Talk:Rudy Giuliani/Archive 3

message: I know the source is cited, but this seems fishy.
 === If you take the SAT twice ===
SATs used to not be multiples of fives, like my mom recieved a 761 on math, and 467 on verbal Skislope15 23:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they used to score it down to the last digit, instead of rounding off to tens.  Wasted Time R 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can your score a 504 and 569 on the SAT? 

message: " a twice-divorced http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/giuliani-wife-each-married-three-times.htmlsales " - edit by AuntJennifer.  
Is it really necessary to add Judith Nathan is twice-divorced?   That information is found on Judith Nathan's page.  Jmegill 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't necessary.  Aunt Jennifer is obviously a prude.  I've reverted.  Wasted Time R 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the interest in this topic has anything to do with prudishness for most....rather, the question at hand is whether this is yet another example of Giuliani's lack of concern for the truth. The allegation is that Nathan's first marriage was covered up by Giuliani....141.155.63.6 16:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me a serious cite that accuses Giuliani of covering up Nathan's first marriage.  All I've seen is that Nathan simply never mentioned it before to the press, which is quite different.   Wasted Time R 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: On the last edit, is "police commissioner" capitalized or not? and also, "from his Corrections days" ?
Also, this addition, "As Giuliani campaigns in his bid for the White House, he has faced repeated questions about Kerik -- and what his support for the disgraced former driver and police commissioner means about his judgment. Giuliani told voters in one New Jersey appearance that he should be judged by his success and his mistakes" has POV problems.  I think that last part should be removed.  Jmegill 05:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved that bit to the campaign article, where it was more appropriate.   Wasted Time R 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerik controversy

message: This anecdote really seems out of place in this section. Would be more appropriate in a subsection on his views re Israel and the Middle East conflict or post 9/11 controversies if anywhere. But in general it seems like gratuitous POV (as the act seemed particularly politically motivated at the time to many...) and probably should just be removed from the article...71.125.218.31 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It belongs where it is.  This was a very notable act that got a lot of attention at the time; it's mentioned in the Time Person of the Year article, it's mentioned in Adam Sandler's heavily-cheered Operaman routine at the time, and so forth.  It helped define the framing of how 9/11 was viewed in the U.S.  Giuliani's exact motivation for the act is ultimately unknowable and immaterial.    Wasted Time R 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it should be there. However, what makes you say the reasons for his act are ultimately unknowable and immaterial? Directly after, he states his frankly straightforward reasoning for refusing the donation. Dabomb691 01:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refusal of Saudi Donation

message: the anonymous edits done to the page over the past couple days have POV problems.  requesting semi-protection.  Jmegill 20:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How this guy is leading in the Republican polls is a bit of a mystery.  95% of Wikipedia editors who work on this article obviously hate him and try to stick in anything negative they can get away with.   Wasted Time R 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really a mystery....most folks outside of NYC know nothing about him. He was disapproved of by nearly 2 out of 3 NYers prior to Sept. 11 (and truly despised by a large fraction of those...). His bounce in popularity after the attack was indicative of the level of shell shock and the desire to unite prevalent among us while the smoke and smell of death still filled our nostrils, but didn't reflect any widespread re-evaluation of his administration or character. As for the article - Rudy's record speaks for itself; the article was a puff piece a few months back but as long as his record is brought forth objectively the rest of the nation will be able to judge. And believe me....what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg....141.155.63.6 19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a huge opinion based oversimplification. I'm from California and could not care less about a divorce or any other problem he's had in the past, as long as his problems aren't too serious and they aren't. What makes you think a president has to be an altar of perfection? What if other's definition of a good leader is someone who isn't perfect, and acknowledges this?Dabomb691 01:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Altar of perfection?? No worry about Rudy being confused with anything close....But I'm not sure what you're responding to...The guy was just pointing out that very few people outside of NYC know much about him, that he was massively unpopular in NYC before the attack (look at the polls or read some press clippings) and that his surge in popularity here lasted only as long as we NYers were still shell-shocked and eager to put aside differences in the interest of healing, etc (again, look at the polls and press). As for the rest, when has Rudy admitted his failings? Most of the scandals have been dragged out into the public light forcibly and he (to the best of my knowledge...) has acknowledged or accepted blame for very few. As for the future, all you have to do is come here and hang out at a bar with press, cops, court people, or anyone else in a position to know and you'll get a sense of some of what's waiting to come out.....But if none of the dirt bothers voters and they don't mind putting a guy in the white house who's never been elected to a position higher than mayor then I guess they'll get to know him like we did....Veritas23 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous edits

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

message: KBE or Knight of the British Empire is often included following the name of an individual who has been so dubbed.  However, American political figures and many other non-Britons tend not to favor using titles of knighthood in their formal name.  Consider President George Herbert Walker Bush, who is a "GCB" or Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, another British knighthood order; he does not use the title except on relevant occasions.  As such, his Wikipedia article does not include it (at most points in time, when it has not been recently added by an editor and before its usual subsequent removal).  I will remove it from this article in keeping with precedent in about three days if there are no objections that show cause for keeping it there.  Thoughts on keeping or removing it from the intro paragraph's bold-face name? 67.101.243.74 23:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed previously at Talk:Rudy_Giuliani/Archive_1#Knighthood and it was decided that the KBE usage was inappropriate.  But this being Wikipedia, decisions have no lasting effect and the whole thing gets re-discussed all over again.   Wasted Time R 01:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three days have passed and, pursuent to the discussion above, the KBE notation is now removed. 67.101.243.74 22:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including title in main name section. 

message: Haven't all of our family's included criminals in some way or another? This is biased and should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.183.105.59 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored this, since it's in many Giuiliani biographical accounts from the last decade and since it is invariably(*) taken to Rudy's credit that even though he was exposed to criminality in his childhood, he chose the righteous path and became an effective prosecutor of criminals.  Wasted Time R 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute....the source for that early addition wasn't 'slanted'...it included links to the primary source documents, which is more than most cites in most wikipedia articles do. But beyond that, you removed the long standing reference to Harold's post-prison career as a collector for his loan shark brother-in-law, a man who was a known mafia associate. I understand the deletion of the 'controversy' section referenced above, but this seems like whitewashing of important biographical material. Veritas23 21:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK.  Step 1 was to find the Barrett article online and to cite that, since that's where all this stuff comes from.  Clearly Harold was serving as muscle for an organized criminal activity, and I've restored that.  I'm leery to call this 'Mafia', because Barrett doesn't; he just has a single quote of a female relative using that term, which isn't very conclusive; Leo may simply have been too small-time or on the periphery to warrant that label.  Since Veritas23's agenda is quite suspect, I'm going to leave it as just 'organized criminal activity', which is all that Barrett states himself.  Wasted Time R 22:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no independent gambling or loansharking in NYC in those days, but it's true that I've yet to see which crew/family the D'Avanzo/Giuliani family was 'on the record' with....Still, it will all come out before long. Nothing suspect about my motives by the way...I may be new to Wikipedia editing but am interested only in seeing this article become more accurate and comprehensive. Thanks for being reasonable.Veritas23 11:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family included firefighters, police officers and criminals? 

message: Are you kidding me? This section adds nothing besides an uncited smeer at the end ("By rights he was "New York's Tormenter.")And confusing syntax. Someone seriously needs to delete it.
That may be easy for you to say.  
I was working in the Nightlife Industry when RG was Mayor and his reinterpretation of the 80 year old Cabaret Laws (meant to reduce "hooliganism" associated with jazz clubs but was really a wasy to keep white musicians employed before black musicians, I beleive.) These laws made it illegal for people to dance.  Thats right, HE made it illegal to move your body rhythmically to music.  Sound crazy?  Yes, it does.  
I am new here and still learning the rules, but this was a very important TORMENT that RG punished New York City with. Prozizzle 21:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree he really ripped into the Clubs in NYC.  It needs to be addressed, but this section could use a rewrite by someone who knows more about the situation than I do. --DizFreak  talk Contributions 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "New York's Tormenter" 

