "Nothing has been buried, only moved to a more appropriate section on the same page." After you wrote that, most of the criticism of Giuliani was removed from the article entirely. I've reverted that whitewashing, but my edit shouldn't be taken as approving the version I reverted to. That version is still pretty bad, just somewhat less bad. JamesMLane t c 03:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

James, you're right that this article is terrible, but I think one part of what you say is seriously wrong. You seem to see a model where it's okay if some editors fill the article with every cited negative thing they can find about the subject, leaving it to other future editors to balance out the article with positive things. I don't think it's supposed to work like that. I like every editor is supposed to feel obliged to keep the article in NPOV balance with every set of edits that they make. So if you add, say, a quote from Koch saying Giuliani's behavior towards the school board showed he was an authoritarian nutcase, you - not somebody else, but you - need to also find a quote from someone else saying that the school system bureaucracy was hopelessly broken and it's good that Giuliani was trying to knock some sense into them. It's that kind of balanced editing that's been completely missing from this article for some time. It's not easy to do, because it's clear that several of the editors here hate Giuliani with a passion, but it's the right way to do it. Wasted Time R 04:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I absolutely do not believe that "it's okay if some editors fill the article with every cited negative thing they can find about the subject...." Obviously, Giuliani, like any controversial figure, will inspire much criticism, and we can't try to catalog it all. The article should fairly represent significant criticisms. That means that it shouldn't be larded with everything negative we can find. It also means, however, that significant criticisms that are properly cited and attributed should remain in the article, even if there's more that could be done to improve the passage further.

It would be good for the article if one editor, in adding some information, also made the section perfect by adding all other relevant information, with citations. In real life, different editors know different things. We accept edits that make the article better even if not perfect. If you think that some editor is violating NPOV, you can pursue dispute resolution, but it's no justification for moving or removing valid information. Editors who know something about the other side should be more inclined to do the work instead of edit warring. (Incidentally, even the standard of making the section perfect wouldn't require that every statement be paired with a statement of contrary opinion.) JamesMLane t c 08:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In the clear light of the new day, what I wrote was kind of silly and idealistic. Never mind, and apologies for misrepresenting you. Wasted Time R 11:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I agree with your general point that with Giuliani, as with other politicians, there's a tendency for people to happen upon something negative about him and immediately want to put it in the article. We do have to keep the junk out. Unfortunately, some of the recent edits have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. I also agree with you that significant pro-Giuliani viewpoints should be fairly represented. JamesMLane t c 18:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The 9/11 section should have a link to the 9/11 controversies under the heading if the controversies are going to be spun to another article.--20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for recent reverts....I think some of the unilateral edits of late amount to vandalism. The article needed work structurally but most of the content was excellent prior to this sudden assault141.155.63.6 12:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the recent seperate article for the controversies section. The article was obviously too long and the controversies section is what made it that way. Furthermore, if we're ever going to make any headway into neutrality with this article, we've got to compare it with Hillary Clinton's page as a standard; and, just to say it again, her article has the controversies section as a seperate article. There's no way we can be fair and neutral if we apply a different standard to Giuliani. Out of length, but most importantly out of neutrality, the controversies section must have its own page. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bellowed, you express concern for the length of the article, but under that guise you're actually promoting a complete whitewash of Giuliani. Your edit leaves in fluff like this:

After 9/11, and perhaps owing also to his bout with prostate cancer, his public image had been reformed to that of a man who could be counted on to unite a city in the midst of its greatest crisis. Thus historian Vincent J. Cannato concluded in September 2006, "With time, Giuliani's legacy will be based on more than just 9/11. He left a city immeasurably better off — safer, more prosperous, more confident — than the one he had inherited eight years earlier, even with the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center at its heart. Debates about his accomplishments will continue, but the significance of his mayoralty is hard to deny."

Yet you remove solid, properly sourced information about: felony convictions of Giuliani-appointed City commissioners; Giuliani's effort to extend his term by four months; the multiple successful lawsuits to overturn attempted suppressions of freedom of speech by his administration; and other subjects. After your edit, the 9/11 section is almost unadulterated praise -- talking about how he was "hailed by many", "widely praised", cheered at a Mets game, lionized by Oprah. There's a passing mention that some people think he exaggerated his role, but no information about the substantial criticisms by the IAFF, the 9/11 Commission, the September 11 families, etc.; no information about the siting of the bunker, the seven-year failure to give the FDNY adequate radios, the handling of the post-attack air quality issue, etc.

I pointed out to you how such situations are supposed to be handled (according to a long-established guideline adopted by consensus of the Wikipedia community, not by selecting one particular article and assuming it to be the perfect model that must govern all others). The actual guideline states: "When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template under the section title." (emphasis added so that you won't miss it this time). Your response was to tell me to calm down because material was "only moved to a more appropriate section on the same page." Now, of course, you've moved it off the page entirely, and you still haven't complied with the guideline.

