Jump to content

Talk:Rudy Giuliani/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Defamation verdict and bankruptcy filing

I think the $148 million defamation verdict against him, and his filing for bankruptcy six days later, should be in the opening section. Those are very significant life events. Krakatoa (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I added a sentence about it to the lede pbp 15:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Text removed when trimming lede

  • In an effort to reform the police department's administration and policing practices, they applied the broken windows theory.[1] Accordingly, Giuliani removed panhandlers and sex clubs from Times Square.[2] As crime rates fell steeply, well ahead of the national average pace, Giuliani was widely credited, though later critics cite other contributing factors.[3]
    • This goes far too in the weeds about his/Bratton's crime policy for the lede. A sentence or two saying civic cleanup and crime policies will suffice
  • The theory states that social disorder, like disrepair and vandalism, attracts loitering addicts, panhandlers, prostitutes, and criminals.[4]
    • It is not necessary to explain broken windows theory in the lede; a link to the article on broken windows theory will suffice
  • Giuliani was arrested on August 23, 2023, and a mugshot was released.[5][6][7]
    • It is not necessary to mention this in the lede; it would logically be inferred that, if indicted, he would be arrested, and, if arrested, he'd have a mugshot taken.
  • In addition, he has often been engaged for public speaking, political commentary, and Republican campaign support.[3]
    • It is quite common for this to be true of any politician of Rudy's stature and therefore need not be mentioned in the lede.
  • As a consequence, his license to practice law was suspended in New York State in June 2021,[8] and in the District of Columbia in July 2021.[9][10]
    • Too specific for the lede
  • In late 2019, Giuliani was reportedly under federal investigation for violating lobbying laws,[11]as a central figure in the Trump–Ukraine scandal,[12] which resulted in Trump's first impeachment.[13]
    • Out-of-date; language shortened to read simply "was a central figure in the Trump-Ukraine scandal.
  • as well as his promotion of conspiracy theories, most notably about the 2018 and 2020 elections.[14][15]
    • Redundant to sentences that outline his comments about the 2020 election

pbp 20:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Jeffrey, Jane E. (2004). "Dramatic convergence in Times Square". In Brown, Phyllis R.; McMillin, Linda A.; Wilson, Katharina M. (eds.). Hrotsvit of Gandersheim: Contexts, Identities, Affinities, and Performances. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 251–252. ISBN 9780802089625. Archived from the original on November 7, 2023. Retrieved July 8, 2020.
  3. ^ a b Robertiello, Gina M. (2012). "Giuliani, Rudolph". In Miller, Wilbur R. (ed.). The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia. Thousand Oaks CA, New Delhi, London: SAGE Publications. pp. 698–699. ISBN 9781412988780. Archived from the original on November 7, 2023. Retrieved June 17, 2015.
  4. ^ Donner, Christopher M. (2012). "Crime prevention". In Miller, Wilbur R. (ed.). The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia. Thousand Oaks CA, New Delhi, London: SAGE Publications. pp. 390–395. ISBN 9781412988780. Archived from the original on November 7, 2023. Retrieved July 8, 2020.
  5. ^ Chamlee, Virginia (August 23, 2023). "Rudy Giuliani's Mug Shot Released in Georgia Election Meddling Case". People. Archived from the original on August 23, 2023. Retrieved August 23, 2023.
  6. ^ Chao-Fong, Léonie; Yang, Maya; Pengelly, Martin (August 23, 2023). "Rudy Giuliani mugshot released after he surrenders in Trump Georgia case". The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 23, 2023. Retrieved August 23, 2023.
  7. ^ Yilek, Caitlin (August 23, 2023). "See Rudy Giuliani's mugshot after the embattled Trump ally turned himself in at Fulton County Jail". CBS News. Archived from the original on August 23, 2023. Retrieved August 23, 2023.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference ReutersSuspended was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Polantz, Katelyn (July 7, 2021). "Rudy Giuliani suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC". CNN. Archived from the original on July 7, 2021. Retrieved July 7, 2021.
  10. ^ Christina, Wilkie; Mangan, Dan (July 7, 2021). "Rudy Giuliani's DC law license is suspended". CNBC. Archived from the original on November 14, 2022. Retrieved November 14, 2022.
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference nytinvest was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference :9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ "Trump impeachment: The short, medium and long story". BBC News. February 5, 2020. Archived from the original on January 11, 2021. Retrieved May 22, 2023.
  14. ^ Oprysko, Caitlin (November 9, 2018). "Giuliani alleges election tampering in Florida races without offering evidence". Politico. Archived from the original on November 14, 2022. Retrieved November 14, 2022.
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference GiulianiBogusElectionFraudClaims was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Giuliani served Arizona papers

2601:646:201:57F0:1CC9:505D:6BD1:16A (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This is already covered at the end of the end of the Indictments section. —ADavidB 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2024

In the Disbarment section, there’s a typo with the date. He was disbarred on July 2, 2024. Devynespedal (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 11:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Is not calling an alternate slate ‘fake electors’ too POV? 24.6.125.249 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The Third?