message: I read in either Time or Newsweek that part of the successful reduction in crime during Guliani's term was due to the large number of police officers that were hired during the term of Mayor Dinkins.  So the crimer reduction story has two parts:
      More Police - Mayor Dinkins
      Better Police Tactics - Mayor Guliani
Currently this article and the Dinkins article fail to join the two mayors together in this story about crime reduction which is overly simplistic.  I know the article mentions federal fuding for more cops - but no credit is given to Dinkins for getting them hired.  I don't live in NYC, never have, so I don't have an agenda in pointing out that simplistic (Guliani Good / Dinkins Bad)POV of the Gulian and Dinkins articles
FYI, I live in L.A. and Bratton is begging our Democratic city government to hire 3,000 more cops to clear the gangs from our streets. However, our leaders are terrified of raising taxes or cutting services to do this - the conservatives are 'lurking' just off stage in case they do.
Re: Crime Reduction  Every year from 1990 to 2001, more cops were hired.  Giuliani likes to take credit for the reduction in crime.  The controversy is:  how much credit is due Giuliani vs. the his police chiefs vs. other factors.  Jmegill 00:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to the Crime Reduction 

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

message: I recently read an interview (you'll need to scroll almost halfway down) in which Giuliani was said to have "a very strong authoritarian streak," and that after 9/11 "He wanted to be granted emergency dictatorial powers." I came here to try to find some sources to confirm or deny these claims. The source indicated by footnote 2 looked like it would be relevant, but I don't see anything about Giuliani's alleged authoritarian tendencies in it. Am I missing something in that source? Or does anyone have a better source?
Veatch 15:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, a lot of journalists have a bias (mostly liberal) as well. It's really hard to get a straightforward and fair report these days.Dabomb691 08:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Journalists or columnists?  I am not a big fan of 'emergency powers' but having relatives who survived 9/11 and two friends who died in the towers, I would have had no problem with him having an extra 90 days.  I don't consider that, or siding with the police etc, to be authoritarian tendencies.  If it was, there are a lot of mayors who would fit that bill. I consider that claim POV and I'm as liberal as they get.--DizFreak  talk Contributions 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 2 

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

message: Surely, someone must have found his statements advocating that someone "blow up" the Board of Education offensive and reckless, at the very least, on the heels of the Columbine massacre.  Has anyone a reference to reaction to his statement? Dogru144 11:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section needs to be removed or rewritten with a neutral point of view. In its current state it is simply inflammatory. 66.188.28.26 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk of "blowing up" institutions of the public trust, rather, the government, are irresponsible statements for anyone to make.  It is even more disturbing if a public official is making such a statement.  The public should know that this is how Rudy Giuliani speaks.  It is POV to shield the public from such information. Dogru144 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is POV to give any point of view, especially one as radical as yours. Dabomb691 08:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bd of Ed in those days was a half-billion $ a year monster. Most people welcomed his comments. Haiduc 11:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements about destroying the Board of Education

message: No other major presidential candidates have critical statements in the opening section (see Hillary Clinton. This should be removed. Judehaz 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hillary Clinton page is remarkable in that major, damaging criticism has been kept off the main page and place in 'Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies'.  The question should be not about the Giuliani page, but rather how the Clinton page is got to be so sterile.  Jmegill 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By consensus of editors on Hillary Rodham Clinton, the lede is indeed kept quite sterile, sticking to just unassailable biographical facts.  This is because trying to do more than that has always gotten into hopeless edit disputes.  Whether the Giuliani article adopts the same approach is up to the editors here, of course.  The segregation of controversies into Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies was done for size reasons; there are a number of such subarticles, in order to keep the main article length manageable (and if she gets to be president, there will have to be even more such subarticles).  The major controversies are all wikilinked to from the main article; no one is hiding them.  Wasted Time R 12:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism in the Lede 

