Talk:Judith Giuliani

message: [ moved here from User talk:Wasted Time R ] 
The citation that I removed in regards to her saying that she attended the University of Pennsylvania seems to be false. I can't seem to dig up the original Times clip of her quote, but the Daily News clip cited makes it clear that they couldn't find evidence of her saying it either, citing the times, citing her. Please let me know if there's a clip around to substantiate this. Also, is there relevance for including this in the footnotes? Thanks.
Icfische 13:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can do a "See also" within a footnote to accommodate a note in a note. And you certainly can have expository footnotes that explain the text more. I just read through the article again, and I think it may have gone too far in the whitewash direction: for example, it's ok to say that she clarified her educational background and have a footnote, but the footnote ought to say what was being clarified - this way is too vague and not at all clear that there was some obfuscating going on. Similarly, saying her "role in a potential Giuliani administration" and not saying (even in footnote) what was controversial, I think is misleading.  There may be a few other places too.  I'm all for NPOV and not suggesting that this be an attack article, but I think, as I said, it's gone too far over toward a whitewash. Tvoz |talk 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it also possible that the Times itself got the information wrong, as opposed to JG giving them the incorrect information or someone in her employ? There is always that probability, so the footnote should be wordly carefully to cover both possibilities.Kitchawan 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Attended Penn State' citation

message: We cannot yet be sure of her date of birth.  The Vanity Fair article confirms it was in 1954, and the Heidi Evans "Eager Judi left coal town in dust" New York Daily News article says her marriage on December 8, 1974 was "One week shy of her 20th birthday," but that "one week" may not be an exact measure.  So on or about December 15, 1954 is what we have.   Wasted Time R 11:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally have it.  Today's New York Times says she will be 53 on December 16, 2007.  Wasted Time R 18:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth

message: User:72.68.165.124 objects to the emboldening of her earlier names (Judith Ross and Judith Nathan), and indeed replaces some such occurrences entirely by pronouns such as "she".  This is unwise; in standard WP usage, emboldenings are used to represent alternate names for articles, especially when they are the subject of redirects.  If you look at the 
"What links here" for the article, most references are to Judith Nathan, not Judith Giuliani, as the former is the name she was known as in the press from 1999 until very recently.  And if Judith Nathan is emboldened, Judith Ross should be too for consistency.   Wasted Time R 12:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She sure has a lot of names... but I think you make a good point I'd agree with the emboldening.Tvoz |talk 22:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Emboldening earlier names

message: Please learn how to use repeated references.  You keep duplicating the cite to the Vanity Fair article over and over.  The cite's already in there, you just need to use  to make use of it.  Wasted Time R 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage note to [[User:72.68.165.124]]/[[User:204.126.251.62]]

message: I do not see why her father's quote about his own daughter's birth name ("She was born Judi. I don't think we ever called her Judith.") is continually disregarded by one Wikipedian. Surely he knows what she was named at birth. Also a gossip-column being used as the citation for her birth date and her name is highly unusual, not to mention foolhardy; an article in Vanity Fair trumps a gossip column.Kitchawan 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for finally posting here in the Talk section.  Please respond to the point that I and User:Tvoz made about the second part of her father's quote above.  Wasted Time R 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth name 

message: User:Kitchawan, you have broken the straight chronology of the article by moving the fundraising activities out of sequence with parts of her relationship with Giuliani.  I think this is unwise.  There's definite chain of causation here, as the article explained before.  And your "Marriage to Giuliani" title is misleading, since there much happened with Giuliani before they got married.  I think we should restore the old chronology, and if you are unhappy with the previous "Giuliani and fundraiser" section title, let's come up with a better one.   Wasted Time R 14:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and will do so. However, to lump all her fundraising activities along with her marriage makes for a very, very difficult read.Kitchawan 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, her fundraising and her relationship with Giuliani are intertwined; she left her sales job as a consequence of becoming involved with him, and she's no doubt more effective as a fundraiser because she is involved with him.  Wasted Time R 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe that we are not to be making judgements or linking aspects of life in ways that indicate independent scholarship. We are merely to present the facts, not interpret them.72.80.106.191 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectioning

message: 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.  Michael Saul, Heidi Evans, and David Saltonstall, "Mayor's Gal Got Security Earlier than We Knew" "New York Daily News" p. 7 December 7, 2007 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/07/2007-12-07_judith_nathan_got_security_earlier.html " Dogru144 (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworked this whole part of the section, with better chronology about what happened when during the Giuliani-Nathan relationship.  My previous reversion was not due to doubting the Daily News story, but to the fact that you had misunderstood it in your edit here, where you mistakenly said that the relationship began in early 2000, when in fact it began in May 1999.  (See, you were trying to make Giuliani look better!  Not allowed!)  I've added in the bit about her getting personal security/chauffering in early 2000, but what you wrote went into way too much detail about this.  Look around the rest of the article, we don't go into that same level of detail anywhere else.  And if this "security" for her was unjustified, which I agree it probably was, then it's on Giuliani, not her; WP:BLP considerations apply here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in all fairness to Giuliani, where's the proof in the pudding -of a 1999 origin of the Nathan relationship?  [I admit I have not read the whole politico article.] This is all dizzying since the Lategano affair was not long earlier, and on the other hand, was the affair with Lategano overlapping with the Nathan affair?  Or was the the simultaneous mistresses on the side a reserve of Kerik alone?  Oh, the details we must deal with! Dogru144 (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cite in this article, which was a joint interview that Rudy and Judith gave the NYT this year to try to clear the air a bit, gives the May 1999 start date.  During the summer of 1999 he visited her out in Southhampton, that was when his security expenses started getting billed to odd city agencies (the Politico story, also confirmed by the Daily News story).  These dates are both cited in Rudy Giuliani#Personal life as well.  From what I've read, he and Lategano had already 'broken up' before May 1999, so no he wasn't two-timing mistresses.  Sourcing is weak on this, however, so I haven't included it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Erasure of details regarding testimony regarding the security detail

