![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
A passage on Giuliani's name recognition and on comparisons of voter assessments of negative and positive qualities of candidates was referenced as "recent." Given that this and many election seasons are fast-evolving, it is necessary to precisely say what "recent" means. Actually, the reference from the passage was a July 21, 2006 page.
A great deal has changed in the Republican race since the poll and the article which developed from it. It is for this reason, that I have removed this notably dated passage. Dogru144 03:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is really bad and is just a constant bashing of Giuliani, I will rewrite it tomorrow.-- Southern Texas 05:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Done.-- Southern Texas 19:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no real consensus on what an 'XYZ presidential campaign, NNNN' article should look like. The ones for 2008 vary in format, content, and approach. The ones for little-known candidates tend to be very favorable and go on at great length (Mike Gravel, Ron Paul); the ones for the big-name Democrats tend to be shorter but still favorable (Clinton, Obama, to a lesser extent Edwards); the ones for the big-name Republicans tend to be more negative (Romney, McCain, most of all this one). Then if you look at the ones from last time around, such as John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004, they are completely different from any of these. And Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 is still yet another different brew.
In my own view, a campaign article shouldn't be a collection of talking points for or against the candidate, but a history of what happened during the campaign: where the candidate was successful and why, where the candidate faltered and why, what part of the electorate supported the candidate, what part didn't, etc. Of course it's hard to write such an account as it's happening; things that look significant now may turn out not to be in the end and vice versa. Wasted Time R 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Just look at the article, the strengths will always be positive for the candidate, it may be slightly POV, but this is what helps the campaign go up in the polls and therefore it is a strength and should be written on here. The weaknesses will be slightly POV against the candidate but it should not monopolize the whole article its just the things that hurts the campaign in the polls. These two sections should counteract each other making the article NPOV. You have to admit there are some aspects that help a campaign and other aspects that hurt a campaign these should not be ignored and not added because we fear it breaks NPOV. This article was extrememly bad citing people that are not mainstream and citing events that were obscure, just talk about the campaign, the strengths, the weaknesses, the poll numbers, the financials, and events in the campaign. It should not list some kind of Swift Boat Veterans thing about Hillary, what does this have anything to do with Rudy Giuliani's campaign page?-- Southern Texas 16:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
by the way the Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2008 is set up the same way. Wikipedia is not the place to spew political venom so please don't turn this page into an attack page, keep it NPOV and fair and balanced, its divided into strengths of the campaign and weaknesses don't make it just one big attack page, just keep it simple and organized. Even if you don't agree with the facts the facts remain, the crime record, leadership, and terrorism are all topics that pull Giuliani's campaign up in the polls, his marriages and his views on abortion bring the campaign down in the polls, Its not commentary but basic facts, and I really don't think we should present this guy as the doom and gloom candidate as your edits make him appear since he is leading in the polls and even leading Hillary in a 2 way race, please keep it as it is and don't try to cover up aspects of his campaign that are universally considered strengths, Thank you.-- Southern Texas 04:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not attacking anyone, I'm trying to make this article better. I'll work on it again, but the "Strengths" and "Weaknesses" section cannot remain as they are just not NPOV at the outset. Joe Biden's page is only like that because you created it and set it up that way-- it's not NPOV. Who is to say what is a strength and what is a weakness? Some of these could go both ways. I'll change it to reflect the "Opposing forces" and "Supporting forces" that Hillary and McCain's articles have. Those articles are clearly laid out and make much more sense than this one in its current state.-- Gloriamarie 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Many of your additions are commentary, not NPOV encyclopedic material, such as these: "While mayor of New York, Giuliani showed that he has an abundance of leadership skills, perfectly displayed in the aftermath of the World Trade Center Attacks." "The images of Giuliani in the aftermath of 9/11 bring to mind strength as he instilled confidence in the city and the country in its darkest moments and was given the name "America's Mayor" as well as being named the 2001 Time Magazine Man of the Year. To many people he has proven what it takes to lead and has proven that he won't back down from the fight against the terrorists that committed the acts he witnessed"... These possibly be rewritten in an NPOV manner but until that time, I'm reverting.-- Gloriamarie 02:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This really isn't that hard, if one is trying to be neutral instead of praise/bash. Stuff like this:
While mayor of New York, Giuliani showed that he has an abundance of leadership skills, perfectly displayed in the aftermath of the World Trade Center Attacks.
