Talk:Controversies of Rudy Giuliani

message: I placed a tag on the article, because, mostly this is the section that needed it anyways and not the Giuliani main page. The main page still has problems, but most of the major ones have been just moved to here. As I see it, the big problems have to do with some of these controversies having either undue weight or one-sidedness. We need to put the proper rebuttals and other such statements to make the one sided criticisms neutral. |3 E |_  |_ 0 VV E |) 00:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly isn't neutral -- _the whole page_ doesn't much cut it because you aren't identifying a problem area.. Please be more specific in the future. EvanCarroll 01:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  You need to be far more explicit when claiming that the article is one-sided.  You have supplied virtually no evidence that the controversies covered are one sided.  Those sections without proper rebuttals are probably so because the Giuliani campaign haven't given any official reply regarding them.  If they have, kindly insert them in.  Thank you.  Having said that, I see no reason why the POV tag should be placed there, especially since no one since July 2007, when your last post was dated, have pointed out evidence that the article is biased against Rudy.  Ethereal 04:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Not concerning the POV tag but rather the name of the article, may I propose that it be renamed "Controversies Surrounding Rudy Giuliani"? My reasoning for this is that most controversies are not "of" one, but rather around or surrounding one. Zchris87v 07:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your proposal to move the article, except that it would be "Controversies surrounding Rudy Giuliani", as surrounding isn't a proper known.  hmwith  talk 08:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, so aside from the capitalization, is there any objection to moving the article? Zchris87v 21:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, I don't see any.  hmwith  talk 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Name 

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: Brownbuttons 02:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudy does not cross dress for the heck of it 

message: I am wondering if there should be a section for Donna Hanover.  I know some material is on the main page.  But the divorce was front page news when it was happening. It may have played a role in Giuliani dropping out of the run for Senate.  Jmegill 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there should be.  I have added some material. Dogru144 20:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree, the mess probably was the reason for his dropping out of the Senatorial race. Dogru144 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's absurd to duplicate information from the main article into here.  I've removed it.  If you want to expand on the Senate race decision, add it to United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York%2C_2000#A_change_of_Republicans, that article needs a better analysis of why Giuliani quit.  Wasted Time R 19:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Donna Hanover

message: After reviewing the Hillary Clinton article, and the now redirected Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, I feel the goal here should be to bring this article fork, as well as the parent article up to the same standard as the HC article. 
Material in this article should either be scrapped or condensed into the parent article in an NPOV manner.
So the question becomes, what to do with the plethora of subsections:
*1 Annulment of first marriage 
Roll into Personal Life
*2 Conduct as federal prosecutor 
Roll into public prosecutor 
*3 Promotion of figures 
*3.1 Bernard Kerik 
Already present in main article
*3.1.1 Briefing of Giuliani 
*3.1.2 Marc Mukasey and Giuliani campaign 
*3.2 Russell Harding 
Already present in main article
*4 Alleged free speech abridgments 
Roll into main article if appropriate
*5 Reaction to firing of teacher who made religious comments in class 
Memory hole, not significant
:I've removed this one, the cite given didn't support the claim that Giuliani at first criticized the teacher.  Wasted Time R 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this, the cite supplied didn't support the claim that Dems had requested Giuliani drop King, and this is a policy/campaign not ethical/legal issue anyway.  Wasted Time R 20:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: I removed this.  The debate exchange with Paul is already covered in Rudy_Giuliani_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#May_15_GOP_South_Carolina_debate, and much of this material was Paulites arguing the merits of blowback theory, which is off-topic here.  Wasted Time R 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: This part was only discussing the electability of someone with energy industry ties.  Moved to Rudy_Giuliani_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Ties_to_energy_industry.  Wasted Time R 19:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: This is debatably a controversy, but to me it seems very campaign-specific, so I moved it to Rudy_Giuliani_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Reference_to_.22Islamic_terrorists.22.  Wasted Time R 20:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: It's a valid campaign story, but nothing unethical and so doesn't belong here. Moved to Rudy_Giuliani_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Calls_from_wife.  Wasted Time R 18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: All items of 28 a pure campaign story, don't belong here, but I didn't see them mentioned there, so I moved them to Rudy_Giuliani_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Criticism_of_a_9.2F11-centric_candidacy.  Wasted Time R 18:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