Your only justification is to point to one article, Hillary Rodham Clinton. You ignore Wasted Time R's information that there's a consensus there to dismantle that separate article. Of course, even if it were being maintained in that state, there would be no basis for picking one candidate's article and assuming it to be the gold standard that all others must adopt, but the question doesn't even arise here, where there's consensus to change the treatment that you want to enforce as what must be done here.

I'm reverting to the separate "Controversies" section as an interim measure, so that the information is at least available on the Giuliani bio page. What should happen, in my opinion, is that there should be full detail in daughter articles. There should be summaries in the appropriate section here. Most of what we're discussing would go in the Mayoralty section. The scope of what's worth including with regard to September 11, however, justifies the current structure of having a separate section on that topic, even though it's logically a part of the mayoralty, so the issues about the radios and so forth would be summarized there. The main bio article should not have a separate "Controversies" section and there shouldn't be a separate "Controversies" article. JamesMLane t c 02:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

James, don't accuse me of whitewash and I won't accuse you off its opposite; let's try and remiain civil and assume good faith. And I'm going to revert your edit here. Let me just say that you haven't convinced me that the controversy section needs to be on Giuliani's main page and other editors have weighed in here and made edits; you'd have to convince them as well.

What controversies got lost in the new article? I'm not against adding critical material into the seperate article that happened to be in this article. But I am against the material being on this page.

And I'm not against a summary of what we're forking, though, as long as this is the same precedent followed on other politicians's pages, such as Hillary Clinton. If we hold the Giuliani article to different standards, though, then this page becomes biased. I will allow for argument if this page is actually unique; that is, if there is a valid reason for it not to have a seperate controversies section and that same valid reason does not pertain to other politician's pages (such as Hillary's.) So far, you have not provided such a justification. The only defense you have is that Wasted Time stated that the other editors on Hillary's page have reached the conclusion that it needs to be dismantled. I may be wrong, but I don't see anything like that on Hillary's talk page, and more importantly I don't see that it has actually happened on her page (nor do I even agree that it should be done; I think it should be seperate there as well). Anyways, bottom line is that it hasn't been done on pages of Democratic equivalents to Giuliani. Therefore, applying that standard here makes the page un-neutral (as well as incredibly long.)|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bellowed, I'm trying to follow WP:AGF here, and of course I'm trying to stay calm -- but let's look at the facts. You write, "Let me just say that you haven't convinced me that the controversy section needs to be on Giuliani's main page and other editors have weighed in here and made edits; you'd have to convince them as well." I don't accept your assignment of the burden of proof. If you look at the thread you started, you'll see that your idea of a separate page was endorsed by Wasted Time R, who later switched to opposition, and by Rougher07. Opposition was expressed by John Broughton, Veritas23, Gloriamarie, and Zchris87v (who wrote, "Portions of controversies should be split, but the basic facts surrounding the controversies should be stated...." which I consider to be opposition to your approach). If we add in comments from subsequent ES's (The machine512 in favor, yours truly opposed), we see three editors wanting the material removed and six opposing that approach. Why did you bother soliciting other editors' comments, if your plan was to bull ahead with your preferred alternative even in the face of substantial opposition? You suggested a major change in the article, most of the editors who commented opposed your suggestion, you made the change anyway, and now you assert that I have to convince the minority or else their substantial deletion of information must stand. I await your citation to the Wikipedia policy that supports your view.

Your other argument is Hillary. You refer to the Hillary article over and over again, yet you give no indication of having read my explanation of why your Hillary fixation is misplaced. The only point you address is to contest whether Wasted Time R is correct in stating that the separate Hillary page will be dismantled. You write, " I don't see anything like that on Hillary's talk page, and more importantly I don't see that it has actually happened on her page...." If you don't see it you might try following the link that Wasted Time R thoughtfully provided in this comment (click on the "dismantle" phrase): "For what it's worth, over in Hillaryland we've decided to dismantle the separate controversies page, due to editor comment and to my doing a closer reading of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism." If it's not being accomplished quickly enough to suit you, go and help them implement their consensus.

More important, though, is why your Hillary fixation is misplaced. Let me repeat the key points:

• There is no one article on Wikipedia that is a carved-in-stone template that all comparable articles must follow. A bunch of people who are currently editing any particular article have made decisions about it. They may be right and they may be wrong. If you think there's significant negative information about Hillary Clinton or any other Democratic candidate that's been improperly excised from the candidate's main bio article, take it up on the appropriate talk page (which is not this one). Mistakes made by those editors don't bind the rest of us.
• The actual process for deciding what binds the rest of us is the establishment of project-wide policies and guidelines through discussion and consensus. I quoted the applicable guideline above. You don't deny that it applies. You don't deny that your favored deletion would leave this article substantially noncompliant with that guideline. Given that, you simply don't have the authority to issue an edict about what you "will allow". You're bound by the guidelines the same as the rest of us. You wouldn't get an exemption from the guidelines even if you could establish that the editors of a different article were violating them.

I don't use terms like "whitewash" lightly, but I've seldom seen an edit that so thoroughly scrubbed a major figure's bio of all information that his PR people would like to suppress. I stand by my characterization of this edit as a whitewash. JamesMLane t c 04:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Go to Hillary's page if you believe so strongly in controversies being on a main page and make the edit. I'll respect you and not revert you so long as it sticks on her page and you fight for it as much as you're fighting to have it on Giuliani's page. You are quick to say that I'm operating under the guise of good-faith when your own userpage says that you have a bias against so called "right wingers." I have trouble believing that you actually give a damn about Wikipolicy whatsoever. You could change my belief, though, if you act this strongly about Hillary's controversies section.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 04:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's recap. I cited the Wikipedia guideline. You don't deny its content or applicability. Your only answer is that, before I can apply Wikipedia rules to a page I edit, I'm under some sort of obligation to go to other pages, that I don't edit, and find and correct all the violations on those pages. Sorry, but you're wrong. All of us are under an obligation to obey the rules of general applicability. You don't get an exemption just because an editor who disagrees with you is allegedly violating the rules. You certainly don't get an exemption just because an editor who disagrees with you is doing nothing to correct a third editor's alleged violation of the rules in a different article.

You've been kind enough to tell me what absurd hoops I'd have to jump through to gain your "respect". I guess living without your respect is just a cross I'll have to bear. For my part, I respect editors who follow general policies even when, in a specific instance, the result cuts against that editor's personal opinion. If you see an edit I've made to the Hillary Rodham Clinton article that violates a rule, please call it to my attention. On the other hand, I do not respect editors who value the rules only insofar as they provide ammunition for Wikilawyering or POV warring.

I'm under no obligation to go edit articles that you assign to me. I am, however, under an obligation not to revert your whitewashing for a fourth time today -- and, unlike you, I follow the rules even when I find them personally inconvenient. (Tvoz, I appreciate your reminder below, but I'd already written this comment, and made my decision to abide by the rule.) Therefore, for a short time at least, you will have succeeded in suppressing all those nasty inconvenient facts about The Savior Of New York City who was so widely praised by a grateful citizenry. Congratulations. Now, since you won't have to revert me any more today to preserve your whitewash, why don't you go over to the Hillary article and help implement the consensus there about addressing controversies -- a consensus you'll find expressed here, if you're still doubting the truth of Wasted Time R's statement. JamesMLane t c 06:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) I had already reverted it myself before I read the above and (2) we have enough angst at Hillary - do us a favor and don't. Tvoz |talk 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

An interjection here from a veteran of the Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Paul, Thompson and other political pages: they all are different, and they each have changed over time in significant ways. Some of us have taken one position on controversies and then changed our minds as they've changed - or taken a different position on another set of pages. So the best thing you can do is focus on the page you're working on, with the particular set of circumstances here, and try to come up with a balanced page or set of pages, not slavishly follow any of the other ones. Bellowed, we certainly have reached some kind of consensus on the Hillary Clinton controversies page that we are going to try dismantling it, thanks to a very detailed analysis done by Wasted. That controversies page at one time was a long controversies section in the main HRC article, if I recall correctly, and it was forked off into its own article. It now seems more sensible to remove the separate article and integrate the controversies into the texts of the main page where appropriate, and various sub-articles (e.g., her presidential campaign page) and footnotes. And to delete some altogether because of their non-notability. But my understanding is we're not setting up a "controversies" section in any of the HRC articles - if something is worthy of note, then it will be an integral part of an article and/or its footnotes and/or its subarticles. Or that's what we are going to attempt, anyway. So yes, we will have controversies back in the main article, but they will be integrated into the proper sections. As for the disagreement you're having here about balance - it seems to me that of course an effort should be made to present both sides of a controversy, IF there are reliable sources on both sides. Sometimes, though, it's possible that something negative is said about a person that has no RS on the other side, so the answer surely isn't to eliminate the negative just because you can't find positive, or vice versa. You want to avoid an article being all-attack or all-praise, but I don't agree with you that you eliminate a negative if you can't find someone saying something positive about the same issue. Wasted, please correct me if I've misrepresented anything here - it's late, and I may have misspoken. But I think it's the essence. One other thing - I would strongly urge you both to stop reverting each other - you're dangerously close to 3RR and, as I'm sure you know can be blocked for less than 3 when it's clearly an edit war. Cool it fellows, there's no emergency here - try to reach an agreement and then make changes. And Bellowed - I don't think suggesting that James go to the Hillary article and make the same change is really helpful. Finally - here's a comment from Bobblehead on the subject of controversy sections that says it better than I did. Tvoz |talk 06:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, I agree that the integration approach you suggest is an appropriate neutral ground. Negative material shouldn't be given undue prominence, nor should it be buried, and all significant points of view should be fairly presented.

There's only one part of your comment where I'd have reservations. You suggest that we should "try to reach an agreement and then make changes." I abhor edit warring. If you look at this talk page, you'll see how much effort I've put in to trying to reach an agreement. I don't know what I can do beyond citing a directly applicable Wikipedia rule, and pointing out that most of the editors who've commented have agreed with me. If your comment is intended to imply that I may have been too quick with the reverts, then I must respectfully disagree. I would be happy to have my record on this article over the last few days examined by anyone. JamesMLane t c 06:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't implying anything - just observing that the back and forth reverts weren't getting you anywhere. I really haven't studied this page, but if indeed the consensus is that controversies should stay on the main page rather than as a separate page, then I would agree that consensus ought to be respected. I'm saying that on HRC it was felt that separating them out as "controversies" - especially to me, since several of them were specious or at least trivial - was not a good way to go, after having it that way for quite a while. Her pages lend themselves to distributing and integrating the controversial stuff - maybe Rudy's would too. And who knows if it will work. I was explaining what we are attempting over there, but not saying that you must do it here because we're doing it there. I do not think all political pages can or should have identical formats - they're different people with different careers. You can look to other pages for ideas, as suggested ways of handling things, but ultimately it isn't really relevant here what we're doing for Hillary there. I personally would fight any attempt to force these articles into some kind of prescribed mold. Tvoz |talk 06:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

TVOZ- I appreciate your interest on this page and everything you're doing here. I wanted to address some of the things you said to me so I'll do it on a point by point:

Bellowed, we certainly have reached some kind of consensus on the Hillary Clinton controversies page that we are going to try dismantling it, thanks to a very detailed analysis done by Wasted. That controversies page at one time was a long controversies section in the main HRC article, if I recall correctly, and it was forked off into its own article. It now seems more sensible to remove the separate article and integrate the controversies into the texts of the main page where appropriate, and various sub-articles (e.g., her presidential campaign page) and footnotes. And to delete some altogether because of their non-notability. But my understanding is we're not setting up a "controversies" section in any of the HRC articles - if something is worthy of note, then it will be an integral part of an article and/or its footnotes and/or its subarticles.

I'm glad you pointed this out to me, and I'm not against a similar thing on Giuliani's page either once the criticisms are rewritten as much as possible in a NPOV and once Hillary's controversies are are integrated. I see it like this: neutrality is not confined to the article itself, it goes beyond it, to other articles. If it doesn't Wikipedia itself, not just the individual article, becomes biased. And then its reputation suffers.The stance I'm taking is that other political candidate's pages set a precedent for how we must treat their rivals. Obviously this has to be within reason--we can't count the sheer numbers of criticisms and apply the exact amount a rival's article, that would be ludicrous. And we certainly wouldn't want to ever say--"well candidate A's article is whitewashed, therefore we should remove all the overwhelming amounts of criticism from candidate B's article as well." Obviously, our task as responsible editors would be to make candidate A's article not whitewashed, while simultaneously making candidate B's page more neutral by doing things like removing only criticisms with undue weight, removing weasel words, etc. In other words, doing everything we can within policy on both sides. And in the case of this article, I felt like I did such a thing. There was no way to summarize all the criticisms on Giuliani's main page while having the controversies page; just like there was no way to summarize all the controversies on the HRC page. So I supported the general summary of controversies that was on Giuliani's page, taking HRC's as the example for this. Now, the way the controversies section is on Giuliani's page--with the summaries of only a few individual points--then I definately support this if this is how WP:SUMMARY is usually interpreted. However, if this is the way we're supposed to format the summary--with a summary of a few highlights and not a broad summary of the entire article--then I would like for the same standard to be applied on Hillary's page until her criticisms are integrated into her page. And I would do that edit on her page myself, but somebody would inevitably revert me for violating WP:Point.

You want to avoid an article being all-attack or all-praise, but I don't agree with you that you eliminate a negative if you can't find someone saying something positive about the same issue.

Just so you know, I never said that we should eliminate the negative if we can't find a positive. You must have misunderstood something that I said.

And Bellowed - I don't think suggesting that James go to the Hillary article and make the same change is really helpful.

Let me just say that I'm pretty long suffereing in how long I publicly assume good faith. I assume it at first and even when I have strong evidence to the contrary I still try and remain civil. At that point, I can't really assume good faith anymore, but I can, in the goal of civility, "pretend good faith." And even when an editor quickly rushes to judgement and accuses me of "burying information" and then accuses me of whitewash I'll still put on a good face. But after I say "James, don't accuse me of whitewash and I won't accuse you off its opposite; let's try and remiain civil and assume good faith," and the whitewashing accusations continue, why should I keep pretending? Yeah, I know I'm stooping to his level--but I'm not going to let an editor who even admits that he's biased sit there and smear my good faith edits. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And I'd also like to mention what appears to me as a solicitation for meatpuppetry by James while in the middle of an edit war with myself and two other users. James was running out of reverts and there were three editors against him. He did this here[4] here[5] here[6] and here[7] I will report any further abuses. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 01:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I looked and saw that those editors had more established accounts. I did not recognize them because they haven't posted on the Giuliani page or haven't posted on the page recently. I posted this also on James's page, but asked him to review policies on disruptive editing and gaming the system.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 02:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not recognize the editors' names? That's truly rich. Here's the chronology, which I hope will show why I find your attack on me to be such a knee-slapper:

• You began a thread soliciting comments on your desire to move a lot of the negative material about Giuliani off to a separate page.
• Several editors responded, most of them disagreeing with your idea. Among those who responded in that way were John Broughton, Veritas23, Zchris87v, and Gloriamarie.
• Your solicitation of comments produced more opposition than support, yet you went ahead and did what you wanted to do anyway.
• Because the other editors' views were being ignored, I notified them of what was going on. As best I can remember, I've had no prior contact with any of these editors. I didn't message any of the editors I've met whom I know to be Democrats. The edits of mine that you complain of went only to editors who had commented on this page on the specific point at issue in the reverts. (Please be sure to include that fact when you make your report about my alleged abuses.)

Now you say that you didn't recognize their names. That shows just how much attention you paid to the comments that you yourself solicited.

By this edit, I called your attention to the responses to your suggestion. You did not deny that most editors had opposed your suggestion; you just went ahead and again reverted to your preferred version. [8] You still haven't acknowledged that most people disagreed with you. Instead, you charge me with meatpuppetry, and top it off by hymning your own good faith and accusing me of bias.

Speaking of bias and accusations and such: My view is that almost everyone has some bias. I choose to discuss my biases on my talk page. The issue isn't whether an editor is biased; the issue is whether any particular edit is biased. (By the way, it's OK for an edit to add only a negative item or only a positive item. That's not necessarily bias.) When I said that a particular edit was a whitewash, that's not a personal attack; I was addressing a specific edit, and I provided a diff so that anyone else could look at it and form an independent judgment. You see, I'm allowed to "smear" (if by that you mean criticize) an edit. I always try to follow St. Augustine's advice: "Love men. Slay errors."

Now, before you write up a report of my alleged misconduct, as per your threat on my talk page, perhaps you could take a moment to examine the page that you yourself referred me to, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If you read its definitional section, you'll find:

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.

. . . .

• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

Those passages appear to be applicable to the multiple reverts made by you and others in an attempt to implement a proposal rejected by most editors. If you read further down the page, you'll see that an appropriate response to such disruption is a post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, seeking a warning or a temporary block. I didn't do that. Instead, I sent an update to the other editors whose views you were running roughshod over, hoping that they would reiterate the positions they had already expressed (at your invitation) and that we might thus avoid the need for more formal dispute resolution. JamesMLane t c 04:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm sure you're aware that alot of times editors who may have dissented at one time, but haven't actively posted for some time may have in fact changed their minds in light of new arguments, but haven't publicly stated it. I reject that consensus is against us here. Even still, I'm holding alot of these old editors responsible for the biased mess that the Giuliani article was and still is in. We're trying to make the page neutral, so right now policy takes priority over populace. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinions expressed long ago don't necessarily reflect current consensus. In this instance, however, several editors expressed opposition to a separate page on July 2, July 3, and July 8. The information was then moved to a separate page on July 10. That doesn't exactly qualify them as editors who "haven't actively posted for some time". People favoring the move aren't entitled to bull ahead based on the pure speculation that opponents might conceivably have changed their minds. Those of you favoring the move should have revisited the issue on the talk page instead of just ignoring the views you'd solicited when they turned out to be against you. I contacted the other editors (leading to your attack on me for alleged meatpuppetry, disruptive editing, and whatever) because they had -- recently, by my lights -- opined on the question, and I thought they had a right to know that the deletionist minority was going ahead with deleting the information from this article.

I fully agree with you about the primacy of policy. The policy that requires removal of huge chunks of valid, sourced information about Giuliani from his bio article has still not been cited to me. For my part, I've quoted the relevant provisions of WP:SUMMARY twice, to no discernible effect, so I'll spare you another recitation.

It became obvious to me that you and your allies would, regardless of the opinions expressed here, and regardless of what Wikipedia rules actually say, continue your edit warring. I decided that I would not, if I may borrow a phrase, stoop to your level. The real problem wasn't that you were removing the "Controversies" section. The real problem was that most of the information in that section didn't belong in that section to begin with. Therefore, instead of continuing to revert to re-insert a section that wasn't in the best form anyway, I'm going through item-by-item and re-integrating significant information into the appropriate sections of the article. I mention this only because, in my experience, some editors would take my failure to revert yet again as indicating agreement. In fact, some would say a few weeks from now that there was obviously a consensus to remove the information. I'm not saying that you yourself would advance such a ridiculous argument; I haven't had enough contact with you to know whether or not you would make that particular mistake. I mention the point here only because I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there would construe my nonreverting as agreement. JamesMLane t c 04:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good tactic, leaving a Controversies section for things that cannot fit into the normal text. The Hillary article should not be taken as a guideline since it seems that the separate Controversies article will be dismantled.--Gloriamarie 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section/article

There should not be a controversies section in this article that completely and thoroughly covers all of the information mentioned in the Controversies of Rudy Giuliani. The controversies section should merely be a summary of what is mentioned in the controversies article after linking to the full article... or the controversies article should be deleted (but, since the Guiliani page is very long, I support the former per WP:SUMMARY).