is real bad and should go. Stuff like this:
According to a Gallup Poll taken February 9-11 2007, responders who supported Giuliani were asked why they supported him. The results showed that 13% of supporters did so because of Giuliani's strong leadership and 53% did so because of leadership related topics such as time as mayor and handling of 9/11.[30] Another poll taken by Marist showed that 42% of Giuliani supporters believed that leadership is the most important quality for a candidate, this is compared to 34% of McCain supporters who believed the same. [31]
is good and should stay. Weaknesses can be illustrated using poll results like this too. Wasted Time R 02:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I was working on it and the organization is really bad now. I will change the titles from strengths and weaknesses to what you called it but some of the criticisms that you wrote really don't belong and are displayed in a very pov manner, swift boat stuff is not important and should be on the hillary page not here, the iowa family is not important at all it just shows giuliani's strategy of trying to get the most money, and the other speculation does not belong. I will delete the section I wrote on terrorism but all the others are backed by sources, with the crime it was reduced, and leadership is backed up with polls, I'll admit there is some tone issues and I will fix these, I also think that I had it organized better, I am willing to negotiate but I will not leave this article a pov unorganized mess, Thank you-- Southern Texas 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Giuliani had in the past mentioned that the Confederate flag should be removed from South Carolina's Capitol building. On a 2007 visit to Alabama, he said that the state should be able to decide. The president of the Alabama chapter of the NAACP said, "Giuliani is posturing himself to try to get the conservative, right-wing, Southern white vote in Alabama. He used to oppose the flag, but now he's backtracked because he's running for president." Giuliani's spokesperson responded that the candidate's position had never changed and he had always thought it should be left to the state to decide.[50]
In 1998, on a visit to South Carolina, where then-Governor David Beasley had tried to remove the flag, the New York Daily News quoted Giuliani as saying Beasley had taken "a very courageous stand … at great political risk."[50]
This really doesn't belong here, perhaps it should be moved to the criticisms of giuliani page, I doesn' have anything to do with his campaign.
On May 29, 2007, CBS News reported that conservative website freerepublic.com had begun banning accounts of Giuliani supporters, evidently because they didn't think he was conservative enough.[11] The purge occurred one month after site founder Jim Robinson wrote a piece entitled, "Giuliani as the GOP presidential nominee would be a dagger in the heart of the conservative movement." A "Giuliani Truth File" was posted to the site, the only such file posted on any candidate of either party.[11]
This doesn't belong for the same reason, I've tried to see how it is relevant to the campaign and I just can't find anything, sorry.
A top Giuliani donor, Richard Collins, who has supported George W. Bush for several years, was central in establishing "Stop Her Now," a Swift Boat-styled negative campaign operation aimed to spread negative publicity against Hillary Clinton. [55]
This should be on the Hillary page not here please.-- Southern Texas 05:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not getting involved in this because this topic totally doesn't interest me, but I have two problems with your arguments Southern Texas that I want to make clear:
That's all. Atropos 01:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I am proud to say that after a few changes the article is now good and ceases to be an attack page. It now represents the facts in an NPOV manner.-- Southern Texas 23:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone should note that the particular fire fighter group that has criticized Rudy's performance tends to be a partisan group, or rather that's what the Campaign said. Arnabdas 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can source it please add it.-- Southern Texas 18:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The Associated Press ran an article a few months back about how Rudy is out of touch with voters by incorrectly noting the pricing of bread and milk. The AP quoted prices of D'Agostino's, a high end mini market that caters to elite Manhanttanites (and therefore marks up prices). Most people don't buy bread and milk from ultra high end places like that. The prices he actually quoted werent too far off. Not sure if it is noteworthy or not. Arnabdas 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
When one compares the size of the lead photo of the first and second tier Republican candidates for the presidency in 2008, it is apparent that the image for Giuliani is much larger than other than the lead image of the other candidates. Dogru144 12:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that it isn't common to include a section on campaign staff/advisors, but I think that in the light of recent developments (ie: Carl Rove, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown etc.) there is a growing concern over a candidate's ability to choose staffmembers. Some of these advisors are potential cabinet members should the candidate be elected. I am proposing the inclusion of prominent staff/advisors (and a short bio) to all candidates' campaign entries in order to help voters better understand each candidates' ability to judge character. I believe that attention is inordinately focussed on individual candidates, when in fact, the major influence on any new administration will be in the advisors surrounding the new president. Your input would be greatly appreciated. ----Rawkcuf. (In the interest of uniformity, this is the same 'form letter' I've sent to other candidates' entries. I'm impressed that you are on the ball, and already have two entries referring to staff appointments. Might I suggest combining them into one entry, and adding more as necessary. Thanks, -R.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawkcuf ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I took out the part that says he would be the first atheist president. Just because some poll says something doesn't make it absolute truth. 75.67.142.56 15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I revereted something that said he was "pro-abortion". As far as I know, he doesn't actually support abortion, but supports people being allowed to choose. Would someone comment on this? 75.67.142.56 19:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed these on Romney's articles as well. As far as I know normal articles don't present these many graphs in excess. You don't write scientific articles this way. You refer to images in the text. These images are just pasted blatanly filling more than half the article. It is very annoying, disruptive for reading and actually not very informative either in the context and layout they are presented. Lord Metroid 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't be copying an entire 1.5 page section directly from his campaign website to the article. The source is not neutral, and the weight is not balanced.
