Talk:Bob Giuda

Untitled

Articles posted on same sex marriage are not of an encyclopedic nature. Articles cited are opinion based and come from opinion blogs based on hearsay. In an effort to keep the page from becoming a political soap box, the opinions are to be kept out. The article is to be kept encyclopedic with only objective information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eng5.afd (talk • contribs) 12:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what the misunderstanding must be. You possibly did not look at the source cited; it's a video of Giuda himself talking about his comments with an interviewer from a state television station. Nothing to do with opinion blogs or hearsay at all. And of course there is no Wikipedia rule or guideline prohibiting documentation of a political candidate's opinions on political issues. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The interview done by WMUR was edited from a much longer conversation between the interviewer and the candidate. Edited to somehow match the reporting done by the Nashua Telegraph. So since his opinion is disagreeable to some the conversation continues. This issue is NOT part of his campaign and therefore both civil unions and gay marriage are not part of anything he is campaigning on. He was asked for his opinion it was given and the conversation should have ended there. The conversation that allegedly said all these things was a private conversation! Also as I have said before there are so many more important issues that need to be addressed on the federal level. The candidate just wants the whole page removed. Why can you not do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordirose (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I think that Mr. Giuda, who is such a steadfast supporter of First Amendment rights, would understand exactly why someone from his campaign trying to censor public information about him is objectionable. Especially accompanied by repeated lies and deception and changing of the story. Did you realize that you've now used the same account to first claim that the information is inaccurate and now to admit that it's accurate, that he really did talk about the downfall of Sparta and the U.S. and sheep and dogs, but it simply wasn't part of his campaign and was a "private conversation"?
To quote him from the 2009 NH Advantage Coalition Pork Roast: "A couple of weeks ago I was in a place where you literally would have the doors closed and you would be shot for saying the things we're saying today. Because in many parts of the world it's against the law to do that. And those in power will kill those who challenge their authority." I hope that Mr. Giuda does not think that free speech is just for promoting his campaign. In any case I'm certain that he perfectly well understands how immoral it is to try to censor a public source of information, even if the original report was untrue, just to save himself the trouble of putting something up on his campaign web site talking about the incident so that his counter-argument can be presented alongside his accuser's words.
Not to mention trying to covertly impugn a young lady's reputation to save himself that trouble.
You obviously do not get to use Wikipedia for SEO and as a promotional platform for the campaign for a year and then just demand the page get taken down as soon as any negative information appears. This sort of documentation is exactly what Wikipedia is for.
I really hope that you aren't doing all of this without Mr. Giuda's cognizance and permission and continuing to ruin his reputation completely of your own accord. Trying to crush public knowledge of this issue obviously points towards guilt, not innocence; but it's too late, you've done what you've done, it's in the history books now. He seems like a good guy in a number of ways, perhaps just a bit irresponsible and dishonest and a product of his time as we all are. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The way you phrased it was bad so I removed some of it and kept some of it. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Theft Of Our Birthright" quotation

I recently added information to the article as the section "Opposing Marxism in government programs" taken from the blog entry by Mr. Giuda entitled "Theft Of Our Birthright." In the body of the article I used two sentences of this blog entry, which I believe constitutes fair use but because of the above concerns about Mr. Giuda's statements being taken out of context I provided the entire text of the blog entry within the footnote for that section. Please feel free to trim the extended quotation in the footnote down to whatever extent both properly presents the full context of the statement but still constitutes fair use of the copyrighted material.

Also, I've tried to make the title of that section as specific as possible - I didn't want to simply say "Marxism" or "Opposing Marxism" because I felt that would give the incorrect impression or imply something that Mr. Giuda hasn't said. Please feel free to change the title of this section to "Opposing social justice in government programs" or something of that sort if you think it's fairer to present the quote as primarily being about social justice rather than Marxism. However I think that the references in the section's text to social justice administered by government being objectionable as a Marxist cause must remain because I think that is a very salient part of Mr. Giuda's view here that speaks to his worldview as a politician (since Marxism was the primary opponent of the American Way during the 20th century and Mr. Giuda has stated that the essence of the United States has been gradually eroded over a hundred years or more.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about as far as trying to ruin a young lady's rep or even using something that contradicts. I find this all so interesting that this is the only candidate that you have on this site. Why are there no articles about Charlie Bass and Jennifer Horn. If I understand correctly then anyone can put anything up about anyone and cite a few out of context quotes and hearsay from of all things blogs by young people and activists and essentially ruin someones reputation. I think you are setting yourself up for a lawsuit. As I keep repeating the issue of civil unions and gay marriage has NOTHING to do with federal campaigns. I would ask again and again and again that this page be taken down ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordirose (talk • contribs) 12:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening lawsuits now in addition to bugging the bejeesus out of everybody while obstinately refusing to read a few pages on what wikipedia is all about? This takes the cake (and the last shred of credibility and goodwill you might have claimed to deserve.) Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats for more details. Moocha (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Horn comment out of place