On a side, although somewhat related, note, is really necessary to have the several paragraphs, word-for-word, used in three separate Giuliani articles (Rudy Giuliani, Controversies of Rudy Giuliani, and Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001 attacks)? Unnecessary and trivial. How should I go about merging the article/sections/paragraphs so that they are not word-for-word repeated over and over again? All opinions, comments, and options welcome!  hmwith  talk 08:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that. This article length is already beyond the limits of what is acceptable. WP:SUMMARY is proper way of handling this section as it takes up a third of the article. I have taken the initiative to improve this article by doing so, only to be reverted by reasons that are unclear. The machine512 13:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Details belong in the most specialized of an article (in this case, Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001 attacks, with summaries in the other two that point to the article with the details.

I continue to disagree that there should be a separate controversies article, but I won't repeat the arguments above. Rather, I recommend that editors start (continue?) removing chunks out of the "controversies" article and integrating them into the main article; eventually the "controversies" article should become small enough that it is section-sized, and can be brought back into the main article, or is gone altogether. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to The machine512, I'm sorry if you found my reasons for reverting unclear. You and I agree that WP:SUMMARY is applicable and should be followed. In reverting, I quoted the relevant portion:

When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template under the section title.

Please note that a summary is to be left in the main article. As I read the policy, it doesn't mean that "there are controversies" is a summary. Two sentences is not several paragraphs. In reverting, I pointed out that the disputed edits had "improperly scrubbed this main bio article of all information on a topic area."

In any event, I don't think it makes sense to try to summarize controversies in a separate "Controversies" section. We should work instead on restoring a sensible summary of, for example, Giuliani's mayoralty, which would include the important facts -- some of which are most emphasized by his supporters and some by his detractors. JamesMLane t c 15:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My summary was short yes, but I feel it is a good starting point to work from outlining the context of the controversies in brief. Reverting soley on behalf of my summary being too short is not improving upon this article (which is bloated beyond the requirements of wikipedia.) Our current goal should be to cut this article's size in half, and this could be done in my view by (1) by tiering large bulky sections into seperate articles with full summaries (2) by compiling the many tiny subsections into larger ones. The machine512 16:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Having a separate "Controversies" section was probably a bad idea. The comparatively recent edit of moving virtually all substantive information about his mayoralty to that section was a very bad idea. Nevertheless, I reverted to that version that I dislike, because an article that has important information in the wrong section is better than an article from which important information has been excised entirely.

I don't think your two-sentence blurb is "a good starting point" for a sensible summary of "Controversies". The full text would be much better. The more important question, though, is whether we should structure the article that way at all. Several of us have expressed a preference for integrating the information. I'm unwilling to spend time trying to develop a summary version of a "Controversies" section when I don't think there should even be such a section. Consider the structure of the article as it stood a month ago, for example in this version. That structure was clearly better. If you feel strongly that we should shorten the article, and if you want to be able to work toward that goal without constant edit wars, then I suggest we should try to develop fair summaries of long sections, such as mayoralty and perhaps prosecutorial career, with additional information in daughter articles. We simply can't have a bio article about Rudy Giuliani that presents his mayoralty without even mentioning the shooting of Amadou Diallo, or the fact that at least two of his appointed commissioners (Russell Harding and Bernard Kerik) committed crimes while in office. JamesMLane t c 17:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I had some time, so I did it. Feel free to add a few more details or remove some, as you will, but I think that it's a great starting point.  hmwith  talk 17:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an extensive ongoing discussion immediately above this section, so I'm not sure why it was ignored in the latest round of edits - more edit warring is really not helpful here. I suggest you ask for some outside assistance on this matter as you're going around in circles. Tvoz |talk 18:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT] - Of course, it was reverted. I saw that coming, as this is controversial. The point is that it shouldn't be. This isn't POV or anything of the sort. All of the information is still on the main page, just summarized to make a very long article shorter, with a link to all of the information. When reverting, please come comment here, adequately explaining why this article does not fall into WP:SUMMARY.  hmwith  talk 18:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have reached consensus with your fellow editors - as evidenced by all of the reverting back and forth yesterday and now today. There is an extensive discussion just above this section, going on just hours ago - but you came in with your edit and this new section as if it was not under discussion. It's indeed not surprising that it was reverted, but that's what you did too. No one is going to win by brute force - again, I suggest you get some neutral people in here to try to help sort it out. Tvoz |talk 18:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

hmwith, if you read the comments on the rest of this page, you'll see that having a separate "Controversies" section is itself controversial. Several of us believe that it's just not the way to go. JamesMLane t c 06:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think there should be a separate Controversies article. Too much of the article has been spun off lately; it was very long for quite a long time and only the Mayoralty section has to be spun off.--Gloriamarie 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The controversies article was already in existence. I didn't create that. I just summarized a long section of tagged long article per WP:SUMMARY. Everything is still mentioned on the main page, and if one wants to read more about the issues, they can go to the controversies article; that's for what summaries are. =) I came in as a neutral party to sort out this argument by following what's proposed by Wikipedia guidelines. It doesn't personally matter to me either way, I was just trying to help sort of the mess! Cheers,  hmwith  talk 18:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Massive duplication - 9/11 attacks