johnpseudo
00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned the article is returning to its old state. It is now highly critical throughout and is mainly just a collection of criticisms even in the supposedly neutral "Campaign developments" section.-- Southern Texas 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I have fixed the problem. Criticism is not a "Campaign development". Awards are necessary for WP:Weight and WP:NPOV issues and actually read it and you'll see that it is not the same. Just reasons for support-- Southern Texas 22:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course the endorsements are notable especially someone like Tommy Thompson. The statement about the debate was not at all NPOV and not notable at all. The Time Magazine bit was irrelevant and not completely factual, Sally Regenhard (whoever that is) has not made any effect on the campaign . I welcome you to add something about Bernard Kerik especially since Giulani recently praised the work he did years ago. Everything done was to clean up the article and address the WP:WEIGHT issues that have been discussed.-- Southern Texas 22:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Some of the above listed items by johnpseudo are now back in the article, or have been added in new form (Kerik, expanded coverage of Fox News being called pro-Giuliani). I've also added a lead section that tries to capture the forest not the trees, per the above. Wasted Time R 14:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be more information about his policy positions. It's all horse race coverage; i.e. we go into great depth about how his campaign is operating (tactics), but not his actual platform. Superm401 - Talk 07:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Giuliani ad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
1 link commented out - Footage a speech - Is uploader the originator of the footage? It wasn't clear from the clip information or uploader profile.. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 12:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
1 link commented out - Footage of a political rally. Is uploader the originator of the footage? It wasn't clear from the clip information/uploader profile. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 12:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The significance the event in this section needs to be expanded more. Right now it's just an exchange between him and another candidate, with little significance noted. Quanticles ( talk) 14:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Over the past week I wrote articles about Tom Tancredo's presidential campaign and Chris Dodd's. When I started getting sources together to write the article on Dodd I had a revelation. The article should flow smoothly, it should give information about the movement of the campaign, who they are attracting, what their motives are. I did this for the Dodd article mainly to show the rigors of the campaign and to sum up the whole election itself. I think the Giuliani should do the same and not be just a collection of talking points as it is right now.-- S TX 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor is repeatedly erasing details that provide support to the claim as to secuity details for Judith Giuliani.
For the record, the gutted details follow:
" A neighborhood witness, Lee Degenstein, claimed [in a published December 7, 2007 Daily News report] that the security began at some unspecified time earlier in 2000. His statement placed the security detail as beginning earlier than the previously stated May 2000 date. Furthermore, Degenstein provided details of the security protection: "The windows were all blacked out, it [the car] had several antennas affixed to the trunk and of course had the orange E-ZPass stuck in the front windshield," in reference to the colored toll devices stuck to municipal cars. [1] " Dogru144 ( talk) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The information expands on previously reported information. The information is more precise that the generalizations in the politico.com article. The information is backed by an identified reference. For the sake of context, what follows is the text from opening of the New York Daily News report of December 7, 2007:
"Mayor's Gal Got Security Earlier than We Knew" -title. "Judith Nathan got taxpayer-funded chauffeur services from the NYPD earlier than previously disclosed --even before her affair with then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani was revealed, witnesses and sources tell the Daily News.
"It went on for months before the affair went public," said Lee Degenstein, 52, a retired Smith Barney vice president who formerly lived at 200 E. 94th St., Nathan's old building.
"It was going on longer than anybody though," added Degenstein, who, along with others in the neighborhood, said they often saw Nathan hopping into unmarked NYPD cars in early 2000 before the affair was revealed that May." [2] Dogru144 ( talk) 00:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
References
User Southern Texas has blanked out the material on Giuliani's professional association with the Abdullah Bin Khalid Al-Thani minister of the Interior (Qatar). This is completely relevant material.