message: 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." Michael Saul, Heidi Evans, and David Saltonstall, "Mayor's Gal Got Security Earlier than We Knew" "New York Daily News" p. 7 December 7, 2007 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/07/2007-12-07_judith_nathan_got_security_earlier.htmlDogru144 (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworked this whole part of the section, with better chronology about what happened when during the Giuliani-Nathan relationship.  My previous reversion was not due to doubting the Daily News story, but to the fact that you had misunderstood it in your edit here, where you mistakenly said that the relationship began in early 2000, when in fact it began in May 1999.  (See, you were trying to make Giuliani look better!  Not allowed!)  I've added in the bit about her getting personal security/chauffering in early 2000, but what you wrote went into way too much detail about this.  Look around the rest of the article, we don't go into that same level of detail anywhere else.  And if this "security" for her was unjustified, which I agree it probably was, then it's on Giuliani, not her; WP:BLP considerations apply here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in all fairness to Giuliani, where's the proof in the pudding -of a 1999 origin of the Nathan relationship?  [I admit I have not read the whole politico article.] This is all dizzying since the Lategano affair was not long earlier, and on the other hand, was the affair with Lategano overlapping with the Nathan affair?  Or was the the simultaneous mistresses on the side a reserve of Kerik alone?  Oh, the details we must deal with! Dogru144 (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cite in this article, which was a joint interview that Rudy and Judith gave the NYT this year to try to clear the air a bit, gives the May 1999 start date.  During the summer of 1999 he visited her out in Southhampton, that was when his security expenses started getting billed to odd city agencies (the Politico story, also confirmed by the Daily News story).  These dates are both cited in Rudy Giuliani#Personal life as well.  From what I've read, he and Lategano had already 'broken up' before May 1999, so no he wasn't two-timing mistresses.  Sourcing is weak on this, however, so I haven't included it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Context as to relevance of the added reference

message: I agree wholeheartedly with Dogru and Tvoz that the image is terrible, but it's the only one I could find that WP image rules would allow us to use.  What we really need is for some photographically-minded Wikipedian to attend a Giuliani event that Judith is at, and get us a decent picture.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen.  It was not taken with a digital camera. Dogru144 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Hi, I have made changes to this page because I feel it lacks a neutral point of view. In several instances, the opposing point of view is not properly mentioned. It should be more balanced. Deuces are wild! (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the campaign's response to the Friends of Animals accusations should have been included, and I've now done that as part of restoring that material.  As for her image in the campaign, it was generally portrayed as being a negative to the campaign, and eventually her appearances were scaled back.  That's just reality, and we can't ignore it, although I've reworded the sentence that you objected to in tone.  If you can find some sources saying that her image was beneficial to the campaign, by all means include that as well.  But in politics there are winners and losers; some candidates do better than others, and some candidate spouses do better than others.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I agree with your changes, especially those relating to tonal neutrality. I will try to find a source to support her positive image and will let you know.  Vegas949 (talk)  14:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Judith Giuliani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216135813/http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/16415829.htm to http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/16415829.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629165632/http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/04/29/2007-04-29_eager_judi_left_coal_town_in_dust.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/04/29/2007-04-29_eager_judi_left_coal_town_in_dust.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717162507/http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/feature-articles/rudys-first-lady-0307-2 to http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/feature-articles/rudys-first-lady-0307-2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929122302/http://www.nypost.com/seven/04012007/news/nationalnews/judis_ex_no__1_a_huffy_hubby_nationalnews_jim_fanelli_in_tampa__fla___and_susan_edelman_in_n_y_.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/04012007/news/nationalnews/judis_ex_no__1_a_huffy_hubby_nationalnews_jim_fanelli_in_tampa__fla___and_susan_edelman_in_n_y_.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929123650/http://www.nypost.com/seven/03222007/news/nationalnews/judi_giulianis_secret_husband_revealed_nationalnews_andrea_peyser_and_maggie_haberman.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/03222007/news/nationalnews/judi_giulianis_secret_husband_revealed_nationalnews_andrea_peyser_and_maggie_haberman.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007190729/http://www.cabrinifoundation.org/News/gala05/photos05.html to http://www.cabrinifoundation.org/News/gala05/photos05.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified