Talk:Rudy Giuliani

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

This article appears to be in clear violation of the 6th commandment. The majority of the article is unsourced opinion. He is a lawyer. For this site's sake, shouldn't more care be taken to avoid libel? Myk 15:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I quite agree. I have removed the unsourced material, personal opinion, and added a complete, fair and accurate page. --Terry 21:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

User Mageoflulz/Eljoe

Just added "cross-dressing" to the list of Giuliani's hobbies. He should be removed as a user. I have reverted it. --Terry 01:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

  • User Mageoflutz just removed the post above....doesn't seem to understand the history is saved, even if he deletes it, lol. --Terry 02:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Same user, vandalized the page, using user name: Eljoe, to read:


Giuliani's sexuality is often a topic in the press and at times his sexuality is questioned. The Catholic Church annuled Giuliani's first marriage between he and his then wife, Regina Peruggi, because Giuliani discovered that they were in fact second cousins. While he and his second wife Donna Hanover were separated he moved out of Gracie Mansion and moved in with two gay friends. Guiuliani has appeared several times dressed as a woman at public events. He appeared in drag in an episode of "Queer As Folk." He also wore a blond wig and pink dress for the 1997 Inner Circle dinner in New York. He then appeared again on national television on "Saturday Night Live" cross dressing. [1]

  • User as Eljoe, just reposted the paragraph above. Reverted it. --TK 02:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • User Eljoe reposted the above paragraph once again. --TK 03:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Reply Giuliani's cross dressing is of importance to voters that might plan on choosing him as the next President, particularly if family values and moral behavior are important to you. I cited my addition as well. What is the problem with this?

  • Why would you revert the post about how Giuliani married his second cousin? It is a fact that he married his second cousin. TK you should stop trying to make this site less credible. Correct information should not be deleted.
  • This is an encyclopedia, not the gossip columns. Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and many others have dressed in drag for comedy skits, same as Giuliani, and it is not important to their record of public service. You will be banned soon, so warm up your other logins. LOL--TK 03:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
We put facts, not opinions, not judgements, not gossip on these pages. TK, I copied your message to Aschlafly on to the Conservapedia:Abuse page. It'll be replied to faster there. Myk 04:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

None of what I added is gossip. It is a fact he was married to his second cousin. It is a fact he moved in with two of his gay friends. It is a fact he appeared on television dressed in women's clothes. And how one presents himself to the public and the world is incredibly important when serving public office.

  • Myk, I had already added a section on Andrews page. ;-) --TK 04:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I know... don't bother Andrew with all that... he's got enough to deal with. Hold up on the edits here for a sec... I'm going to reformat it. Not mucking with content, just making it encyclopedic. We edit conflicted and I lost it. Myk 04:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Removed section

Removed line "he was hailed around the world as "America's Mayor,"" this is an unverifiable fact. It may be a quote from a single newspaper article but hardly a consscensous from around the world.

  • Please do not edit if you are unaware of the facts. Please also sign your posts. He has been hailed as "America's Mayor" in almost every publication, newspapers, all major networks, including Fox and CNN. A person would have to be disingenuous or have lived in a total vacuum not to be aware of that. --TK 21:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


Now it looks more like an encyclopedia article and the format is at least similar to the McCain article. It's still slightly POVish... Giuliani does have some political warts, after all but it's looking much better. Nice job with the content, TK. If you want to help, I'm going to try to do some of the other Republican candidates tomorrow (this is conservapedia after all) before moving on to the Democrats (full disclosure.. I'm a Democrat). Myk 04:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

  • "full disclosure.. I'm a Democrat"... Well, good luck with your choices, lol. --TK 21:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Comedy Skits

"This is an encyclopedia, not the gossip columns. Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and many others have dressed in drag for comedy skits, same as Giuliani, and it is not important to their record of public service."