Giuliani has based his entire campaign around September 11. It is controversial and POV to remove a multi-reference contribution that validly documents his professional association with a Qatari minsiter (and royal house member) that sheltered an al Qaeda associate that was being pursued by the FBI. Let wikipedia editors and administrators judge for themselves the validity and pertinence of said material to the discussion: Here is what Tex gutted out:
Giuliani's consultancy firm, Giuliani Partners, attracted controversy over its associations with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Qatar Minister of the Interior Abdullah Bin Khalid Al-Thani. (The latter was disclosed in an investigative journalism piece in the Village Voice. [1]) Chavez has aroused controversy for his consolidation of power and his anti-capitalist rhetoric. Al Thani has aroused controversy because he sheltered September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from the FBI. [2] [1] Giuliani had already stepped down as CEO and Chairman of Giuliani Partners in June 2007, [3] although this action was not disclosed publicly. On December 4, 2007, in the wake of the latest attention to the firm's client base, Giuliani Partners announced the stepping down, [4] with Giuliani defending his work there, saying, "Everything I did at Giuliani Partners was totally legal, totally ethical. There's nothing for me to explain about. We acted honorably, decently." [4] Giuliani maintained his equity interest in the firm. [3] Dogru144 ( talk) 01:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
How is this related to the campaign?-- S TX 01:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I dont want this to be POV, I coppoed what I wrote originally on Rudy's page:
Anyone seen the fuss over Giuliani's racist campaign add? It states 'a people perverted' in refrence to all muslims, not to mention one of Rudy's subodinates told Muslims to 'get back into their caves'. The video is on youtube but I got it off the islamophobia watch site, a POV site I know, but as it directly quiotes it is reliable.86.138.116.141 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/category/resisting-islamophobia
perhaps this racism deserves a mention in the article? Or his campaigning?86.138.116.141 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
there it is, and please do view the video. 86.138.116.141 ( talk) 17:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The video link is http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/01/giuliani_muslims_a_people_perv.html. 86.138.116.141 ( talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Does hosting a fundraiser for Rudy qualify as an endorsement under this article? Can it be mere support? Or does the endorser have to say "I endorse Rudy"? How far down the elected food chain should the endorsements list go?
He's got some important state reps hosting fundraisers for him in PA. Are these worth mentioning? Here's a link. [1] Also, what about placing Bob Asher on the endorsement list? He's mentioned in the controversies section, but he still is PA's national committeeman, which makes him a big deal.-- RedShiftPA ( talk) 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Wasted, why would an image of Rudia within the marriage/family section of this campaign article be inappropriate? Never mind...it's all just nostalgia now....doesn't matter. However, if you really think that early and widespread circulation of photos of Rudia didn't play a big role in how the campaign has played out I would suggest you talk to a few more of his heartland defectors. Veritas23 ( talk) 20:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some mention of the controversy over the alleged skewing of statisitcs in a campaign advertisement deriding the NHS. there are hundreds of links on this, a minister (alan johnson)commented on it, how did you lot miss this? 62.30.172.14 ( talk) 19:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I added this section a long time ago, I think it would be best if the material was cut out and added to a new article, Public image of Rudy Giuliani. I am going to be bold and go ahead and do this, if anybody objects then it can be undone. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 20:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Since this article is getting an overhaul, I have a question. Why are the fundraising and polling sections separate from the campaign chronology? This has never made much sense to me. Fundraising and polling are the two most important things that happen during the pre-primaries year (2007, in this case) and continue to be quite important into the primaries year. Everything that happens is in reaction to them, and their numbers dictate what happens next. When I reworked the Mike Gravel campaign article recent, I folded these two sections into the main campaign chronology. I would suggest doing that here; otherwise, the reader has to understand them completely out of the context in which they occur. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
A question has arisen about the relevance of specific crime statistics.
The article has long included a statement, sourced to a Giuliani spokesperson, about the murder rate, using statistics to bolster Giuliani's reputation as a crimefighter who reversed a rising tide of lawlessness in New York City. I left in the flack's statement but made this edit, also giving specifics about the murder rate (cited to a neutral source, the Bureau of Justice Statistics), that undercut Giuliani's claim. William S. Saturn then deleted the latter information as "irrelevant" while leaving in the former. I restored it, noting the discrepancy, but he again reverted (along with a request that I not edit war!).
We could omit this subject entirely, as not relevant to the campaign but more properly left to the Giuliani bio or mayoralty articles; or we could limit it to a presentation of Giuliani's image as a crimefighter, without trying to argue that the image was an accurate one; or we could simply note the contention of each side, without including any specific statistical supporting data; or we could make a slightly fuller presentation of the competing views, including the statistics relied on by each. Any of these approaches would be neutral. To give one side's supporting information but not the other's, however, would be blatantly POV. There’s no basis for William S. Saturn’s position that one statement (“By being tough on crime and enforcing the laws on the books, New York City’s murder rate [under Giuliani] was cut by 66 percent.") should stay in but that the other (“For example, the per capita murder rate had peaked and then begun to decline under Dinkins, and rapes decreased in each year of his term.”) should be removed.
