Talk:Rudy Giuliani

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rudy Giuliani article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 30 days

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

New York City Top‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Bias

OP has declined to pursue it further. Nothing was going to come of it anyway... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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]

Giuliani's polls in NYC were about 28% favorable prior to 9/11. Obviously you can find some sources that don't like Wikipedia. If that were not true, Wikipedia wouldn't be doing its job of neutral documentation. You might examine your own biases. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no biases. I don't give a shit about rudy giuliani or scarlett. I care about the truth, and wikipedia doesn't reflect it. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has biases. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. No it isn't. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are a space alien from Mars or Vulcan, everyone has biases and you're just deluding yourself if you think otherwise. See Bias. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or a rational, free-thinking human. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism 71.175.134.136 (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And when a mob is directed by the president to disrupt the ceritification of the election of his opponent and tries to execute the vice president and they are dismissed as "tourists", yes, truth is in the eye of the beholder. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. One of them is simply lying, or wrong. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You just dismiss information you disagree with as "liberal bias". If sources discuss how his medical condition may have contributed to an award or recognition he received, that is valid content. It doesn't say "he got MOTY because he had cancer" or "it's less important because he had cancer". It says that sources state cancer may have contributed to his public image. No more, no less. You're reading things into this that simply aren't there. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with any of it. I JUST showed you a mathematically valid, peer reviewed, scientific assessment of sentiment bias on WP between left- and right-leaning topics and you're completely impervious to it. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to debate alleged bias on Wikipedia. I'm here to talk about the Rudy Giuliani article. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Rudy's page is only a tiny fraction of the problem. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of your "sources" for a "scientific assessment" is unreliable and the other isn't germane. And just because there may be bias on other articles doesn't necessarily mean there is bias on this one. _pbp 18:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong

What is a source that you deem reliable while the community does not? 331dot (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

all of the ones I've listed 71.175.134.136 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the NY Post is not considered reliable as they have little regard for fact checking, and have been documented as fabricating things. If you trust them, that's your business. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but "CNN" is a reliable source? 71.175.134.136 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show that CNN does not engage in fact checking and editorial control, and has a history of outright fabrication, go to the reliable sources noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I'm trying. You're part of the mob, and you're kind of clearly indoctrinated for life. Good luck, pal. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive length and detail

This article is far too long and some episodes, especially those in the section "Post-Mayoralty Political Career" are covered in excessive detail.

A couple of examples (out of many): the 21 long paragraphs under "Attempts to get Ukraine to carry out investigations" and the 15 detailed paragraphs under "Judgment for defaming Georgia election workers". To be clear, I'm not suggesting that these events shouldn't be mentioned, but the level of detail is utterly disproportionate.

TLDR: the whole article needs heavy pruning and restructuring. There's a tag to this effect but it's been there for a year and nothing appears to have been done. Unfortunately the article is protected so only editors with the appropriate level of access (which doesn't include me) will be able to address this. JayZed (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to propose specific changes, in a "change X text to Y text" format, on this page in the form of an edit request(the edit request wizard can facilitate this). My suggestion would be that, to increase the chances of volunteers reviewing your formal requests, that you propose incremental changes, one at a time.

It's also possible that some of the detail could go into(if not there already) existing articles about the events. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]