message: Why is cross-dressing so important?  It takes up almost the entire "Media" secton, with three pretty long paragraphs.  More detail is given on his clothes than other important points.  All those paragraphs should be taken out.--Gloriamarie 10:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The drag appearances are important because they got a lot of attention then and now, and they are something almost no other major politician has ever done.  They indicate Giuliani is comfortable enough in his own skin to do something like that ... most politicos would just cower in fear at the very idea.  If the material is taken out, others will put add it back in, only without the researched accuracy.  If there are other points that should be added to the "Media" section, then by all means do so, but the drag appearances should stay.  Wasted Time R 11:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see your point, but it just seems too detailed.  There is very little mention of Amadou Diallo and yet multiple paragraphs on cross dressing?  It just seems that those instances can be summed up in a few sentences. --Gloriamarie 11:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found that with potentially controversial material, having a sufficient level of detail and citations is important.  If you feel that there isn't enough material on Amadou Diallo, then the solution is to add more material there, not remove material elsewhere.   Wasted Time R 11:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Maybe I've just been hanging out in some long articles lately, where editors are intent on removing anything but the most important info.  I was surprised there wasn't more on Amadou Diallo since that was a pretty big national story at the time.  Would that fit best under "Controversies" or "Crime control"?  ---Gloriamarie 01:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing that keeps getting to me is how so many keep asserting that it is a fact that Rudy dresses as "Rudia" "only for a lark", etc. How anyone not intimately involved in his life claims to know his motivations is beyond me. Seems to me all we can do is report the publically recorded facts as accurately as possible and let history be the judge of "why". Whether or not any of this "matters" in a moral or psychosexual sense, the fact that not a single other candidate in any recent presidential election (ever??)has repeatedly dressed in drag combined with the focus on Rudy's tangled personal life and standing with conservative voters pretty much mandates that this issue is fully explored. Just wish someone would contribute a public domain photo of Rudia.... 141.155.63.6 16:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross-Dressing?

message: I removed certain stuff that is irrelevant at best and slanting the section at worst:
*it is irrelevant for the issue that the artist in question has won awards (maybe we should then add how many votes Giuliani got), unless one wants to argue that such a renowned artist is unassaible
*it is irrelevant for the issue that the artist is Catholic - the piece was/is still offensive to Catholics
*it was not considered an attack on "religion" but an attack on Christianity - I see no Buddhists being attacked by a depiction of the Virgin Mary
I agree about the Ron Paul stuff, reverting this was unintentional. Str1977 (smile back) 21:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Artist issues

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

message: Do not remove information about Giuliani from the page.  If you wish to add links to articles, then do so.  Of course, there is A LOT written about Giuliani.  So the articles section will necessarily grow in length.  Jmegill 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly encourage people to add articles to the articles section.Jmegill 19:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles Section

message: Giuliani's time as mayor is pretty much his whole resume. The removal of this large section of the article to a separate article seems completely inappropriate. Please revert!66.65.5.98 09:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this change is for the best either, especially with no disussion beforehand.--Gloriamarie 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely...how do we restore it?Veritas23 12:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Mayorality Info

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

message: Giuliani has flip-flopped on his story of whether he knew of the coming collapse. 
Editor User:DBaba gutted a bona fide statement by a commenrcial newspaper and by a commercial TV station.  Such gutting of documented statements is POV. Dogru144 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dogru144, you are one sick tick.  If you actually believe 9/11 conspiracy theories, I feel sorry for you.  But I'm happy that I stopped actively editing this article, otherwise I'd spend all day reverting the crap that you put in here.   Wasted Time R 00:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, if you read http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Rudy%20Giuliani and http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/06/alex-jones-or-someone-did-doctor-tape.html you can get some sense into your head about "knowledge" that the towers were about to collapse.  Yes, right before the South Tower collapsed, various fire and engineering personnel had concluded there was a good chance it might.  The knowledge did little good, as it collapsed quite soon after that.  When Giuliani has subsequently responded to questions about whether the knew the towers would collapse, he was no doubt thinking that the question was coming from the wacko conspiracy brigades, and answered in the negative.  No flip flop, no controversy, no nothing.  Wasted Time R 03:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The personal slurs are unwarranted.Veritas23 12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the topic can be discussed without personal attacks.--Gloriamarie 21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Knowledge of WTC collapse