Therefore, I am restoring the information. JamesMLane t c 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
::I'm done working on this article. It's become a waste of time, much like most of wikipedia. --
William S. Saturn (
talk)
23:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
A passage on Giuliani's name recognition and on comparisons of voter assessments of negative and positive qualities of candidates was referenced as "recent." Given that this and many election seasons are fast-evolving, it is necessary to precisely say what "recent" means. Actually, the reference from the passage was a July 21, 2006 page.
A great deal has changed in the Republican race since the poll and the article which developed from it. It is for this reason, that I have removed this notably dated passage. Dogru144 03:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is really bad and is just a constant bashing of Giuliani, I will rewrite it tomorrow.-- Southern Texas 05:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Done.-- Southern Texas 19:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no real consensus on what an 'XYZ presidential campaign, NNNN' article should look like. The ones for 2008 vary in format, content, and approach. The ones for little-known candidates tend to be very favorable and go on at great length (Mike Gravel, Ron Paul); the ones for the big-name Democrats tend to be shorter but still favorable (Clinton, Obama, to a lesser extent Edwards); the ones for the big-name Republicans tend to be more negative (Romney, McCain, most of all this one). Then if you look at the ones from last time around, such as John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004, they are completely different from any of these. And Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 is still yet another different brew.
In my own view, a campaign article shouldn't be a collection of talking points for or against the candidate, but a history of what happened during the campaign: where the candidate was successful and why, where the candidate faltered and why, what part of the electorate supported the candidate, what part didn't, etc. Of course it's hard to write such an account as it's happening; things that look significant now may turn out not to be in the end and vice versa. Wasted Time R 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Just look at the article, the strengths will always be positive for the candidate, it may be slightly POV, but this is what helps the campaign go up in the polls and therefore it is a strength and should be written on here. The weaknesses will be slightly POV against the candidate but it should not monopolize the whole article its just the things that hurts the campaign in the polls. These two sections should counteract each other making the article NPOV. You have to admit there are some aspects that help a campaign and other aspects that hurt a campaign these should not be ignored and not added because we fear it breaks NPOV. This article was extrememly bad citing people that are not mainstream and citing events that were obscure, just talk about the campaign, the strengths, the weaknesses, the poll numbers, the financials, and events in the campaign. It should not list some kind of Swift Boat Veterans thing about Hillary, what does this have anything to do with Rudy Giuliani's campaign page?-- Southern Texas 16:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
by the way the Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2008 is set up the same way. Wikipedia is not the place to spew political venom so please don't turn this page into an attack page, keep it NPOV and fair and balanced, its divided into strengths of the campaign and weaknesses don't make it just one big attack page, just keep it simple and organized. Even if you don't agree with the facts the facts remain, the crime record, leadership, and terrorism are all topics that pull Giuliani's campaign up in the polls, his marriages and his views on abortion bring the campaign down in the polls, Its not commentary but basic facts, and I really don't think we should present this guy as the doom and gloom candidate as your edits make him appear since he is leading in the polls and even leading Hillary in a 2 way race, please keep it as it is and don't try to cover up aspects of his campaign that are universally considered strengths, Thank you.-- Southern Texas 04:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not attacking anyone, I'm trying to make this article better. I'll work on it again, but the "Strengths" and "Weaknesses" section cannot remain as they are just not NPOV at the outset. Joe Biden's page is only like that because you created it and set it up that way-- it's not NPOV. Who is to say what is a strength and what is a weakness? Some of these could go both ways. I'll change it to reflect the "Opposing forces" and "Supporting forces" that Hillary and McCain's articles have. Those articles are clearly laid out and make much more sense than this one in its current state.-- Gloriamarie 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Many of your additions are commentary, not NPOV encyclopedic material, such as these: "While mayor of New York, Giuliani showed that he has an abundance of leadership skills, perfectly displayed in the aftermath of the World Trade Center Attacks." "The images of Giuliani in the aftermath of 9/11 bring to mind strength as he instilled confidence in the city and the country in its darkest moments and was given the name "America's Mayor" as well as being named the 2001 Time Magazine Man of the Year. To many people he has proven what it takes to lead and has proven that he won't back down from the fight against the terrorists that committed the acts he witnessed"... These possibly be rewritten in an NPOV manner but until that time, I'm reverting.-- Gloriamarie 02:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This really isn't that hard, if one is trying to be neutral instead of praise/bash. Stuff like this:
While mayor of New York, Giuliani showed that he has an abundance of leadership skills, perfectly displayed in the aftermath of the World Trade Center Attacks.