I was thinking about that comment and I have to agree that this is suppose to be an encylopedia and encyclopedias do not focus on one aspect of a person's life so it would not be appropriate to limit topics on Giuliani to simply his "record of public service". So in the same way it is important to understand Reagan in the context of the Cold War it is within the scope of an encyclopedia to include the fact that he was an actor and liked jelly beans. So I am suggesting a Giuliani topic that would be "Comedy Skits" would that be more acceptable?
  • It isn't germain at all. However since you seem hell-bent on trying to get it in, I have no problem with it, as I just re-edited it. To me, it makes him look better than if you had just agreed to leave it out. Please sign your responses! It saves the aggravation of skipping back to history to see who you are. --TK 21:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The entry is way too one-sided

This entry reads like a campaign brochure for Giuliani. I'm going to track down and reinsert some of the inappropriate edits that has made this so distorted.--Aschlafly 18:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Rather than do that why not simply add some balancing material. Myk 18:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Goodness! Perhaps if you would respond to your email, or IM's sent to you, Andrew, stuff like this could be avoided, and there wouldn't be a need for you to publicly complain.....I'm a Newt man, and for the life of me, I don't see this article as pro or con Rudy. Could you be more specific? --~ Terry Talk2Me! 19:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This is from wikipedia but would balance the entry. Alot about hie leadership after 9/11 is mentioned but this is a fair criticism:

Aftermath of Ground Zero recovery effort

In February 2007, the International Association of Fire Fighters issued a letter accusing Giuliani of "egregious acts" against the 343 fireman who had died in the September 11th attacks. The letter asserted that Giuliani rushed to conclude the recovery effort once gold and silver had been recovered from World Trade Center vaults and thereby prevented the remains of many victims from being recovered: "Mayor Giuliani's actions meant that fire fighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills Landfill," it said, adding: "Hundreds remained entombed in Ground Zero when Giuliani gave up on them." --- Eljoe

Is is fair to balance a formal complaint by a union of 280,000 firefighters with a single letter from a retired firefighter? There's more text discrediting the union (who were the real heroes of the day) than there is describing their claims. And why mention that Giuliani is trying to discredit them as partisan? It makes him look like he's playing politics with their lives. --~user:RWest 10:27 24 July 2007

  • User Aschlafly has posted that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of information here, nor is it acceptable to cite it for work here. The complaints of a very few Firemen, as to if the Recovery effort was ended too soon, isn't a valid criticism, as it was predictable that there would always be some percentage that would think as they do, even if the Recovery effort lasted two years. PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS! --~ Terry Talk2Me! 21:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Agree on the point in general about not using wikipedia, but the International Association of Fire Fighters is not a very small group of firemen. And I'll tell you, here in New York, this is a big deal. People are still finding remains down there. Myk 21:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes if you follow the CNN link the International Association of Fire Fighters is 280,000 members. It is a significant viewpoint of Giuliani's handling of 9/11--Eljoe 21:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

  • If one lives anywhere but NY, it isn't. 280,000 members for a "International" organization, isn't very large, gentlemen. If you are hell bent on adding that stuff, get the other side as well, and enter it in the same paragraph. Fair & Balanced like. I am not looking to paint him as Evil, and neither should anyone engaged in this project. For every story, there are at least two sides. On Fox News, I saw the story, the complaints about ending the Recovery effort. Do some research on major disasters, and see if NYC's recovery effort took less or more time than those...let's see you bring in what those who decided to end recovery say about those "charges". Then we will have something worth the space, and useful to those doing research. :p --~ Terry Talk2Me! 22:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
That's what journalists do, not encyclopedists. For a man whose reputation is due in large part to his dealing with 9/11, criticism from first responders is a significant deal. Myk 22:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • No, encyclopedia's have an obligation to state facts. Charges by some group, any group, are not "facts". To my knowledge, what that fire fighters group is saying has not been proven factual by any board of inquiry or government body, correct? Are you suggesting that any and all allegations, made by anyone or any group should be included, that it is right to include such items, on the page of any person in this Conservapedia? Should, for example, the page about Ronald Reagan include speculation about his family? Should a page about Ted Kennedy include the speculations and charges of others about that girl who drowned when his car went off the road? --~ Terry Talk2Me! 23:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
There are two issues here. One is that a very large union of firefighters is criticizing Giuliani on behalf of its members who served under him during the 9/11 terror attacks. That is news because it will impact his campaign and already did when he wasn't invited / didn't show up to address this union at an event where every major candidate was president. And yes, they are still finding remains in the ruin which verifies the claims of the firemen. Myk 23:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • So, now you are saying opposite of what you said above. Encyclopedia's are not newspapers. I understand Andrew's additions, as they are indeed factual, and germain but the fire fighters not inviting him to address them, which is why he didn't attend, and their feelings about the recovery effort is something to include, since he is a candidate, however it should be balanced with his side as well. Otherwise the entry just becomes a vehicle for people who dislike him to include all manner of things, and I think my comment about what is "fair game" is valid. Look in any other written encyclopedia, and see if opponents remarks are printed with some rebuttal included..... --~ Terry Talk2Me! 23:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
How did I contradict myself? Encyclopedia's report facts, but I'm not going to investigate. To the best of my knowledge Giuliani's campaign had no comment on the subject. If you would like to balance the story by finding Giuliani's response to it, that will be a fine addition. But I don't feel compelled to include it. An association of firefighters is openly criticizing a presidential candidate over the very issue which is the foundation of his candidacy. That is a key constituency for him. If I had a dog in that hunt I'd be looking at something to balance it, but I don't. Myk 23:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, for a guy without a dog in the hunt, you are pretty worked up, and post lots of words, about including what you did, lol. It's all good. But I do wish you would be more concerned with a balanced presentation, no matter what your personal interest is. --~ Terry Talk2Me! 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
In case you didn't notice, I didn't actually add anything to the article. I just look it over to make sure it's got a source and that it looks pretty like. Myk 00:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
  • No, I apologize, Mike, I didn't really check that well. I think the lines I added balance out the article. --~ Terry Talk2Me! 02:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Military service

