Jump to content

Talk:Rudy Giuliani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2025

[edit]

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

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

Turn some low-level headings into higher-level headings

[edit]

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2025

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Bias

[edit]

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

It's diffiicult to respond to the grievance "this is biased, someone fix it". If the sources provided in this article are not being accurately summarized, please detail the specific errors here. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. You are free to read an article and disagree with everything presented. Wikipedia does not claim to be without bias, as all sources of information and people(including you) have biases. Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view, which is different.
To suggest that editors have no integrity is almost a personal attack. That people may disagree with you does not mean that they lack integrity. Please assume good faith. 331dot (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing wikipedia has is a neutral point of view. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral point of view does not mean "without bias", which is an impossibility. Again, please give one example of a piece of information in this article that is not an accurate summary of the source or sources provided. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, totally impossible to present both (or all) sides of the argument. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What argument is not being presented? 331dot (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"crime went down while rudy was mayor" "PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE OF HIM THOUGH"
"the country mostly loved him because of how he handled 9/11" "HE PROBABLY DIDN'T DESERVE IT THOUGH"
"he was Time's person of the year" "PROBABLY BECAUSE HE HAD CANCER"
hahaha. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where it says your all-caps quotes in this article. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't quotes, that's me reliably summarizing the source. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like what the sources say about Mayor Giuliani, you need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sources attributing drop in crime to giuliani:
sources discussing his Time person of the year award without mentioning cancer:
You pick and choose the "sources" that you want to summarize, and you minimize the ones that don't align. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you deny that there is disagreement as to the extent that Giuliani was responsible for crime decreasing in the city? I don't see anywhere in this article where it says he was named man of the year due to cancer. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Time Person of the Year
On December 24, 2001, Time magazine named Giuliani its Person of the Year for 2001. Time observed that, before 9/11, Giuliani's public image had been that of a rigid, self-righteous, ambitious politician. After 9/11, and perhaps owing also to his bout with prostate cancer, his public image became that of a man who could be counted on to unite a city in the midst of its greatest crisis." 71.175.134.136 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read that as saying that cancer contributed to his positive public image on top of everything else, not that "they named him MOTY because he had cancer". 331dot (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was being hyperbolic. To me it reads as someone partially dismissing his efforts. "Well, he did ok, but having cancer helped him win the award." Like there's some level of dismissal at every turn in this thing. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the event that you are honestly open to learning what's truly going on, here is a link to a scientific study by the Manhattan Institute which corroborates what I've said to you today: https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased 71.175.134.136 (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some articles wherein Larry Sanger, co-founder of this site, labels WP's current leadership as "clowns":
You will find the same indication of liberal bias as it pertains to the israeli-palestinian conflict. When a source aligns with the views of the 'editors' in power, they are deemed 'reliable' and objective. When they do not align, they are deemed 'unreliable' or just simply ignored altogether.
It is not merely about gender politics. It is not merely about republican politicians. It is pervasive, systematic, measurable liberal bias across the board. This is unconscionable given WP's perceived status and its rank within the top-ten most visited websites. I would argue it's borderline criminal. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rudy_Giuliani&oldid=1285506271"