is real bad and should go. Stuff like this:
According to a Gallup Poll taken February 9-11 2007, responders who supported Giuliani were asked why they supported him. The results showed that 13% of supporters did so because of Giuliani's strong leadership and 53% did so because of leadership related topics such as time as mayor and handling of 9/11.[30] Another poll taken by Marist showed that 42% of Giuliani supporters believed that leadership is the most important quality for a candidate, this is compared to 34% of McCain supporters who believed the same. [31]
is good and should stay. Weaknesses can be illustrated using poll results like this too. Wasted Time R 02:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I was working on it and the organization is really bad now. I will change the titles from strengths and weaknesses to what you called it but some of the criticisms that you wrote really don't belong and are displayed in a very pov manner, swift boat stuff is not important and should be on the hillary page not here, the iowa family is not important at all it just shows giuliani's strategy of trying to get the most money, and the other speculation does not belong. I will delete the section I wrote on terrorism but all the others are backed by sources, with the crime it was reduced, and leadership is backed up with polls, I'll admit there is some tone issues and I will fix these, I also think that I had it organized better, I am willing to negotiate but I will not leave this article a pov unorganized mess, Thank you-- Southern Texas 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Giuliani had in the past mentioned that the Confederate flag should be removed from South Carolina's Capitol building. On a 2007 visit to Alabama, he said that the state should be able to decide. The president of the Alabama chapter of the NAACP said, "Giuliani is posturing himself to try to get the conservative, right-wing, Southern white vote in Alabama. He used to oppose the flag, but now he's backtracked because he's running for president." Giuliani's spokesperson responded that the candidate's position had never changed and he had always thought it should be left to the state to decide.[50]
In 1998, on a visit to South Carolina, where then-Governor David Beasley had tried to remove the flag, the New York Daily News quoted Giuliani as saying Beasley had taken "a very courageous stand … at great political risk."[50]
This really doesn't belong here, perhaps it should be moved to the criticisms of giuliani page, I doesn' have anything to do with his campaign.
On May 29, 2007, CBS News reported that conservative website freerepublic.com had begun banning accounts of Giuliani supporters, evidently because they didn't think he was conservative enough.[11] The purge occurred one month after site founder Jim Robinson wrote a piece entitled, "Giuliani as the GOP presidential nominee would be a dagger in the heart of the conservative movement." A "Giuliani Truth File" was posted to the site, the only such file posted on any candidate of either party.[11]
This doesn't belong for the same reason, I've tried to see how it is relevant to the campaign and I just can't find anything, sorry.
A top Giuliani donor, Richard Collins, who has supported George W. Bush for several years, was central in establishing "Stop Her Now," a Swift Boat-styled negative campaign operation aimed to spread negative publicity against Hillary Clinton. [55]
This should be on the Hillary page not here please.-- Southern Texas 05:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not getting involved in this because this topic totally doesn't interest me, but I have two problems with your arguments Southern Texas that I want to make clear:
That's all. Atropos 01:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I am proud to say that after a few changes the article is now good and ceases to be an attack page. It now represents the facts in an NPOV manner.-- Southern Texas 23:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone should note that the particular fire fighter group that has criticized Rudy's performance tends to be a partisan group, or rather that's what the Campaign said. Arnabdas 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can source it please add it.-- Southern Texas 18:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The Associated Press ran an article a few months back about how Rudy is out of touch with voters by incorrectly noting the pricing of bread and milk. The AP quoted prices of D'Agostino's, a high end mini market that caters to elite Manhanttanites (and therefore marks up prices). Most people don't buy bread and milk from ultra high end places like that. The prices he actually quoted werent too far off. Not sure if it is noteworthy or not. Arnabdas 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
When one compares the size of the lead photo of the first and second tier Republican candidates for the presidency in 2008, it is apparent that the image for Giuliani is much larger than other than the lead image of the other candidates. Dogru144 12:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that it isn't common to include a section on campaign staff/advisors, but I think that in the light of recent developments (ie: Carl Rove, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown etc.) there is a growing concern over a candidate's ability to choose staffmembers. Some of these advisors are potential cabinet members should the candidate be elected. I am proposing the inclusion of prominent staff/advisors (and a short bio) to all candidates' campaign entries in order to help voters better understand each candidates' ability to judge character. I believe that attention is inordinately focussed on individual candidates, when in fact, the major influence on any new administration will be in the advisors surrounding the new president. Your input would be greatly appreciated. ----Rawkcuf. (In the interest of uniformity, this is the same 'form letter' I've sent to other candidates' entries. I'm impressed that you are on the ball, and already have two entries referring to staff appointments. Might I suggest combining them into one entry, and adding more as necessary. Thanks, -R.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawkcuf ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I took out the part that says he would be the first atheist president. Just because some poll says something doesn't make it absolute truth. 75.67.142.56 15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I revereted something that said he was "pro-abortion". As far as I know, he doesn't actually support abortion, but supports people being allowed to choose. Would someone comment on this? 75.67.142.56 19:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed these on Romney's articles as well. As far as I know normal articles don't present these many graphs in excess. You don't write scientific articles this way. You refer to images in the text. These images are just pasted blatanly filling more than half the article. It is very annoying, disruptive for reading and actually not very informative either in the context and layout they are presented. Lord Metroid 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't be copying an entire 1.5 page section directly from his campaign website to the article. The source is not neutral, and the weight is not balanced.