The fact that Giuliani received a deferrment is notable. The fact that he never served in the military is not. It could be justified in an electability section, but not in his early life section. Was he also not a Boy Scout? Myk 00:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact he did not serve in Vietnam is relevant to his "Early Career" particularly given the timiming.--Eljoe2 00:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Eljoe2, if you remove only a partial quote, as you did the portion about the fireman's union, you will earn yourself a time-out. --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 00:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  • It is neither notable, or unique, nor important to giving a description of his life. Hundreds of thousands received deferments from the draft for attending school or being in certain professions. This was something that was done by the Selective Service Administration. His draft lottery number in particular, isn't relevant. Not having served in the military (as I did) isn't something shameful or unique either. If you wish to skewer Rudy, do so the right way, by posting germain factual information about his public record as Mayor or a U.S. Attorney. --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 00:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

As a person who is seeking the Presidency, the Commander in Chief of America's military, it is of significance to include in an encyclopedia that persons history of involvement or lack of involvement during in that military, particularly during a time of war.--Eljoe2 00:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

And people can figure out for themselves that he didn't serve by the fact that it is never mentioned that he did serve. Myk 00:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The quote I removed was from someone working on his campaign staff in regards to the Firefighters Union and John Kerry, that seems 1)Biased because of the source and 2) More fitting for John Kerry's entry. It should be removed.--Eljoe2 00:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If I recall correctly Dick Cheney had "other priorities" during the Vietnam War, getting multiple deferments in the process. Just an observation that may be taken into account here. --Crackertalk 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Since the Union has a clear record of endorsing Democratic Party candidates, and in this case, endorsing Kerry way before he had locked up the primaries, their prior actions do indeed go to a pre-disposed bias, no? --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 00:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
So Eljoe made a good point anyway... the source was from the Giuliani campaign. Note that the Union supports Democratic candidates, which it does, and leave the analysis portion out of it. And unlock the article. Just because people disagree with you is not a good reason to protect an article.Myk 00:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Since the Union has a clear record of endorsing Democratic Party candidates, and in this case, endorsing Kerry way before he had locked up the primaries, their prior actions do indeed go to a pre-disposed bias, no? And it was quoted in Bloomberg as Rudy's response to the Union's open letter, therefore it is part of the record. Showing only the Union's charges, without allowing the other side's response, isn't fair, it isn't balanced. My IM is listed in the box of my talk page, feel free to use it. Until all the constant reverts, and removing of partial quotes ends, either someone is being suspended, or it will stay locked for tonight. --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 00:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it is not clear that the Union has a record of endorsing democrats, the artcle provides the single example. In addition the linked reference actually then describes the political makeup as "About 42 percent of IAFF members are Republican, 40 percent Democratic and the rest independent, according to union spokesman Jeff Zack." --Eljoe2 00:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Dude, you are abusing your power as a sysop. I have presented multiple compromises and alternative ways to phrase it to present a neutral POV. I'm not going to IM you because I'm not going to give you my IM address. You seem to feel the need to bold your comments as if this will make them more important. It won't. And how can the constant reverts and edits change if it's locked? This is a wiki. If conservapedia turns into a top-down power structure, it will paint a very bad picture of conservatives. Myk 01:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, something more than idealogy must be driving you, Myk. I didn't ask for you to IM me, I said, you could avail yourself of it. If it is that important, I can agree a simple sentence, "RG did not serve in the Military, and was given an occupational deferment by Selective Service." would be fair. The rebuttal to the Union, as quoted by Bloomberg should stay. Far enough? If not, we can leave it locked, and you two can cry to Andrew, if you haven't already, lol. --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 01:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Errr... isn't that what we had after eljoe reposted it? Myk 01:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
And yes, something more than ideology is bothering me. List the facts, avoid speculation, let people find their own truth. Did Giuliani receive a deferment? Yes. Did he serve in the military? No... but people are smart and when they see no military record and the fact that he received a deferment, they'll figure it out? Was he rebuked by a firefighter's union? Yes. Does that union have a Democratic trend? Also, yes. Reporting the speculation of a Giuliani employee as to the possible motivations of rebuke, however, is not encyclopedic, even if it is reported by Bloomberg news. Myk 01:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • The article now notes he did not serve in the Military, and the portion of his reply to the union, speculating on its political motivation is removed, allowing the readers to decide. Now, all of your issues seem to have been dealt with. --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 01:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)