Jennifer Horn's commentary has no place on Bob Giuda's page. Should she feel the need to express herself, she needs to have her own wiki page. Her response to Bob Giuda's comments has nothing to do with Bob Giuda. Therefore it shall continue to be removed until there is just reason why what Jennifer Horn says has any bearing on Bob Giuda's page, other than to promote her own interests which breaks wiki policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligurianbeauty (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the reason that quotes from a state leader and a fellow Republican were added is because with your other user accounts you were complaining that the same-sex marriage matter was only so substantial as something discussed on "opinion blogs". (And evidently things merely being discussed or reported by "young people" are somehow invalid or even disgusting in the eyes of the Giuda campaign? You have so many poisonous words for other people yet you forgive yourself so many vicious things.) This measure is just one of quite a few I have taken to address your purported complaints and concerns as you throw this infantile tantrum.
It's really pretty ludicrous that you are complaining about some sort of conspiracy amongst bloggers, the state's largest television station, at least one of the state's newspapers, and a host of other journalists, all the while you are creating account after account in an unflagging, covert attempt to censor Wikipedia and ensure that there is no other source of information about Bob Giuda's views on political issues other than his campaign materials - a topic slightly relevant to his bid to become a Senator of the United States of America. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
":Obviously the reason that quotes from a state leader and a fellow Republican were added is because with your other user accounts you were complaining that the same-sex marriage matter was only so substantial as something discussed on "opinion blogs"." There are multiple users contributing information and revisions to this page, not one sole user with multiple accounts. Don't be presumptuous.
"And evidently things merely being discussed or reported by "young people" are somehow invalid or even disgusting in the eyes of the Giuda campaign? " Mr Giuda made an appearance at Rivier College for the very reason of discussing political issues that were important to them and to let them ask him questions. If their opinions were not important to him, he would not have made the time. Attempts to mislead the public on the importance he holds with the opinions of the young people of our country continue to fail.
"You have so many poisonous words for other people yet you forgive yourself so many vicious things." Perhaps you should revisit some of your previous, disrespectful and unnecessary comments made towards other users on this page before attempting to cast blame on those who merely rebut your opinions and incomplete sources. The only infantile replies have been yours, as they have been completely offtopic, directed towards the users who continue to modify hearsay with the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligurianbeauty (talk • contribs) 23:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am entirely comfortable with my comments on this talk page. The actions of the individual or individuals attempting to erase thoroughly cited information from this public information source have definitely been abhorrent, anti-Constitutional, and anti-American. The attempt to surreptitiously and covertly attribute inaccuracy and deception to these sources is cowardly. I do accept that it's quite possible that these actions are being taken without Mr. Giuda's personal knowledge which is why I have been specific in attributing things to the Giuda campaign; your attempt to conflate those statements with personal criticism of Mr. Giuda is simply further manipulative behavior.
I am also entirely comfortable with attributing the coordinated censorship efforts (yes, censorship - covert censorship - not "modification of hearsay", not "rebutting of opinions" - characterizations which are further deceptions, it's outright destructive deletion consciously chosen rather than publishing and documenting any fair criticism of these sources in the light of day) to a single origin. Whether directly carried out by a single individual, which is termed "sockpuppetry", or orchestrated via several individuals typing on keyboards and clicking, which is termed "meatpuppetry", this coordinated effort to censor Wikipedia is coming from the same place. No need to pretend otherwise or juggle pronouns. Furthermore, I note again that you are in a precarious position to criticize others for presumptuousness. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would these facts be relevant to his campaign? The general public already understand his views on same sex marriage and civil unions. Views which, as it stands, are identical to those of president Obama.

I would request that rather than a response to alleged comments made by Giuda that you share with this page Jennifer Horn's views on same sex marriage, rather than her opinion on another candidate's. Let us hear them!

Lastly, Robert Giuda is running for Congress. FYI, a congressman represents a district within a state while a senator represents the entire state as a whole. Perhaps it would be best to educate one's self on the subject before attempting to make any points about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligurianbeauty (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do Horn's views on same sex marriage have to do with Giuda? The article is about Giuda. Positions of and comments made by Giuda are on topic for the article. Responses to Giuda's comments are borderline but generally on topic. Positions of other candidates are not on topic. —C.Fred (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ligurianbeauty, Giuda's opinions can be documented with his own words and his own votes as a politician. Period.
I can't speak for other editors of course but I find your point that Mr. Giuda's definition of marriage is identical to that of President Obama quite salient so I have added that to the same-sex marriage section.
If you object that "Views on issues" merely documents things he has said during his campaign, rather than the official PR put out by his campaign apparatus, we could move it out of the "Campaign" section and rename it "Views as a politician" or something of that sort.
If you want there to be documentation of Jennifer Horn's views on issues you are welcome to start an article on her as one does not exist yet to my knowledge (because her campaign has not so far tried to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform.) It would need to present as objective a view as possible, should be thoroughly cited with what Wikipedia refers to as reliable sources, your contribution would probably get at least some editing by others, and you really ought to disclose on the article's talk page your affiliation to one of her opponents but it's something that you could do if you wanted to.
One other thing - you realize that the Horn quote I added for the reasons stated above has been deleted by C. Fred and has not been restored, right? I have no intention of restoring it or the quote from Ms. Baxley. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative authority/user authority

Neither administrative authority nor user authority gives one the right to talk down to other Wikipedia users. An administrator is to remain civil, open-minded and constructive. I have seen none of those attributes expressed by anyone making repeated, markedly pointed insinuations and statements about this candidate that continuously and potentially paint Mr. Giuda in a negative light.