johnpseudo
00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned the article is returning to its old state. It is now highly critical throughout and is mainly just a collection of criticisms even in the supposedly neutral "Campaign developments" section.-- Southern Texas 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I have fixed the problem. Criticism is not a "Campaign development". Awards are necessary for WP:Weight and WP:NPOV issues and actually read it and you'll see that it is not the same. Just reasons for support-- Southern Texas 22:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course the endorsements are notable especially someone like Tommy Thompson. The statement about the debate was not at all NPOV and not notable at all. The Time Magazine bit was irrelevant and not completely factual, Sally Regenhard (whoever that is) has not made any effect on the campaign . I welcome you to add something about Bernard Kerik especially since Giulani recently praised the work he did years ago. Everything done was to clean up the article and address the WP:WEIGHT issues that have been discussed.-- Southern Texas 22:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Some of the above listed items by johnpseudo are now back in the article, or have been added in new form (Kerik, expanded coverage of Fox News being called pro-Giuliani). I've also added a lead section that tries to capture the forest not the trees, per the above. Wasted Time R 14:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be more information about his policy positions. It's all horse race coverage; i.e. we go into great depth about how his campaign is operating (tactics), but not his actual platform. Superm401 - Talk 07:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Giuliani ad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
1 link commented out - Footage a speech - Is uploader the originator of the footage? It wasn't clear from the clip information or uploader profile.. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 12:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
1 link commented out - Footage of a political rally. Is uploader the originator of the footage? It wasn't clear from the clip information/uploader profile. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 12:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The significance the event in this section needs to be expanded more. Right now it's just an exchange between him and another candidate, with little significance noted. Quanticles ( talk) 14:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Over the past week I wrote articles about Tom Tancredo's presidential campaign and Chris Dodd's. When I started getting sources together to write the article on Dodd I had a revelation. The article should flow smoothly, it should give information about the movement of the campaign, who they are attracting, what their motives are. I did this for the Dodd article mainly to show the rigors of the campaign and to sum up the whole election itself. I think the Giuliani should do the same and not be just a collection of talking points as it is right now.-- S TX 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor is repeatedly erasing details that provide support to the claim as to secuity details for Judith Giuliani.
For the record, the gutted details follow:
" A neighborhood witness, Lee Degenstein, claimed [in a published December 7, 2007 Daily News report] that the security began at some unspecified time earlier in 2000. His statement placed the security detail as beginning earlier than the previously stated May 2000 date. Furthermore, Degenstein provided details of the security protection: "The windows were all blacked out, it [the car] had several antennas affixed to the trunk and of course had the orange E-ZPass stuck in the front windshield," in reference to the colored toll devices stuck to municipal cars. [1] " Dogru144 ( talk) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The information expands on previously reported information. The information is more precise that the generalizations in the politico.com article. The information is backed by an identified reference. For the sake of context, what follows is the text from opening of the New York Daily News report of December 7, 2007:
"Mayor's Gal Got Security Earlier than We Knew" -title. "Judith Nathan got taxpayer-funded chauffeur services from the NYPD earlier than previously disclosed --even before her affair with then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani was revealed, witnesses and sources tell the Daily News.
"It went on for months before the affair went public," said Lee Degenstein, 52, a retired Smith Barney vice president who formerly lived at 200 E. 94th St., Nathan's old building.
"It was going on longer than anybody though," added Degenstein, who, along with others in the neighborhood, said they often saw Nathan hopping into unmarked NYPD cars in early 2000 before the affair was revealed that May." [2] Dogru144 ( talk) 00:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
References
User Southern Texas has blanked out the material on Giuliani's professional association with the Abdullah Bin Khalid Al-Thani minister of the Interior (Qatar). This is completely relevant material.
