Talk:Judith Giuliani

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

Confusion with another[edit]

Are we quite certain she was his press secretary? Are you not confusing her with Chrystine Lategano-Nicholas? [13:13, 18 September 2004 68.199.73.51]

Was corrected by edit [02:39, 9 August 2005 Prez2016].

'Attended Penn State' citation[edit]

[ 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)

It's a question of whether she was inflating her educational background. The 2001 NYT story says "Soon after she earned her nursing degree from Pennsylvania State University in 1974". She either told them this, or they got it from somewhere else and she didn't correct it. Not until the 2007 Daily News story is it clarified that "A New York Times profile in 2001 said Judith received a 'nursing degree from Pennsylvania State University in 1974,' which she never corrected until yesterday when The News confirmed she graduated from the St. Luke's School of Nursing. The two-year, hospital-based program in Bethlehem, Pa., was affiliated with Pennsylvania State University in 1974, and some university professors came to the hospital to teach the general education courses, school officials said."

It's not a huge matter — many people do similar kinds of inflation, although it's usually an embarrassment when revealed — which is why I relegated it to a footnote instead of discussing it in the mainline text. Unfortunately Wiki doesn't support footnote references within footnote text, which is why both my attempts to do the footnote ended up being hard to follow. Wasted Time R 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

First name[edit]

User:72.68.165.124 reads the Vanity Fair article as saying that her actual name is Judi, based on this quote from her father:

She had always been known as "Judi." "Judi is what she was born. I don't think we called her Judith ever," says her father, Donald Stish

This is likely a misreading, and contradicts other sources, such as the Wayne Barrett Rudy! book, page 431, and the Kris Wernowsky, "Giuliani’s wife tabbed liability", The Times Leader article (which alas is no longer online). In fact, it seems more likely that her birth name is Judith, but she was always called Judi by her family and friends, and never Judith; thus her father's surprise when she later adopts Judith. But we would need to see the birth certificate to be absolutely sure (although Barrett is the kind of guy who does dig up birth certificates). Wasted Time R 11:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted some of your changes to my changes. Her legal name is Judi Ann; even her parents have said that in the latest issue of Vanity Fair, which is cited. "She was born Judi," as her father has told the magazine and which is cited in a footnote. Please do not revert changes whose factual substance supercedes previous cited material. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.126.251.62 (talk • contribs).

It does not seem clear to me that we know what her legal name is - I'd say more research is needed. Meanwhile, you might try to work out a compromise on the article's talk page. Tvoz |talk 22:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The Vanity Fair quote does not necessarily say what her legal name is. It says what her parents called her from birth. Someone might be named Robert, for instance, but the parents decide right at the start they will always call the kid Rob. Indeed the second part of the father's quote, "I don't think we called her Judith ever", hints that her legal name was Judith. Because if her legal name was Judi, they would never even think of calling her Judith; it's only if her legal name was Judith that it would even become a possibility.
So given two sources that say her legal name was Judith, and one that is ambiguous, I think we have to go with Judith, although we can certainly add a footnote suggesting the question needs definitive resolution. Wasted Time R 22:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable interpretation of the father's comment and also a good strategy for the page, until something more definitive comes up. Tvoz |talk 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added the footnote. Wasted Time R 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent NYT article says "Mrs. Giuliani, whose original name was Judi Stish, grew up in Hazleton, Pa. ..." Again, though, not clear if this means birth certificate name or name she universally went by. Too bad WP doesn't offer road trip expenses for its editors to find things out! Wasted Time R 03:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our revolving IP editor, now User:72.80.106.191, claims that "Vanity Fair citation trumps a gossip column in the New York Daily News". In fact, however, the Heidi Evans pieces in the News, while published in the gossip section, are well-reported, while the Bachrach piece in Vanity Fair is full of gossipy unsourced snipes and innuendo. Wasted Time R 13:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Vanity Fair has a factchecking and legal department that goes over all its articles; the Daily News's gossip column quite likely does not. A gossip column is not a sufficient source for a scholarly article of any kind. Just because an article is well-reported, ie Heidi Evans's pieces for the NYDL, Bachrach is an award-winning journalist.Kitchawan 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must be kidding. Please don't say you trust a piece because of where it was published. Have you heard of Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass? The New York Times and The New Republic have fact-checkers too. And Janet Cooke won a Pulitzer Prize. I'm not casting aspersions on Bachrach, but I wouldn't assume that just because a piece is in Vanity Fair that makes it more reliable than one in the Daily News. Tvoz |talk 15:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the New Republic did not have a fact-checking department prior to the Stephen Glass affair. And generally newspapers do not have fact-checking departments either. I can't say for certain that the New York Times does not, but in newspapers reporters are expected to check facts. 75.6.176.20 23:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad you now feel that high school yearbooks are an accurate source of birth names ... mine used three different variations of my name! Wasted Time R 15:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You surely had lousy factcheckers on your yearbook. However, given that it is an early published source whose name citation (Judi Ann Stish) jibes with her own father's comment about her birth name, et cetera, I think it can be tucked into a footnote as an ancillary notation. As mentioned before, Pat Nixon was not legally Pat Nixon but actually Thelma Catherine Nixon, whatever the name on her tombstone. Judith Giuliani is no different; this is the name she prefers to use, which is fine and dandy. But published sources strongly indicate, plus her father's comment, that her birth name is Judi.Kitchawan 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the yearbook usage tells us is that everyone in the school system called her Judi, which is not in dispute. Anyway, I'm willing to punt on the name issue ... I don't want to prolong an edit war when I have no assurance of what the actual truth is. Someday hopefully some reporter will look up the actual birth certificate, and then we'll know. That would also give us an assured birth date as well. Wasted Time R 15:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Emboldening earlier names[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Usage note to User:72.68.165.124/User:204.126.251.62[edit]