Earlier versions of this page, and other language pages, note Giuliani as "III", or "the third". Current page does not, there's no notice of him being so, and his father is not "Rudolph Junior" but rather "Harold Angelo", which would suggest he is not? So...is it Rudy the Third, or is that an affectation or mistake? 2001:9B0:46:0:0:0:B4D5:2BCD (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2024

Change "he was indicted for prosecution related to the 2020 election in Arizona" to "he was indicted on charges related to the 2020 election in Arizona". OffTheDeepEnd (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point. I have made the change requested in two places. Mgnbar (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Criticism section needed

A criticism section is needed in the article. Trump's Muslim allies slammed Giuliani as an "unhinged lunatic" for his anti-Palestine statement that Palestinians "are taught to kill us at two years old" in a speech at a Trump rally. Wikimicky1 (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONs impair article neutrality and you have to demonstrate why it would be WP:DUE to add his comment from the MSG rally to this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove the red links of Freeh Group International Solutions and National Italian American Foundation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by João908 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2025

Shorten this page's text. 45.49.246.117 (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  •  Not done The edit request process is to ask for a specific edit in a "change X text to Y text" format. It isn't used for a general request like this. If you have ways that the text of this article can be shortened, please discuss below and obtain consensus for them, necessary in this formally designated contentious topic area. Please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Turn some low-level headings into higher-level headings

The section "Post-mayoralty political career" has a ton of stuff in it, including the subheadings "2020 election lawsuits," "Attack on the Capitol," and "Indictments."

Could those three subheadings be pulled out into higher-level headings? I suggest this mostly just to simplify the article navigation and make those sections easier to find. But also, because those activities, while politically related, arguably aren't part of a proper/normal "political career," i.e., they aren't legitimate activities or job roles. For that reason, they could have their own headings. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2025

Please change the subsection "Judgement for defaming Georgia election workers" by appending the following update:

"On January 10, Judge Howell found Giuliani in contempt for continuing to defame Freeman and Moss by repeating his accusations against them at least four times in November, following Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election. She ordered Giuliani to pay Freeman and Moss's legal expenses in the case. Howell also gave Giuliani a 10-day deadline to file a sworn declaration that he had read all the depositions and testimony in the first defamation case, and been given due process throughout.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/10/us/politics/giuliani-contempt-defamation-election-workers.html Ejgertz (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Other edits and the settlement have been incorporated so additional details on this ruling aren't really necessary. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Excessive length and detail

This article is far too long and some episodes, especially those in the section "Post-Mayoralty Political Career" are covered in excessive detail.

A couple of examples (out of many): the 21 long paragraphs under "Attempts to get Ukraine to carry out investigations" and the 15 detailed paragraphs under "Judgment for defaming Georgia election workers". To be clear, I'm not suggesting that these events shouldn't be mentioned, but the level of detail is utterly disproportionate.

TLDR: the whole article needs heavy pruning and restructuring. There's a tag to this effect but it's been there for a year and nothing appears to have been done. Unfortunately the article is protected so only editors with the appropriate level of access (which doesn't include me) will be able to address this. JayZed (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose specific changes, in a "change X text to Y text" format, on this page in the form of an edit request(the edit request wizard can facilitate this). My suggestion would be that, to increase the chances of volunteers reviewing your formal requests, that you propose incremental changes, one at a time.
It's also possible that some of the detail could go into(if not there already) existing articles about the events. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Bias

OP has declined to pursue it further. Nothing was going to come of it anyway... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC). This is also block evasion - IP now blocked.-- Ponyobons mots 21:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