There is an article called Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001 attacks, and also a section of the article - Rudy Giuliani#September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, that massively duplicate each other. Because the main Giuliani article is so long, I'd support making the section of the main article about 9/11 attacks in to a brief summary of the other (spin-off?), but others may feel differently. In any case, either the other article needs to go or the section in the main article needs to be cut way, way back. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been discussion of this of late, but there is some controversy because an editor (see above) would like to move the criticism surrounding 9/11 to a separate article while maintaining the non-criticism sections within the article. I do not think it should be a separate article. Too much has been spun from the article lately.--Gloriamarie 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fired Aid

I was actually looking to find information on this subject and there is nothing in Controversy or Campaign about the fired aid (Ravenel) and their dealings with distrubution (or intent) of cocaine in South Carolina.

Apparently you're referring to Thomas Ravenel, who was not a fired aide but, in fact, a state campaign chair for Giuliani. Ravenel is the former South Carolina State Treasurer who recently was indicted on federal cocaine distribution charges.72.94.11.71 20:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick

Ha, Ha, Talk about Sex makes it on Wikipedia

What's this about Rudy can't get an erection? Must be some anti-Rudy folks editing. There's even a reference. How about mentioning Bill Clinton's crooked penis, which is a true statement. Seriously, we need warnings on the top of these articles or people will think all of wikipedia is wacky, not just the articles of presidential hopefuls. JonnyLate 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

International news story about POV pushing on WP..Democrats are guilty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm This new story is saying that WP has proven that the Democratic Party has POV pushed to smear its opponents (and the CIA did the same to Iran). Therefore, beware of POV pushing to smear Republicans and POV pushing to delete all but the most positive information on the Democrats. Actually, it's conceivable that the Republicans could do the same but there is no evidence that this has happened.

This may explain the edit warring at Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Anyone who reverts this warning is suspect to being a POV pusher unless you can prove the BBC is wrong and the Wikipedia did not actually determine that the Democrats and CIA were involved.Warningwarningwarning 21:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To arms! to arms! the Democrats are coming! Wikipedia is imperiled! Or... maybe not. What the linked article actually says is that the Rush Limbaugh article was edited from an IP address registered to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. What the user citing the article fails to report is the DCCC response:

"We don't condone these sorts of activities and we take every precaution to ensure that our network is used in a responsible manner," Doug Thornell of the DCCC told the BBC News website.

Mr Thornell pointed out that the edit had been made "close to two years ago" and it was "impossible to know" who had done it.

And, by the way, those oh-so-virtuous Republicans have indeed been caught doing the same thing. Offices of Democratic and Republican members of Congress have edited in a partisan fashion. JamesMLane t c 11:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, ordinary WP editors unaffiliated with any party or campaign are perfectly capable of launching edit wars all on their own ;-) Wasted Time R 11:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. We were edit warring long before the politicians discovered us. JamesMLane t c 13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

edit

hey I wanna edit this article but I cant!

edit

I'm very suprised no one has added this before me. I'd really like to see this in the main article. THe citation is at the bottom, and I can't think of a better source.

Archives of the Mayor's Press Office FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: Monday, May 21, 2001 Release # 164-01

Contact: Sunny Mindel / Sid Dinsay

(212) 788-2958 

MAYOR GIULIANI VETOES BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR OWNERSHIP, PURCHASE AND SALE OF DOMESTIC FERRETS Remarks of Mayor Giuliani at Public Hearing on Local Laws

The final bill before me today is Introductory Number 627-A, sponsored by Council Member Freed and six of her colleagues. The bill would allow New Yorkers, with some restrictions, to own, buy and sell domestic ferrets.

This legislation is unenforceable and simply disregards City health officials' long-standing position on ferrets. The Board of Health has banned the sale and ownership of ferrets in the City for thirty years, a health policy supported by commissioners of the Department of Health through successive administrations. The New York City Charter clearly grants the Board authority to regulate all matters that affect public health in the City through the Health Code. The Charter does not permit the City Council to pass legislation that is inconsistent with provisions of the Health Code enacted by the Board. By attempting to legalize the sale and ownership of ferrets in the City, this bill directly contradicts the Health Code's ferret ban and is, therefore, unenforceable.

It is simply poor public policy for the Council to pass a bill over the objections of the City's health professionals. Attempting to enact legislation that is inconsistent with the Board of Health's rule would be akin to the City Council deciding unilaterally that tigers are no longer dangerous and should be legal pets in the City.

This is not a political issue particular to my Administration. For many years, City health officials, professional experts on public health, have banned ferrets because the animals have been found to be "naturally inclined to do harm." According to experts, ferrets may attack people even when unprovoked and usually target babies and small children as their victims.