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 <ref name="vf0907"/> to make use of it. Wasted Time R 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sectioning[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Erasure of details regarding testimony regarding the security detail[edit]

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. [1] " Dogru144 (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Context as to relevance of the added reference[edit]

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." [2]Dogru144 (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 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
  2. ^ 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

Image[edit]

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)[reply]

Amen. It was not taken with a digital camera. Dogru144 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much detail is necessary?[edit]

It looks like this article received a considerable amount of attention in 2007 and in the nearly 3 years since then, very little. Since the end of Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign, there have been fewer than 50 edits here. Looking at this now, I see an almost excruciating level of detail for someone who is not an active member of the political community. I can see where this was done in anticipation that she would be much more public if she became First Lady, but I do not see what good it serves now. It seems to me that she is a "limited purpose" public figure at best. Even this distinction is imperfect because I don't see where she has inserted herself into public debate. I can't quite call her an "involuntary" public figure, but her prominence is due solely to her relationship with Rudy Giuliani. How much about her does this article need to cover? That her older brother died in 2004? That her first marriage's divorce was preceded by a separation? That her parents helped pay her bills? My question really is which details are important to her significance as a public figure. Just because her significance relates to her personal relationship with Giuliani cannot mean that every detail of her life is fair game, just because Page Six or Vanity Fair reported it four years ago. I would propose scaling back some of the details, to preserve the broad outlines of her career and to a lesser extent her marriage history. I may try my hand soon, but I would like to hear from others who had been involved, if they are still watching this page. Stargat (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one responsible for much of the article and yes, I'm still watching it. As for the lack of activity since then, I've kept an eye out for a news story that summarizes Judith's life and activities since the end of Giuliani's campaign, but haven't found one. Instead, there are just a bunch of stories that mention that Rudy and Judith were at this or that event or function.
As for 'too much detail', I understand the point you are making, but on balance I disagree. She may have only been a national figure in 2007, but in the New York area, she's been a very public figure since she first showed up as Rudy's lady friend in 2000. She was in the middle of one of the great political psychodramas of recent memory, the simultanenous implosion of Rudy's marital/romantic/medical/political lives as he was running for Senate. There's been a lot written about her then and ever since, including in books that came out fairly recently such as Game Change. Given that, I see BLP considerations as dictating that WP present a full and fair treatment of her life. Too many WP biographies are like Eugene Fitzhugh or William J. Marks, Sr. ... brief stubs that describe some notorious thing the person did, without capturing the person's full life and context. That's what I was trying to do in this article. If nothing else, it serves as a slice of Americana, showing how a few twists of fate can radically alter one's life. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

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) Vegas949 (talk)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Reliability of Sources[edit]

Hi, I have made changes to this page because I feel some parts are poorly sourced. The New York Post and The New York Daily News are widely considered examples of tabloid journalism. They possess little credibility and often distort the facts. We should try to use only use high-quality sources. User:Vegas949 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Vegas949 (talk)[reply]

To some extent you are confusing format with journalistic approach. While the Daily News is indeed a tabloid in terms of its physical format, its city reporting (which is what is in question here) is actually quite good, and has often been considered to be better than that of the New York Times (which historically has tended to focus more on national and international news). I've never seen any reluctance by WP editors to use Daily News stories as a source for articles on New York political figures, and indeed I've taken several articles to GA level that use the Daily News multiple times.
The New York Post is both a tabloid in format and in journalistic technique. Its stories have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for accuracy, fairness, and relevance. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the two pieces of text you removed on these grounds, I've restored the one about Rudy paying her for her speechwriting, and it's relevant as to her professional relationship to him. It was taken from a financial disclosure form, so it isn't really in factual doubt, and I've added a second cite from the New York Times for it. The surgical procedures on dogs one is a borderline case. The accusation originally came from an animal rights group and the Post reported it pretty well as far as I can tell. But while other media outlets repeated the story, none of them did their own reporting on it, so it's effectively single-sourced. And it's true that readers get very, very worked up when anyone is characterized as harming dogs. I guess we can consign this one to the memory hole. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I agree with your changes regarding the part about Rudy paying her for her speechwriting. User:Vegas949 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Vegas949 (talk)[reply]


Gossip[edit]

Hi, I have made changes to this page because some parts could be considered gossip and appear sensationalistic. We should strive to only include only information that is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. We should write conservatively and try to avoid including information that could be deemed more suitable for a tabloid than an encyclopedia. User:Vegas949 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Vegas949 (talk)[reply]

This wasn't gossip. You may not have followed the Giuliani 2008 campaign closely, but for a while the 'Judith phone calls' got a lot of attention, to the extent that the Washington Post even ran this fact-checker piece on them. However, at the end of the day, this appears to be more about Rudy and his campaign than it is about her, and it is already covered in Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008, so I think it's okay to leave it out of this article. 03:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate your previous comment. I have made this change because I feel it could also be considered gossip and appear sensationalistic. Although the the source is reliable and despite whether it is true or not, the material does not seem relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. We should aim to write conservatively and in a dispassionate, disinterested tone. User:Vegas949 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Vegas949 (talk)[reply]
You're confusing the content of actual gossip with describing someone as the subject of speculation and press inquiry. You can't write about Elizabeth Taylor or Princess Diana or Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan without describing the fact that they received huge amounts of attention from the public. And for the period in question in the New York press, Judi Nathan did too. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I understand your comment and that it makes sense.

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judith_Giuliani&oldid=1202303011"