this is a badly biased "article". Someone with integrity should edit this in a neutral tone. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It's diffiicult to respond to the grievance "this is biased, someone fix it". If the sources provided in this article are not being accurately summarized, please detail the specific errors here. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. You are free to read an article and disagree with everything presented. Wikipedia does not claim to be without bias, as all sources of information and people(including you) have biases. Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view, which is different.
To suggest that editors have no integrity is almost a personal attack. That people may disagree with you does not mean that they lack integrity. Please assume good faith. 331dot (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
The last thing wikipedia has is a neutral point of view. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Neutral point of view does not mean "without bias", which is an impossibility. Again, please give one example of a piece of information in this article that is not an accurate summary of the source or sources provided. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Yup, totally impossible to present both (or all) sides of the argument. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
What argument is not being presented? 331dot (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
"crime went down while rudy was mayor" "PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE OF HIM THOUGH"
"the country mostly loved him because of how he handled 9/11" "HE PROBABLY DIDN'T DESERVE IT THOUGH"
"he was Time's person of the year" "PROBABLY BECAUSE HE HAD CANCER"
hahaha. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't see where it says your all-caps quotes in this article. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Those aren't quotes, that's me reliably summarizing the source. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
If you don't like what the sources say about Mayor Giuliani, you need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
sources attributing drop in crime to giuliani:
sources discussing his Time person of the year award without mentioning cancer:
You pick and choose the "sources" that you want to summarize, and you minimize the ones that don't align. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Do you deny that there is disagreement as to the extent that Giuliani was responsible for crime decreasing in the city? I don't see anywhere in this article where it says he was named man of the year due to cancer. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
"Time Person of the Year
On December 24, 2001, Time magazine named Giuliani its Person of the Year for 2001. Time observed that, before 9/11, Giuliani's public image had been that of a rigid, self-righteous, ambitious politician. After 9/11, and perhaps owing also to his bout with prostate cancer, his public image became that of a man who could be counted on to unite a city in the midst of its greatest crisis." 71.175.134.136 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
I read that as saying that cancer contributed to his positive public image on top of everything else, not that "they named him MOTY because he had cancer". 331dot (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
I was being hyperbolic. To me it reads as someone partially dismissing his efforts. "Well, he did ok, but having cancer helped him win the award." Like there's some level of dismissal at every turn in this thing. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
In the event that you are honestly open to learning what's truly going on, here is a link to a scientific study by the Manhattan Institute which corroborates what I've said to you today: https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased 71.175.134.136 (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Here are some articles wherein Larry Sanger, co-founder of this site, labels WP's current leadership as "clowns":
You will find the same indication of liberal bias as it pertains to the israeli-palestinian conflict. When a source aligns with the views of the 'editors' in power, they are deemed 'reliable' and objective. When they do not align, they are deemed 'unreliable' or just simply ignored altogether.
It is not merely about gender politics. It is not merely about republican politicians. It is pervasive, systematic, measurable liberal bias across the board. This is unconscionable given WP's perceived status and its rank within the top-ten most visited websites. I would argue it's borderline criminal. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Giuliani's polls in NYC were about 28% favorable prior to 9/11. Obviously you can find some sources that don't like Wikipedia. If that were not true, Wikipedia wouldn't be doing its job of neutral documentation. You might examine your own biases. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I have no biases. I don't give a shit about rudy giuliani or scarlett. I care about the truth, and wikipedia doesn't reflect it. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Everyone has biases. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
No they don't. No it isn't. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Unless you are a space alien from Mars or Vulcan, everyone has biases and you're just deluding yourself if you think otherwise. See Bias. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Or a rational, free-thinking human. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism 71.175.134.136 (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
And when a mob is directed by the president to disrupt the ceritification of the election of his opponent and tries to execute the vice president and they are dismissed as "tourists", yes, truth is in the eye of the beholder. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
No it isn't. One of them is simply lying, or wrong. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
You just dismiss information you disagree with as "liberal bias". If sources discuss how his medical condition may have contributed to an award or recognition he received, that is valid content. It doesn't say "he got MOTY because he had cancer" or "it's less important because he had cancer". It says that sources state cancer may have contributed to his public image. No more, no less. You're reading things into this that simply aren't there. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't disagree with any of it. I JUST showed you a mathematically valid, peer reviewed, scientific assessment of sentiment bias on WP between left- and right-leaning topics and you're completely impervious to it. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm not here to debate alleged bias on Wikipedia. I'm here to talk about the Rudy Giuliani article. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Rudy's page is only a tiny fraction of the problem. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
One of your "sources" for a "scientific assessment" is unreliable and the other isn't germane. And just because there may be bias on other articles doesn't necessarily mean there is bias on this one. pbp 18:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Wrong
What is a source that you deem reliable while the community does not? 331dot (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
all of the ones I've listed 71.175.134.136 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the NY Post is not considered reliable as they have little regard for fact checking, and have been documented as fabricating things. If you trust them, that's your business. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
but "CNN" is a reliable source? 71.175.134.136 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
If you can show that CNN does not engage in fact checking and editorial control, and has a history of outright fabrication, go to the reliable sources noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm trying. You're part of the mob, and you're kind of clearly indoctrinated for life. Good luck, pal. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rudy_Giuliani/Archive_5&oldid=1297476409"