Giuliani has based his entire campaign around September 11. It is controversial and POV to remove a multi-reference contribution that validly documents his professional association with a Qatari minsiter (and royal house member) that sheltered an al Qaeda associate that was being pursued by the FBI. Let wikipedia editors and administrators judge for themselves the validity and pertinence of said material to the discussion: Here is what Tex gutted out:
Giuliani's consultancy firm, Giuliani Partners, attracted controversy over its associations with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Qatar Minister of the Interior Abdullah Bin Khalid Al-Thani. (The latter was disclosed in an investigative journalism piece in the Village Voice. [1]) Chavez has aroused controversy for his consolidation of power and his anti-capitalist rhetoric. Al Thani has aroused controversy because he sheltered September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from the FBI. [2] [1] Giuliani had already stepped down as CEO and Chairman of Giuliani Partners in June 2007, [3] although this action was not disclosed publicly. On December 4, 2007, in the wake of the latest attention to the firm's client base, Giuliani Partners announced the stepping down, [4] with Giuliani defending his work there, saying, "Everything I did at Giuliani Partners was totally legal, totally ethical. There's nothing for me to explain about. We acted honorably, decently." [4] Giuliani maintained his equity interest in the firm. [3] Dogru144 ( talk) 01:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
How is this related to the campaign?-- S TX 01:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I dont want this to be POV, I coppoed what I wrote originally on Rudy's page:
Anyone seen the fuss over Giuliani's racist campaign add? It states 'a people perverted' in refrence to all muslims, not to mention one of Rudy's subodinates told Muslims to 'get back into their caves'. The video is on youtube but I got it off the islamophobia watch site, a POV site I know, but as it directly quiotes it is reliable.86.138.116.141 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/category/resisting-islamophobia
perhaps this racism deserves a mention in the article? Or his campaigning?86.138.116.141 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
there it is, and please do view the video. 86.138.116.141 ( talk) 17:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The video link is http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/01/giuliani_muslims_a_people_perv.html. 86.138.116.141 ( talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Does hosting a fundraiser for Rudy qualify as an endorsement under this article? Can it be mere support? Or does the endorser have to say "I endorse Rudy"? How far down the elected food chain should the endorsements list go?
He's got some important state reps hosting fundraisers for him in PA. Are these worth mentioning? Here's a link. [1] Also, what about placing Bob Asher on the endorsement list? He's mentioned in the controversies section, but he still is PA's national committeeman, which makes him a big deal.-- RedShiftPA ( talk) 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Wasted, why would an image of Rudia within the marriage/family section of this campaign article be inappropriate? Never mind...it's all just nostalgia now....doesn't matter. However, if you really think that early and widespread circulation of photos of Rudia didn't play a big role in how the campaign has played out I would suggest you talk to a few more of his heartland defectors. Veritas23 ( talk) 20:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some mention of the controversy over the alleged skewing of statisitcs in a campaign advertisement deriding the NHS. there are hundreds of links on this, a minister (alan johnson)commented on it, how did you lot miss this? 62.30.172.14 ( talk) 19:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I added this section a long time ago, I think it would be best if the material was cut out and added to a new article, Public image of Rudy Giuliani. I am going to be bold and go ahead and do this, if anybody objects then it can be undone. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 20:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Since this article is getting an overhaul, I have a question. Why are the fundraising and polling sections separate from the campaign chronology? This has never made much sense to me. Fundraising and polling are the two most important things that happen during the pre-primaries year (2007, in this case) and continue to be quite important into the primaries year. Everything that happens is in reaction to them, and their numbers dictate what happens next. When I reworked the Mike Gravel campaign article recent, I folded these two sections into the main campaign chronology. I would suggest doing that here; otherwise, the reader has to understand them completely out of the context in which they occur. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
A question has arisen about the relevance of specific crime statistics.
The article has long included a statement, sourced to a Giuliani spokesperson, about the murder rate, using statistics to bolster Giuliani's reputation as a crimefighter who reversed a rising tide of lawlessness in New York City. I left in the flack's statement but made this edit, also giving specifics about the murder rate (cited to a neutral source, the Bureau of Justice Statistics), that undercut Giuliani's claim. William S. Saturn then deleted the latter information as "irrelevant" while leaving in the former. I restored it, noting the discrepancy, but he again reverted (along with a request that I not edit war!).
We could omit this subject entirely, as not relevant to the campaign but more properly left to the Giuliani bio or mayoralty articles; or we could limit it to a presentation of Giuliani's image as a crimefighter, without trying to argue that the image was an accurate one; or we could simply note the contention of each side, without including any specific statistical supporting data; or we could make a slightly fuller presentation of the competing views, including the statistics relied on by each. Any of these approaches would be neutral. To give one side's supporting information but not the other's, however, would be blatantly POV. There’s no basis for William S. Saturn’s position that one statement (“By being tough on crime and enforcing the laws on the books, New York City’s murder rate [under Giuliani] was cut by 66 percent.") should stay in but that the other (“For example, the per capita murder rate had peaked and then begun to decline under Dinkins, and rapes decreased in each year of his term.”) should be removed.
Therefore, I am restoring the information. JamesMLane t c 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
::I'm done working on this article. It's become a waste of time, much like most of wikipedia. --
William S. Saturn (
talk)
23:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)