Just a note: We have an IRC channel set up on #conservapedia to allow real time...discussions. Crackertalk 01:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Wish I could, Cracker...don't have the IRC application, and it isn't allowed, anyway, on my work server, due to Govt. security rules. --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 01:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If information about the Union is to be included to show that it is biased towards democrats than more information on that bias should be presented. Their support of John Kerry is not enough. Providing an official record of who they backed since their creation would show that. This article does not. If you want to show their political makeup include the quote from the same source I posted above.--Eljoe2 01:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

ralling point.

First paragraph. You mean rallying. --Lohengrin 01:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't my copy! I fixed it. --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 01:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The part about the Union bias is still a direct statement from Giuliani's camapign staff. That is spin, not a fact. A fact is the political makeup of the Union as in the quote from the same article "About 42 percent of IAFF members are Republican, 40 percent Democratic and the rest independent..." or that the Union has endorsed the Democratic candidate for President in the past two election cycles.--Eljoe2 01:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, read the article. It said Rudy's response was....: and given by his campaign office, which is all he has, since he is no longer Mayor, eh? Would you prefer to change it, remove the response and add that the Union has endorsed Democratic candidates the last two election cycles for President? --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 01:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)


Rudy Giuliani.jpg

Procedure to edit protected page?

What is the process for making corrections/additions to protected pages such as the Rudy article? Here's one simple example. There is bad grammar in the September 11 errorist attacks section:

A week after the 9/11 attacks and has been on almost every short list of Republican contenders ever since.

That is not a sentence and I'm not even sure what it was supposed to say. I think there are other passages that could use copyediting. There might also be places with more substance that could be improved.

I recognize that vandalism is a problem but there must be a mechanism for making improvements in spite of protection. Sbowers3 10:39, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes there is, and you have just followed it! With locked articles, we ask editors to post suggestions here on the talk page, or contact the locking Sysop to unlock it for the changes. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 11:52, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
I'll unlock it for you, Sbowers3, but please abide by our rules in improving the entry. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:16, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
! Part of this article was copied from Citizendium but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site. Conservlogo.png
RJJensen 08:22, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Fisa abuse

Looks like Giuliani is the victim of ongoing FISA abuse. All those closest to Trump - Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, Rudy, have been eliminated as advisors in his re-election bid. Others - Manafort, Flynn, Cohen etc. are long gone. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:55, 13 October 2019 (EDT)


This article needs chronological restructuring. Any volunteers? RobSFree Kyle! 18:54, July 8, 2021 (EDT)

Because of the chronological mess that it is in, it's difficult and confusing to add new content to. RobSFree Kyle! 18:57, July 8, 2021 (EDT)