text: That said, I am not so sure about all of TDC's proposals above.  There are a variety of destinations in a dismantling: main article text, main article footnote, subarticle text (such as presidential campaign article), other article text (such as a company article, or an article on another person), new article dedicated to a controversial matter, or junking the material altogether.  Well-cited material of some importance usually belongs somewhere; I suspect there are too many "memory holes" in TDC's proposal.  Wasted Time R 18:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there are too many "memory holes" correct that and add a note to those that you dont think should vanish .. I just want to get this ball rolling. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Regarding what's now left, here's what I would propose so far in terms of dismantling:
* 1 Annulment of first marriage → main article, as footnote to what's already there done, reworked a bit
* 2 Conduct as federal prosecutor → main article, as footnote to what's already there done, in main text not footnote
* 3 Promotion of figures → main article, Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani depending upon timeframe and importance all Kerik material moved into new article Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik controversy
* 4 Alleged free speech abridgments → Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani done
* 5 Racial profiling → first part Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani done, second part Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 removed, cite didn't support
* 6 Criticism surrounding the 9/11 attacks → Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001 attacks done
* 7 Claims as to being an expert on Islamic terrorism → Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 reduced and done
* 8 Membership in the Iraq Study Group → main article, maybe partly as footnote done, in main text
* 9 Giuliani Partners business deals → main article, maybe partly as footnote moved to Giuliani Partners where there was already similar material
* 10 Bracewell & Giuliani → main article, need to look at OxyContin one more closely for validity Citgo material was already in B & G article; Giuliani's role in OxyContin reworked and merged into Rudy_Giuliani#Bracewell_and_Giuliani
* 11 New York Yankees gifts → Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani done
* 12 Fox News conflict of interest → first part Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 done, second part Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani done and improved once there
* 13 Radio Comments to Parkinson's disease patient → Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani done
* 14 Relationship with alleged pedophile priest → not sure, lots of WP:BLP issues turns out everything here is already in Alan Placa and Giuliani Partners; merged in one bit to the latter about why not dismissing him
* 15 Accusations of money laundering → Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 deleted; later newspaper reports indicated multiple backers donating to multiple campaigns, not Giuliani-specific; see 
In many cases, material will have to be merged in with what's already there.  Wasted Time R 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, just by the normal course of editing, some items do get repeated across multiple articles.  But that doesn't mean that we have to intentionally do it, other than is called for by WP:Summary style.  What Dogru144 seems to be proposing is that yes, we add all of the legitimate material in this controversies article into the mainline texts of the pertinent Giuliani articles, but then we keep the controversies article intact with the same material in it, in order to reduce the risk that readers might miss it.  While this might solve half of the WP:Content forking issue, it just makes the existing WP:NPOV and WP:Criticism problems twice as bad.  I don't see any justification for this approach in WP guidelines.   Wasted Time R 14:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual dismantling

message: The article was effectually deleted.  This was done without proper protocol.  It was undertaken by one person, in a short window time of discussion.  Many of us put much time into it.  It is frustrating to see it deleted in such a cursory fashion. Dogru144 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree fully, and contest the deletion of this page. I think making a series of  might be called for in light of this work. It would appear to me as if these actions were more so done to decentralize the criticisms of Rudy Giuliani than to benefit wikipedia. Controversies on... seem to very much be the wikipedia convention as well. EvanCarroll 06:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments SandyGeorgia.  To address your specific question at the end, the lobbying-for-Citgo issue is primarily covered in Bracewell & Giuliani#Client base.  It is sometimes also mentioned in Rudy_Giuliani#Bracewell_&_Giuliani, although currently it isn't there.  The boundary line between what B&G issues are discussed in the Giuliani article versus the B&G article isn't very clear right now ... Bracewell & Giuliani is a law firm with a substantial history and that article is in danger of being overwhelmed with Giuliani-related material at the loss of due weight.  Wasted Time R 16:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: There is a Wikipedia protocol for this matter.   Wasted Time R should permit the process to progress; he should not post-haste execute the blanking action on his own. Otherwise, this blanking constitutes POV vandalism. Dogru144 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not "blanking", since almost none of this material has been removed from Wikipedia.  I am not engaging in "vandalism" either, as anyone can see.  I welcome people examining my record of following Wikipedia protocol and guidelines compared to yours, especially with regard to balanced, neutral editing.  Wasted Time R 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, looking at the edit history of this page shows that you did indeed blank this page, and that you then redirected it to Rudy Giuliani; 2) cheated, and bypasseed the discussion process of Articles for Deletion. Let's not flip flop on the facts like a certain Republican does. Blanking is blanking.  This is like arguing what "is" is. Dogru144 04:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminating of page is vandalism

message: Both Republicans and practicing Catholics I know have criticized Giuliani for his stances on certain social issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage), to the point that they will not vote Republican in the election if he is the candidate. I notice none of this is on the current page; is it at all wide-spread, or am I just in contact with a narrow fringe over here? -BaronGrackle 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT EvanCarroll 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How lovely/irrelevant. If you were referring to WP:SOAP, then read the end of my message; I wish to know if the criticism is widespread enough to have relevancy. I have heard this particular one from a number of hard-line conservatives as well as dogmatic Catholics (sometimes the same people, but not always) on my public college campus. Regardless of whether this page survives deletion proposals or not, the criticisms of Giuliani will end up somewhere—on his standard article, if nowhere else. It is probably not noteworthy if just Catholic media refers to it (which it does), but if Republican-dominated media does, then it might be. -BaronGrackle 22:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not irrelevant, it goes to underscore your weak understanding of Wikipedia. No offense is to be taken from the following: If the whole world secretly criticized Giuliani about being a weak conservative, it would still not belong here unless a reputable news outlet covered it. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if you heard it from a hard-line conservative, or a 5yr old retarded child because **you** (and me) have no credibility, and you and I are not a valid source for attribution. Lastly, this isn't the correct the medium to find out what the state/nation/world's consensus on Giuliani, nor is it a place to conduct or publish original research. EvanCarroll 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: "The result was no consensus for deletion, at least, so default to keep. Merging and redirecting this article does not require deletion and can be done independently of this AfD if there is consensus for it. Sandstein (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd suggest we remove all of the controversies from the main Giuliani article, since there is no reason to have it in both places. Horologium t-c 16:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late!!  They have moved on.  The die is cast, what's done is done.  @@@@
The amusing thing is that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore controversies, which was up at the same time, got decided the other way, as a merge-and-redirect.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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