The news sources repeatedly used in the Same sex marriage section of the page, are not only unreliable sources because no reporters where present when the candidate's statements were allegedly made, but these "sources" opinions of the candidate can clearly be specified as biased statements. How can a news source that was not even present when the alleged remarks were made by the candidate be trusted? While there was a minute long news clip edited out of a 30 minute interview given to Mr. Giuda by WMUR, this clip does not reveal the entire interview and is therefore incomplete by nature. Incomplete is not encyclopedic and should not be used without the rest of the interview so as to portray the necessary neutral point of view desired by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligurianbeauty (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Giuda is misrepresented in the interview when he admits that he made the comments, as he says that he could have chosen his words better. Accordingly, the WMUR interview—and the editorial process of distilling the interview into a news story—meets the definition of reliability. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only person portraying the candidate in a negative light here, besides the candidate himself in his own words, Is YOU, Christopher Buchanan (As you named yourself while uploading photographs and audio clips using the first account that worked on this article, Jagarolik - though of course since you show no susceptibility to the virtue of honesty who knows if any of that is true.)

I am not an administrator. I am the only person who has not had the dignity and courtesy these other individuals have displayed in responding to your completely abhorrent, duplicitous, Constitution-hating and American-values-hating behavior. I may be rolling around in the mud with the hog, at least on this talk page, but it damn well IS my right to do so. You seem to have forgotten that we (you and I and Mr. Giuda, I do not know if the other WP people who have been involved here are Americans) do not live in the sort of places spoken of in the quote from the Pig Roast I cited above.

The information in this article, based on Mr. Giuda's own words on camera, stands for itself. People better than you or I and far more suited to fairness and impartiality are here looking at this now and will delete things that aren't appropriate. Some of these people very well may live on the other side of the world from us and may have never heard of New Hampshire District 2.

And finally - if Mr. Giuda or anyone in his campaign genuinely think that the treatment of the same-sex marriage issue by WMUR or the state newspapers or even Ms. Kern has been deceptive you can damn well post something saying that on the campaign web site and that response will get posted here alongside everything else. The fact that this is not happening is basically proof of one or more guilty consciences - awareness that such overt dishonesty, as opposed to the sneaking and concealed dishonesty being displayed here on Wikipedia, would be rapidly and resoundingly exposed by journalists and the public at large. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I have boldly moved the article from the more cumbersome Robert "Bob" J. Giuda to simply Bob Giuda. The guiding principle is from the naming guidelines, which say to use the name the subject is commonly referred to. There are many instances through the article where Giuda is referred to as Bob; I don't see any place, other than the introduction and the old title of the article, that call him Robert "Bob" J.

If anybody objects, say so here (or leave a message on my talk page). I'll revert the move and, unless there's a very strong reason given for the revert (i.e., something big I overlooked), start a discussion on a requested move. —C.Fred (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems entirely appropriate to me. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 13:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today's tags

This really is not a very good encyclopedia article. I've removed the blatant WP:BLP vios, a WP:SYNTH argument, and POV such as "fortunately", and fixed some syntactical material (parimarily wordiness), but in many spots the tone of the article is not neutral but reads as if they were lifted with little change form the subject's position papers. The use of boldface for emphasis is editorializing. And highly lengthy quotes in footnotes are inappropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah deleted a lot of this, hopefully it is cleaner now. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kern cite

  • Kern, Eliza (2010-06-28). "Giuda calls gay marriage "downfall of the nation"". Archived from the original on 2011-07-18. Retrieved 2010-08-08.

Notes regarding the validity of the above source, which was the primary source for the story confirmed on-camera by Giuda himself in the WMUR-TV interview: This source is included in the blogroll of the New Hampshire Republican web site RedHampshire - http://www.redhampshire.com/ This source was cited regarding this incident by the New Hampshire Democratic Web site Blue Hampshire -http://www.bluehampshire.com/diary/10232/death-of-a-campaign[permanent dead link] This source was cited regarding this incident by the paywalled site NHPoliticalReport.com by former Boston Globe correspondent James Pindell - James Pindell. "Giuda: gay marriage 'downfall of the nation'". Archived from the original on 2010-07-06. Retrieved 2010-08-08. This source was cited by the New Hampshire newspaper the Nashua Telegraph by political correspondent Kevin Landrigan - http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/statenewengland/783448-227/gop-2nd-district-hopeful-says-i-didnt.html This source was cited by the blog of Chris Stewart, a prominent New England supporter of John McCain's 2008 campaign - http://mondaymorningclacker.com/?p=4922 GreenC 16:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Giuda&oldid=1202303391"