message: ISN'T he a CBE of whatever the hell if he was knighted - that should follow his name.
:Please sign your comments with four tildes.  No, the CBE designation only follows the name if you are a British citizen-- it's an honorary designation for those who are not British.--Gloriamarie 21:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CBE

message: OK, it has been 7 days since this discussion began and the bulk of the debate has had very little to do with the thesis: shortening the article. The Mayoralty section should have its own article as should the the criticism of him and he response to 9/11. Doing so would greatly reduce the size of the article and allow for future grow in their own right without bogging down the main article. On the other hand, a reasonable summary should be left in their places as to provide some detail with a link to the new article page for more in depth information. This should be done as soon as possible. 74.195.184.47 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've done the refresh.  The Mayoralty article now has the last contents before the split out.  Wasted Time R 01:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's been seven days ...

message: Obviously "Rudy Giuliani" should be directed to this page, but shouldn't the official entry be "Rudolph"?
:Agreed.....appropriate change.Veritas23 14:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  The longer and more obtuse the article name, the better.  And there are now so many double redirects to the article, most people will give up and not read it.    Wasted Time R 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion: Rudolph, not Rudy

message: Calling this article Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III goes completely and utterly against naming guidelines - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The article name should be Rudy Giuliani or Rudolph Giuliani.  Tvoz |talk 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I assume it should be "Rudolph Giuliani" unless WP permits "Rudolph 'Rudy' Giuliani"66.65.5.98 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule is to use the most common form of the name -- thus, William Jefferson Clinton redirects to the article at Bill Clinton.  (William Clinton is a dab page.)  More people would search for "Rudy Giuliani" than for any other form of the name, so the article should stay where it is. JamesMLane t c 02:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Footnote 152, the new york times link, requires a subscription to read. remove?
:No.  There's nothing that requires source material to be online.  Some WP editors even reference books, imagine that.  However the cite in question is faulty, since it doesn't give the date the story appeared in the NYT, only the date the editor read it.  Wasted Time R 19:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The references may have been renumbered since then, because 152 is now to the New York Daily News and doesn't require a subscription.--Gloriamarie 23:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subscription required for ref

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

message: I was actually looking to find information on this subject and there is nothing in Controversy or Campaign about the fired aid (Ravenel) and their dealings with distrubution (or intent) of cocaine in South Carolina.
: Apparently you're referring to Thomas Ravenel, who was not a fired aide but, in fact, a state campaign chair for Giuliani. Ravenel is the former South Carolina State Treasurer who recently was indicted on federal cocaine distribution charges.72.94.11.71 20:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fired Aid 

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

message: There is a 'controversy' section on this page which mentions some critcisms of Giuliani's handling of the 911 attacks, but there are two very obvious omissions, which lead me to believe someone is removing them from the page.
The two key criticisms of Giuliani's handling of 911 are that he located the NYC emergency command center INSIDE the world trade center AGAINST the recommendation of the police dept. This was AFTER the WTC had already been bombed once in '93. This is short-sighted and just poor judgement on his part and it is a VALID criticism of his work as mayor.
The second cricisim of his handling of 911 was that he failed to replace the antiquated radio communications system that the FDNY used, which led to poor communication between first responders. 
I don't see either criticism in the 'controversy' section of this article, even though those are the two things are major reasons why the city was so unprepared for those attacks. It's unbelieveable, when you realize this man was mayor when the '93 attacks occured, that 8 years later he hadn't done anything to fix those obvious problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.252.145 (talk • contribs) 
:Well, if you have any reliable sources for any of these things and it's not just original research, feel free to add any of it.  hmwith  talk 13:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an article in today's NYT that discusses just these details.  I think they're relevant, too, but I've had enough editing for one day. Pro crast in a tor 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 911 Criticisms