Moreover, while ferrets may be legal in many other jurisdictions, few places in the country have living conditions similar to those found in this City. Millions of New Yorkers live in densely-populated multiple dwellings. Ferrets are quick and flexible and can easily escape from their owners' apartments and slip through wall openings into neighboring apartments.

Instead of respecting and acknowledging decades of findings by the Board of Health and the Department of Health, the Council has chosen to spend valuable public service time debating and approving a bill that ignores the determinations of health professionals. The interests of the people whom we all represent would be far better served if the Council took up any number of substantive bills pending before it, such as my bill to make the Administration for Children's Services a permanent City agency, or my bill to reduce breeding areas for West Nile mosquitoes by tightening City regulations on the disposal of scrap tires.

In sum, this bill is unenforceable and would pose a threat to public health. The Council should respect the parameters established by law and common sense and avoid tampering with the rulings of public health officials.

For the reasons previously stated, I will now veto the bill.

www.nyc.gov —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.220.249.134 (talk) 17:44, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Added a pic of him at SDSU, speaking at some motivational seminar back in feb 2007. http://www.pbase.com/ahuse/image/74398987 by Andrew Huse - 1DmkIIN 20:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A 2007 photo of Giuliani doesn't belong in the section about his mayoral campaigns. The appropriate place for it is Rudy Giuliani#Post-mayoralty, but that relatively small section already has a photo. Please consider whether you would like to replace the current photo with the new photo.

And please don't enlarge a photo the way you did. It was the proper size the first time. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article saddled with a propaganda photo of Giuliani when others are available? Haiduc 00:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, could you be a little more specific? Which photo are you referring to? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The one at the top of the page. It is an obvious state production, flag, smile etc. There are some very nice candid shots it can be replaced with, so that we are not burdened down with the ultimate POV image of him. Haiduc 02:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed it was an official mayoral picture, but I just discovered it was cropped from this picture. Many politicians' articles are illustrated with official photos, but if you can find an NPOV photo (whatever that means to you), we can see if anybody objects to it. Since the current photo is cropped from a photo that's been released into the public domain, you can crop it further and remove the flag if you'd like instead of hunting for a new picture. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. It would be nice to look for something not posed. Let me see. Haiduc 11:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Something "not posed" or "candid" is perfectly OK for inclusion somewhere in the article, but it's customary for us to use an official photo as the first one. Like Malik Shabazz, I assumed that the photo now at the top of the page (Image:Rudy Giuliani.jpg) was an official photo. Although it isn't, it's of the type that we usually use as the first photo. It should stay where it is unless and until someone substitutes an official photo. JamesMLane t c 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Since he hasn't held federal office in many years, we're not going to find an official, US Gov't owned photo that we can use, like we have for presidents, congresspeople, and the like. Look at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/mayflower/search.php?j=1&q=rudy+giuliani&t=n, for example ... this image is the best we have for an official-ish photo, and should stay where it is. Wasted Time R 12:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to be too much of a contrarian, but I do not think that the interests of our readers are best served by official photos. Not only do they have no particular aesthetic value, but they show the man as he would like to be seen, rather than as he is in a more unguarded, more revealing moment. We are favoring a mask over the real thing. If it is official Wikipedia policy to do this, that is one thing. If it is not, then there should be no argument against a more spontaneous image. (And do not imagine that I am on the prowl for some unflattering image. I actually think he is more likeable when he is not pasting on his ear-to-ear grin while wrapped up in the flag.) Haiduc 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You're tilting at windmills on this one. Every WP article of this kind has an official picture of the person smiling in front of a flag. Look at Bill Clinton. Look at Nancy Pelosi. Look at Gerald Ford. Hell, even Richard Nixon is smiling, and you know what that was all about. Spontaneous images are great, but for later in articles' bodies, not at the top. Wasted Time R 01:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wasted Time R, the image is fine and should remain unless a better image can be found.--Southern Texas 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If I had the time I would challenge this custom, but as it is, I concede. Haiduc 03:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

911 Criticisms

There is a 'controversy' section on this page which mentions some critcisms of Giuliani's handling of the 911 attacks, but there are two very obvious omissions, which lead me to believe someone is removing them from the page.

The two key criticisms of Giuliani's handling of 911 are that he located the NYC emergency command center INSIDE the world trade center AGAINST the recommendation of the police dept. This was AFTER the WTC had already been bombed once in '93. This is short-sighted and just poor judgement on his part and it is a VALID criticism of his work as mayor.

The second cricisim of his handling of 911 was that he failed to replace the antiquated radio communications system that the FDNY used, which led to poor communication between first responders.

I don't see either criticism in the 'controversy' section of this article, even though those are the two things are major reasons why the city was so unprepared for those attacks. It's unbelieveable, when you realize this man was mayor when the '93 attacks occured, that 8 years later he hadn't done anything to fix those obvious problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.252.145 (talk • contribs)

Well, if you have any reliable sources for any of these things and it's not just original research, feel free to add any of it.  hmwith  talk 13:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an article in today's NYT that discusses just these details. I think they're relevant, too, but I've had enough editing for one day. Pro crast in a tor 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)